Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/December-2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.


Original - The tiger (Panthera tigris) is a mammal of the Felidae family, the largest of four "big cats" in the genus Panthera. Native to much of eastern and southern Asia, the tiger is an apex predator and an obligate carnivore. Reaching up to 4 metres (13 feet) in total length and weighing up to 300 kilograms (660 pounds), the larger tiger subspecies are comparable in size to the biggest extinct felids. Aside from their great bulk and power, their most recognizable feature is the pattern of dark vertical stripes that overlays near-white to reddish-orange fur, with lighter underparts.
Reason
clear well focused and it meets the FPC criteria and should be featured.
Articles this image appears in
tiger
Creator
Indianhilbilly

Neutral- An excellent image, but the whole animal should appear, not just the upper torso. ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]



A selection of major United States sites in the Manhattan Project.

I found this a few days ago and come back to it today; having looked at it a little long, I have decided to place it here for FOC status because I feel the map does a good job of showing just how many things had to be assembled across the U.S. to make the Manhattan Project a success. As you may have guessed, this image appears in the article Manhattan Project, it was created by User:Fastfission in Adobe Illustrator and released under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Be forwarned that this is a .png image, not a.jpg image, so take that into account if you have a slow connection.

  • Nominate and Support TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the map is clear, but it lacks a certain complexity and wow factor to warrant featuring for me. Plus: 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 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sure this map does a good job in illustrating the complexity of Manhattan Project. But to reach FP standards it is needed a much higher degree of refinement and sophistication. The meaning of the symbols should be explained in the map or, at least, in the picture caption. Alvesgaspar 09:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly is not clear about the image? If you can describe in better detail the kind of caption you have in mind I may be able to do something about it. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The map uses three different symbols to represent the cities, but its meaning is not explained. Alvesgaspar 10:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The size of the circles is meant to show the amount of importance a certain city or cite had in the project. For Example, Washington, D.C., as the capital of the United States, was responsible for the implimentation and ultimately the green light for using the bomb. hanford Enginering in Richland manufactored plutonium for the Fat Man bomb, Oak Ridge in Tennessee manufactured uranium for the Little Boy bomb, and Los Alamos assembled the bomb. Wendover, noted as being part of Project Alberta, was assigned the task of delivering the nuclear weapons. Monticello and Uravan were both involved with the element Vanadium, which had fissile capabilities. I think Chicago may be noted for Enrico Fermi and his first succsessful nuclear reactor, and to be honest I am not sure about the other cites mentioned on the map (though I have my suspitions). I will look into the other cites and see if I can tie down there role more effeciently. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. There is nothing wrong with this image, but it should be in SVG. NauticaShades 10:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dschwen. Needs to be in SVG. User:Sd31415/Sig 13:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes, it should be in SVG. But even then, I would oppose it. There's nothing wrong with it as such, it does its job, but it's just not very interesting. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, nothing eyecatching or especially informative about it: it tells me that there were several sites, but it doesn't even tell me what they did. A good improvement would be to use symbols that indicated the purpose of each location, such as encrichment facilities, or testing sites. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I had never really thought of this as being that exciting an image (just a generic map), but one could imagine putting a little more effort into it and making something special (i.e. a map which gave more information about the sites). Anyway it would be pretty easy to convert it to SVG, just as a matter of course. I don't thing SVG support was implemented when I first uploaded it. --Fastfission 01:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'd prefer a different format --Puma5d04 05:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There is really nothing about this map to recommend it for Featured Picture - it is rather ordinary. (1) It is difficult to read except at the highest magnification. (2) It is not particularly pretty or striking. (3) It does not tell a story or present a new angle on an article. (4) It does not use the semi-official map colours. MapMaster 15:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless it is in SVG. - Mailer Diablo 19:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snowcub.jpg
A snow leopard cub
File:Snowcub edit.jpg
Edit 1 by Fir0002 - sharpening/noise reduction

I came across this image while browsing wikipedia and thought it it was worth a nomination for FP.

Image was deleted because of unknown source/photographer. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial view of Washington DC
Edit 1: Cropped and color corrected.

About as good a photographic representation of an entire city you can get.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Carta Marina by Olaus Magnus (1490-1557).

The Carta Marina by Olaus Magnus (1490-1557) is the earliest detailed map of the Nordic countries. It took twelve years to finish. The first copies were printed in 1539 in Venice. Its existence had long been considered apocryphal, until a copy was discovered in Munich in 1886. Another copy, found in Switzerland in 1962, now resides at Carolina Rediviva, Uppsala, Sweden.

The map is divided in 3×3 sheets with the dimension 55x40 cm (height×width) because they were used in the printing process to transfer it onto a wood carved stamps. The notes on the map in Latin were translated by Olaus himself into the Italian and German language. Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus (Rome, 1555) is a much larger commentary on the map.

The map was uploaded by User:Fred Chess from this source. It is indispensible for the article carta marina. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean at upper left corner, no, that's the southern tip of Greenland. Mid-left are the Hebrides. They didn't have GPS in those days... --Janke | Talk 16:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit1 lightened

Promoted Image:Carta Marina.jpeg Raven4x4x 02:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B-25 Mitchell mass production line in Kansas City in 1942.

High resolution full colour picture taken during World War II. I've only seen a few colour pictures from WWII, and this one is certainly one of the cleanest and largest.
Public Domain as a work of the US Government taken by Alfred T. Palmer on October 1942.

Uhhh because it's neither an airport nor to illustrate planes? It's a factory of WWII planes... --antilived T | C | G 04:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yet it is used to illustrate the articles on the plane and the airport... --Dschwen 15:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:B25-mitchell-assembly.jpg Raven4x4x 02:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

View through the scope of a sniper rifle.
NOT FOR VOTING: Same team, different angle

I found this just now, it apparently got placed on the page sniper while I was not looking, but I like it a lot. The view is unique, so I thought I would place it here. This comes from commons.

  • It would be really, really hard to achieve that as the depth of field will have to be extremely large to have both the scope and non-scope part of the image in focus. It is currently taken in f/8 and even at f/16 both won't be in focus at the same time, and any smaller aperture will reduce the sharpness of the image by diffraction. Unless a composite image is made, I don't think it's technically feasible. --antilived T | C | G 09:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional storyteller Mike Mann drew upon life experiences for his tales as part of the lineup of entertainers during the June 26, 2004, Hiawatha Light Rail opening. Transit officials estimated 30,000 people took advantage of free entertainment and train rides for the Hiawatha Line inaugural in Minneapolis, Minn.; United States.

Some 30,000 people attended the opening of the Hiawatha Light Rail in Minneapolis, Minn.; United States in 2004. Storyman Mike Mann stood out from the crowd. His neatly trimmed grey beard, crisp white shirt with black vest, and straw hat presented an appealing and gentle demeanor. But it was his eyes that drew me to the storyman. I engaged him in conversation and asked Mann to tell me a story. Which he did, to an audience of one. I snapped this picture of Mann as he spun a tall tale from childhood.

Photo Qualities (1.) This informal portrait of a gentleman captures human character in rich detail. (2.) The exposure achieves a good balance between capturing shadow detail of the face yet avoids loss of detail in the sun-lit background. (3.) This is a documentary photo that helps capture the historic day of light rail opening in Minneapolis, Minn.; United States. (4.) Photo and caption place the storyman in context of this public event. (5.) Caption helps draw the viewer into the focal point of the photo: the subject's eyes. (6.) Photo includes action in the form of a gesture, which adds to the context of storytelling.

Photographer: Fishdecoy
Wikipedia article [[Storytelling]], Documentary photography

Let's consider this photo for just the Documentary photography. Subsequently, I have re-cast the caption. Moreover I pulled the image from the Storytelling page. Fishdecoy 15:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A long exposure picture of a fair ride

Great example of a long exposure and motion blur.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Pelican, Lakes Entrance
Edit 1, by Fir0002 - rotation

A nice portrait of an Australian Pelican, taken at Lakes Entrance, Australia.

Note: Obviously, there is consensus for promotion of this image. However, the decision on which version is unclear. Voters, pelase clarify your votes. Alternatively, a third edit could be made that is rotated, but no overly bright.

Promoted Image:Pelican lakes entrance02.jpg Raven4x4x 06:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Packaged food aisles of Fred Meyer in Portland, Oregon
Edit 1 - Colour correction and slight counterclockwise rotation

I saw this image when I came across the Supermarket page and was stunned by it. It gives a perspective that a) most people never see and b) gives a lot of information on the scene. It is difficult to appreciate a supermarket from any other angle you would usually see a photo from. Also, it is visually impressive with the rows upon rows of neatly stacked and shelved items; caught my attention straight away. The quality is great with no artefacts or blurriness, and is 2800x1853. Cheers.

I would argue that the logos in this picture are "incidental" as they are not the subject of the photo. Thereby they would not be copyright restricted. This would be the same as if we had a picture of a person with branded clothing - the picutre is about the person not the clothing so it is ok. Witty lama 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I like the original more too. I think it is because it seems more realistic of supermarkets with those horrible yellow lights. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 06:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't most supermarkets have fluorescent lighting which tends to be quite a cool color? In any case, unless the colour tint is extreme, the eye usually compensates for it, so a neutral color balance is usually closest to what you see. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The edited version has a bit too much of a natural light flavor for my taste. Also, the original reminds me of the horrible beige/yellow shelves Walgreen uses, and I'm guess Fred Meyer too. ~ trialsanderrors 08:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Fredmeyer edit 1.jpg Raven4x4x 04:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cat eye.jpeg
Cat Eye

I saw a hawk's eye FPC which was pretty nice (with some reflections). But this photo was one of my favorite for a long long time (even before I came to wiki) and the quality is also great. It shows perfectly the cat's eye and even the cat's hair. I'm pretty sure some people will comment on the focus, but that's not a matter for me. It appears in the Cat article and the author is jefras.

Resonanteye 07:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thumb|200px|An iDog with LED lights on, this indicates that there is music being played. [[:Image:IDogLights2.JPG|thumb|200px|Version 2 uploaded by Marblewonder. This one only has 3 LED lights on, but is less blurry.]]

Though the article that this image is made for is small, this picture clearly shows the viewer what an iDog is. Also, it shows the iDog in use, as 6 of its 7 LED lights are flashing; this picture is currently used in the iDog article. This is first ever FP nomination. And it is of my own work, so please help me as much as possible by using constructive criticism. =)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed Hawks rely on their visual acuity, which is believed to be eight times greater than that of a human, to catch prey.
Close-up of the reflection in the hawk's eye

the size is 2 milimeters

This image barely meets the size requirements (if it even does..), however, it is illustrative and stunning. I think more could be done with it than has been done, but I am no expert in birds, hawks, or such. My eye for artifacts is not very good, but while there appears to be some in the iris, the image overall is very clear and I haven't seen many macro images of the sort on Wikipedia or elsewhere. If the following, from Hawk, can be ascertained to be true for Buteos as well, it would make a better caption than the current one:

Hawks are believed to have vision as good as 20/2, about eight times more acute than humans with good eyesight. This is because of many photoreceptors in the retina (Up to 1,000,000 per square mm, against 200,000 for humans), a very high number of nerves connecting the receptors to the brain, a second set of eye muscles not found in other animals, and an indented fovea which magnifies the central part of the visual field.

Used on

Created by Steve Jurvetson

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Matthews with Boyd Tinsley on violin and Butch Taylor on keyboards

I'm nominating an old image that I took of Dave Matthews Band playing in Melbourne, Australia just to mix things up a bit as portrait/celebrity/concert photography is pretty lacking in WP:FP. This is obviously not a technically and aesthetically perfect image - there is a bit of noise. I have reduced it significantly already - it was shot at ISO1600 - but I think reducing it much more may remove some detail in the process and lets face it, concert photography almost always has grain due to the lighting available. That said, I think it is a pretty good example of its kind. It doesn't come across as a completely static image as it shows Dave Matthews doing a little dance with his guitar, although it is difficult to capture the energy and atmosphere in a single shot. An alternative is showing the entire band, although the composition is a bit messier.

  • Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support. I really like the colors and the movement you can see in the image, but the composition is a bit off - I think there's a bit too much space above Matthew's head. Mrmaroon25 13:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, but the space above is head is to show two other band members. If I cropped to show just Dave Matthews, it would look a bit odd - you'd see only half a torso behind him. Perhaps it would have been ideal if I were a little lower and had one band member on either side of him or something instead. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pretty decent quality for a concert shot. I'm just wondering about the license, is it ok to take pictures at a concert and post them as free on the web? Aren't those showbiz type of guy usually pretty strict about pictures and the assocoated rights? Anyway, I have no clue, just asking. --Dschwen 22:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about the licencing to be honest. I do know that Dave Matthews Band has been fairly tolerant toward bootlegging audio in the past. I assume photography is also tolerated as plenty of people bring cameras and take snapshots at concerts, although it is possible a line is crossed when the images are of commercial and salable quality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. The nominated photo is good quality for a concert shot, but leaves out Carter, Leroi and Stefan. The alternative is more promising, but I'm not sure Butch should be in the photo, since he isn't an "official" band member. Assuming unofficial band members are included, then Tim and Rawhawn should probably be included too. In any case I like the alternative better than this one. -- Moondigger 01:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I could only photograph the members that happened to be on stage (and in the frame in this case!). Tim and Rawhawn were not touring in Australia so that was not possible. Besides, the band lineup tends to be a bit fluid so it should not be expected for all the unofficial band members to be on stage at any one time. Really, this is a photo of Dave Matthews himself with some backing members, rather than trying to be a complete band shot, but admittedly it is in the band article, not the article on Dave himself, so your comments are valid. I assume you're a bit of a fan too? Or did you just read the article comprehensively?  ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm a fan... and not to get too off-topic, but I prefer the live lineup without Butch for most songs. I think they just sound better without the keys most of the time. I realize I'm in the minority on that, though. Back on topic, I would probably support the alternative shot you linked to if it were nominated, even though Butch is in it. :) -- Moondigger
  • Support This is a good shot, nice colors well composed. I am going to buck the trend of people not supporting modern portraits. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 18:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yeah, what the heck, composition, colors, notability all FP level. --Dschwen 19:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The composition of this shot is not feature-worthy in my opinion. Pstuart84 19:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless the goal is to convey that a DMB concert consists of DM in the spotlight and a bunch of clerical workers in the semi-darkness. ~ trialsanderrors 20:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does that mean? They're obviously musicians in the background and don't look remotely like clerical workers - does the equipment not give it away? ;-) IMHO a featured picture doesn't have to define the subject of the article. An aspect (as long as it is significant) is enough. In any case, the DMB concert I photographed DID consist of this very scene, so I don't your point. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well the keyboarder could quite as well type on a typewriter and the violinist, I guess it was just an unlucky moment that he's waiting for his cue, but nevertheless they're both in the shadows looking like men at work (no pun intended) rather than musicians playing in a band. On the other picture there is actually eye contact, and the band is lit. I've never been to a DMB concert, so I don't really know if the atmosphere is usually one of "Dave and some hired hands" or if they're actually playing as a band. I'm assuming it's the latter, which is why I'd rather go with the other picture. But of course I might be wrong. ~ trialsanderrors 00:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Good level of noise and decent sharpness for a concert shot, however I don't feel the timing was all that good. The "little dance" Dave Matthews is doing just looks like an awkward pose, and it would have been nice to have his eyes open/visible. Did you take any other photos (excluding the alternative)? As I agree with you that we should have concert/portrait images as FP's --Fir0002 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I won't vote oppose right now to avoid a pileon but on technical grounds alone I don't think this image is even eligible to go up for FP since the copyright status is so up in the air. Cat-five - talk 01:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The missing square. When the four quadrilaterals rotate about their centres, they fill the space occupied by the small red square. However the total area of the figure appears to remain unchanged
The missing square (Edit 1). When the four quadrilaterals rotate about their centres, they fill the space occupied by the small red square. However the total area of the figure appears to remain unchanged

This is a simple variation of the Missing square paradox, popularized by Sam Loyd and Martin Gardner. I made this puzzle more than twenty years ago (in wood) and haven’t found yet any written reference to it. However, and because its principle is quite simple, I believe it might be hidden is some 19th century puzzle book. The aim of this animation is to puzzle the reader, not to explain the apparent paradox. For a full explanation see the article. Animation created by Joaquim Alves Gaspar

I see, this image is the very definition of unencyclopedic. Not only is it misleading, it's deliberately deceptive, as the twirling takes up a lot of time distracting you while quickly flashing away from the reconfigured, larger square. A proper encyclopedic image would reveal the secret behind the illusion, rather than perpetuate it.
    • Info The comment about the animation being deliberately deceptive is wrong, the animation is absolutely honest (better to see the article). The square grid, which serves as a reference, is not reconfigured in any way. The truth is the difference between the sides of the original and the final squares is so small that it is quite difficult to perceive without a careful measurement. Maybe the rotation of the quadrangles is superfluous, the reason for it is to show how the pieces should be oriented in the new geometry (by the way, its size is not altered during the rotation...). Alvesgaspar 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's misleading because the simplest, easiest, and most direct way to show the changes would be a simple two frame animation between the two orientations involved. Every other frame just serves to confuse things like a bit of magician's misdirection. We're not here to replicate tricks on the reader, we're here to pull back the curtain in a quick and direct way. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, This annimation is deceptive to make you think the the squares in each configuration are the same size, but in truth the square that revels the open area in the middle is actually bigger than the other. Stanthejeep 04:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For the reasons stated above. --Dschwen 07:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't agree that it is unencyclopaedic.. The whole purpose of the image is to visualise the illusion. Sure, it isn't necessary to animate it, but it might confuse people more if it wasn't, as the difference in the geometry in the 'before and after' arrangements is so similar. In any case, if anyone is confused by the image, they are probably going to read the article, which is the purpose of the image in the first place. A good point is made that it could be enhanced by showing exactly HOW the illusion works. Perhaps by fading in and out an overlap of the original shape at the end? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info and Support - Here is a new version of the animation, more sober and clear than the original. This time I think that the way the illusion works is perceptible. PS: I insist nominating this animation because I believe that puzzles (specially geometric puzzles) are one of the best ways to introduce young (and not so young) people to the pleasure of mathematics. Alvesgaspar 12:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - my great worry about this animation is that the slight increases in the perimeters (the very most important part of understanding the supposed paradox) may appear as bugs in the animation - similar to the one pixel misalignment we saw in early versions of the animated vernier calipers. If the animation relies on a 1px difference to explain the trick (and therefore justify its enc'ness), I'm worried too many people will miss it, and come away thinking geometry is bogus. Debivort 16:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd rather see a diagram that shows how the lines of pixels pulled off each edge have equal area to the empty square in the middle. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And then all the fun will be lost! The main objective of this animation (as I said above) is to fool, deceive, ... puzzle people. A diagram showing how the area of the little square is distributed along the perimeter of the big one would be just boring. Alvesgaspar 21:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support the edited version. I like the fact that in the thumbnail version the change in overall size is not apparent, while in the full-sized version it becomes noticeable. Would it be posible to draw a 1px white box around the smaller sqaure to indicate the increase in size? ~ trialsanderrors 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Edit 1 I think it is enc, and it is interesting. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose again even if this annimation clearly showed the solution to the illusion it's not worthy of being a featured picture since it's not a picture and when you know the trick, it's not very interesting. Stanthejeep 16:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1. Encyclopedic, clean, interesting. Redquark 20:01, 30
  • Oppose You can see the square get bigger and smaller. So how is it interesting? Warhol13 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps change "seems to remain unchanged" in the caption to "appears to remain unchanged"? maybe that would make it more obvious that the area is in fact changing. --frothT C 21:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1. Very interesting --Fir0002 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1- Very encyclopedic and informative. Interesting little parlor trick. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 02:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1, interesting animation -Advanced 19:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original, but maybe someone could mark the corners like in edit 1 and then up the framerate so it doesn't look like it is not fully loaded. Maybe make the spin a bit smoother... Ilikefood 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted although this was a close one. Raven4x4x 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vernier caliper (Wiki brand)
Vernier caliper (Wiki brand )- Edit 1
Vernier caliper, vector version with legend in the svg
Vernier caliper, ivector version with legend in description, larger labels, removed self-references.

This is a difference to my animation below: Using the caliper. It is adressed to those who prefer a static image to better understand the way the verniers are used to interpolate readings. I tried to produce a svg version, with no success (maybe someone can help). Created with CorelDraw by Joaquim Alves Gaspar

  1. I don't know if I can fully support it until someone creates an .svg given its "flatness" and the quality of e.g. wasp morphology and Giza pyramid complex.
  2. I think it's confusing having multiple 1s and 2s; could you have forked pointers?
  3. I think the 3D effect on the fastener at the left of the retainer doesn't suit.

I don't really care about 3. but I think svg is probably necessary • Leon 01:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This seems a bit odd to me. The other nomination seems is getting support, and now this nomination which is basically the same image is probably also getting support. That's the edit bonus which was mentioned by someone else before, where people just choose between versions instead of judging the image itself. Here one flaw (the file format) was fixed, and now everyone will support. Anyways, milking two FPs out of a color change and a handful of numbers seems kind of unfair to the other contributors. --Dschwen 13:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I traced this is because IMHO this is better at illustrating a vernier caliper than the animated one. I have no idea how it works after watching it dozens of times and it's the discussion in the FPC that told me that you are supposed to read the lined up value on the vernier. This one doesn't attempt to show you how to use it (rather confusingly) and the operation of the vernier caliper is better told as text. --antilived T | C 21:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you didn't nominate the picture, and I certainly appreciate any high quality bitmap to SVG conversion. I'm rather puzzled about the original nominator and the apparent FP fixation. Good work is always welcome, in fact every picture should be clear and illustrative to its article. Does this mean every good picture should be nominated for FP status? Twice? --Dschwen 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring further input Obviously the SVG versions are most popular, but no-one has specified their preference between the two. We'll need some clarification before deciding here. Raven4x4x 05:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the one with the legend in the picture. Terri G 18:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (moved to make it clear I'd made the edit). 149.155.96.6 14:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great image! 20:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Vernier caliper.svg Raven4x4x 07:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cliff Palace at Mesa Verde, photo by Gustaf Nordenskiöld, 1891
Edit to reduce noise, and slight curve/level adjustment in the dark range

Historic picture of the Cliff Palace at Mesa Verde, in its "original" form in 1891 before restoration.

High quality with high resolution (2126x1543). On of the few high quality pictures from the 19th century.

Photo by Gustaf Nordenskiöld

Appears in:

Note that the picture shows damage to many of the buildings. In modern pictures many of buildings have been repaired or rebuilt. It is not known whether this damage is the result of centuries of decay, or the work of graverobbers. -- Petri Krohn 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I find the Cliff an important feature about the photo. It really puts the village in a geological context. It's difficult to imagine that people built this place so long ago and lived there with this huge imposing rock over their heads.--DaveOinSF 18:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a good FPC because you're right, the cliff needs to be there taking up most of the image, but it's inappropriate for a featured picture's subject to be dwarfed by its context. The edit does do a good job of eliminating that oppressive blurriness but there's still a lack of detail. Also the scratches on the image (I assume this is a scanned photograph) are still visible. --frothT C 20:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's hardly dwarfed, and including the context adds to the encyclopedic nature of the photo, not detracts from it.--DaveOinSF 22:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is a "scanned" photograph. It is most likely produced from the original glass plate negative. The correct phrase would br "digitized", not "scanned". --Petri Krohn 23:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mesa-Verde---Cliff-Palace-in 1891 - edit1.jpg Raven4x4x 05:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A whirligig, an example of Kinetic art

I like the composition and color of this picture. Appears in whirligig and Kinetic art. Created by User:Rklawton.

It's aliasing- antialiasing refers to various techniques to try to reduce those industry-termed "jaggies" --frothT C 21:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Newell who played "Mr. McFeely" on the TV show Mister Rogers' Neighborhood

Appears in David Newell, created by User:Rklawton.

    • Annie Leibovitz also probably makes $10,000 a picture. I was talking amateur photgraphy.-Ravedave (help name my baby) 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In all honesty, I think this is a better portrait for Wikipedia than many of Leibovitz's portraits. Wikipedia needs pictures of the subject, not works of art which happen to contain the subject. I really do think that if we're looking to Leibovitz as an ideal, we have our priorities wrong - see Criterion 5: "It is important that the encyclopedic value of the image be given priority over the artistic value of the image. While effects like black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject."
  • Weak Support, this is an excellent composition, very natural looking, it focusses on the face so the cropping of the ear doesn't bother me. The lighting is pretty good, the DOF is ok, only the overall sharpness is not optimal. --Dschwen 07:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)°[reply]
  • Oppose per Redquark JanSuchy 16:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as said by Debivort "Nice but unstriking." Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A good, attractive photo that illustrates a notable subject, and illustrates it well; an image which, as called for, 'adds significantly to an article'. Many FP candidates, while beautiful, are images in search of an article; this one, as well as being attractive, high-quality and well-shot, fills a genuine gap, which otherwise might well attract a dubiously-justified 'fair use' image. Good, free images of living celebrities are one of the rarest things on Wikipedia; we need more portraits of this quality, and should recognise them when they come along. (My only reservation: I'd be even happier if it was a bigger celebrity.) TSP 05:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Debivort. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Debivort. --Bridgecross 14:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a cool picture and is ascetically pleasing. Used on internet and computer. Created by User:Matt_Britt

  • Nominate and support. - Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) *Comment a larger version is available Image:Internet map 4096.png.--Andrew c 05:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To anyone just joining this discussion, please read below to find out why using this big version is a bad idea. -- mattb @ 2006-12-04T02:53Z
  • Comment - I'm going to remain neutral on this one, but I feel obliged to point out that the rendering isn't perfect... There are a few glitches that I'd like to get around to fixing sometime; mostly manifesting themselves in the form of routes that are seemingly disconnected from the rest of the network. -- mattb @ 2006-11-30T05:44Z
    • This seems like a serious issue, since I'm guessing the data was gathered by crawling across links that should connect all the sub-networks? Debivort 20:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Theoretically. It is possible for there to be some isolated nodes because of the way the data was generated, but it's very unlikely. The isolated nodes that exist on this image are mostly just a rendering glitch, not so much a problem with the data. -- mattb @ 2006-11-30T22:32Z
  • Comment I'm going to go all Swiss on this one too, although I like the hi-res version a lot. It would be more interesting if some of the paths or nodes were labeled to give a sense of what is being illustrated. --Bridgecross 14:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider that this map has over 40k nodes on it, and then you might understand why I didn't label them. Labelling the nodes would produce an unreadable mess. It might be neat to identify a few major backbones and label them, but that's difficult and has limited accuracy due to the way BGP works and the way the data was collected. -- mattb @ 2006-11-30T15:36Z
      • one way this could be addressed would be to show a zoomed-in inset in the black peripheral space that shows labeled nodes. Something like the pair of images seen at [21] except with the bottom set labeled. Debivort 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to oppose it, I'm afraid, even if no-one else wants to! It's pretty, but I've no idea what I'm meant to learn from it. Of course, I'm happy to change my vote later if someone can convince me it contains some information. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're not meant to learn much from it. It's just a clever way of visualizing how the routes on the internet interconnect. I could make a scaled down 'educational version' with a lot of nodes labeled, but it would look far less interesting. -- mattb @ 2006-11-30T16:40Z
      • Matt, I'm afraid you aren't defending your image sufficiently. One should be able to learn a lot from all FPs, and yours could be one of them! How the routes connect is of profound importance in understanding the topology of the internet and how it operates. It is popular to know that actors belong to a small-world "6 degress from Kevin Bacon" network, but many fewer people know the internet has a very similar power-law structure. I think we could easily address Stephen Turner's concerns with a nice caption. Debivort 20:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I was trying to defend my picture, I wouldn't have pointed out its major flaw; something you may or may not have noticed on your own. Again, I hope to redo this with the flaw (blackened routes) fixed. Perhaps that would be a better time for a FPC discussion. As for Stephen Turner's objection, my ears are wide open to any suggestion you may have as far as captioning or labeling goes. What sort of label would you consider sufficiently informative yet not obtrusive to the aesthetic of the visualization? -- mattb @ 2006-11-30T21:05Z
          • As above: one way this could be addressed would be to show a zoomed-in inset in the black peripheral space that shows labeled nodes. Something like the pair of images seen at [22] except with the bottom set labeled. Debivort 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, that's doable. I'll keep it in mind for the future. -- mattb @ 2006-11-30T22:28Z
              • I uploaded a new version of the big map (not thumbnailed here because MediaWiki won't resize it). The invisible routes are fixed, and there's a zoombox type of thing to show the detail in a small portion of the map. If you like this sort of thing, I'll make a smaller version. Let me know. -- mattb @ 2006-12-01T00:06Z
  • weakStrong Support big map weak oppose - I would eagerly support a version in which the disconnected sub-networks were attached. Debivort 20:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC) I'll support a version in which the zoomed in region is farther from the center so that the "zoom swath" is less obtrusive, and would suggest 1) it be made slightly more transparent and 2) the assymetric glowing dropshadow on the blowup part be removed, and 3) a zoom in region be chosen that has a bit more node diversity, like a more highly connected hub in addition to low-degree nodes. Forgive my pickiness, but it's very close to perfect. PS - I had thought it was illustrating the web, but with the IPs, I'm guessing it's the physical internet? Debivort 02:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll tweak things some tomorrow and try to address your concerns. I'd like to leave in the drop shadow in some form because otherwise there is no definition between the zoomed patch and the rest of the image (black background on both). I'll try to pick a region that's a little more dense, but as you zoom in a lot of the definition is removed since I'm not rendering edges in the zoomed area that aren't connected to any nodes visible in that area. This makes it much more obvious that the paths ARE actually connected to nodes, and not just random lines criss-crossing everywhere. As to your question, this shows some of the routes between various IPs in class C space. What that actually means in physical terms is a little fluid; especially for some of the larger routers and back bones. A route detected via the data collection method may or may not be totally representative of the physical connections between routers (many routers have multiple interfaces and therefore multiple IPs). The reasonably sized data set should overcome some of these difficulties, but in a roundabout way I merely mean to say that this is one way of visualizing routes on the internet. There really is no perfect way to show all the possible routes a packet can take since these change constantly (even, for example, from packet to packet within one stateful connection like TCP).
    • I'll also ask you to consider letting me make a scaled down version of the big image. While it's superior from a resolution point of view, it's so large that MediaWiki will not generate thumbnails, so it's sadly not usable in articles (browsers would have to download the full size ~10 MiB image). -- mattb @ 2006-12-01T03:27Z
      • Okay, look at it again... I've uploaded yet another (big) version. -- mattb @ 2006-12-01T05:24Z
        • This addressed all my concerns - it's great! I just hope the scaled-dwon version will retain the legibility of the enlarged IPs - maybe the target of the zoom in region will need to be shrunk a little bit? Debivort 06:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it looks a lot like an artificial brain, something long predicted. Great colors, too. Rklawton 20:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Weak Oppose per debivort, this could change if the disconnected lines were fixed. I'd also like to see 1) some legend on the image. 2) further explanation (what the 'white puffballs' might be, why a line's classification might be unknown...). 3) Labeling some major points might or might not be a good idea too. I think this has a ton of potential, but isn't there yet. Most things either fixed or rescinded. There is enough potential content in this image to make an article. -Spyforthemoon 22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't like legends on images. It makes it necessary to translate the image text in order to use it on another WP and it can just as easily be done through a caption. The puffballs may mean different things; I would have to be very careful about assigning them any particular significance. As for "unknowns"; those are either reserved private network IPs that are somehow being used for internet routing (yes, this actually happens) or IPs that ARIN didn't have much (or any) information on. -- mattb @ 2006-12-01T00:09Z
  • Support per quality of picture. Sharkface217 23:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Is it possible to make a svg version since it's generated from point to point connection and nothing but a huge bunch of lines anyways? --antilived T | C | G 10:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • SVG is conceivable, but I'd have to write the software to render it myself. I'll keep that in mind for the future. -- mattb @ 2006-12-01T13:34Z
  • Comment - Allright, I've uploaded a new version of the scaled down copy. Fortunately MediaWiki will thumbnail this one. I've tried to preserve the zoom effect while keeping it reasonably unobtrusive. -- mattb @ 2006-12-01T16:51Z
  • Oppose I don't see what is nice about this image. What determines the length of a given line segment? What do the different colors mean? Which "part" of the internet is depicted? Is this a map of where the data is actually flowing or where the data _could_ flow potentially? Ultimately the issue is that it isn't clear what is to be learned from this image, and also it looks like a big fireworks display.Spebudmak 19:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Oops, I didn't see the summary on the actual image page in which these issues are addressed. Sorry. I'm changing my vote to Neutral. Spebudmak 19:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like it, although I feel a better caption to explain the photograph is in order. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Support image:Internet_map_4096.png, while it provides very little technical information it does give a view of the internet not otherwise possible. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support. Although it would take forever to render, svg is really the ideal format for this. And it seems that other than the nice aesthetic effects, it would be just as easy to make an svg out of this as drawing the lines render-time. Still a great image though. Good enough for FPC, though not front-page worthy IMO --frothT C 21:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm rather baffled by statements like this one. What use is featuring an image if it can't be used in any articles (or really, on any Wikipedia page)? At 9 MiB, the 4096x4096 image is too large to be thumbnailed, and an SVG version would most likely crash the renderer MediaWiki uses. I appreciate wanting the best quality possible, but you have to make some sort of compromise when dealing with a massive data set (with 40k nodes and 71k edges, this image represents less than a third of the data available and less than one percent of all the class-C networks). I feel I should reiterate that it is a bad idea to promote the 4096x4096 version to featured status. It will not be thumbnailed, so whatever pages it is used on will require the browser to download all ~9 MiB of the full image. Please consider the 1280x1280 resolution image, since it can be resized for other pages. -- mattb @ 2006-12-04T00:22Z
  • Support Big version. That's pretty cool, any idea what the large spiky white balls are? 1995?!! imagine what it must be like now! --Fir0002 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, early 2005. Ravedave mis-captioned the image. Plus that isn't the whole internet; it's somewhere between a fifth to a half a percent of all the class C networks. -- mattb @ 2006-12-04T02:41Z
  • Support big version- Does a nice job illustrating the basic architecture of the internet. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 01:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the big version - Good job at illustrating its subject, looks like featured quality. Hello32020 02:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support Small version - Oppose Large version - even the thumbnail takes forever to load. PPGMD 05:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both. This image is either too simple (only half a percent?) or too complicated (all this to illustrate the principle?) to explain the internet. --Janke | Talk 14:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh come on, at least pick one objection and go with it. Which is it? Too simple or too complicated? If I rendered, say, one percent of the class C networks at these resolutions you'd see nothing but an indecipherable mass of color. How is that useful or neat to look at? I've said from the outset that this is nothing but a unique rendering of how routes interconnect and therefore how data can make it from node A to nodes BCDEFGH. Vote how you will, but don't expect this image to be more than it was intended to be. You cannot glean how the internet works in any detail from a simple image. The intention was merely to provide a rather abstract and interesting visualization of some internet routes, not as a replacement for an explanation that would take a fairly hefty textbook to elaborate. -- mattb @ 2006-12-05T17:32Z
      • I stand by both objections: the image is too complicated just to explain the principle, and too simple to give an idea of the immensity of the web. Here's a third: If it is just an "abstract and interesting visualization", as you say, then I oppose because of the low enc. Sorry, but that's how I see it. --Janke | Talk 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I can respect your opinion. -- mattb @ 2006-12-07T01:41Z
  • Support smaller version - Aesthetically pleasing, Good job of illustrating the internet. Advanced 19:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created a GIF version from the original at Image:Internet_map_4096.GIF. The file size is 2.87 MB and the only difference I can see is the zoom box at the bottom. Could this be fixed? Mahahahaneapneap 19:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • MediaWiki won't thumbnail that either; it seems to be a resolution cap, not a file size cap. So the gif version poses the same usability issue as the large png version. -- mattb @ 2006-12-06T19:22Z
  • Support - Fascinating picture, well done in my opinion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - PNGs larger than 12.5MPx won't thumbnail, bug 3771. ed g2stalk 23:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Internet map 1024.jpg. I'll promote the smaller version. There's a link to the big version in the image description page, and we don't want the big version crashing people's computers when they open it from the main page... :) Raven4x4x 05:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Sparkler on Guy Fawkes night. Sparklers burn at up to 2000° F (1100° C)

Good illustration of a sparkler. Has blown highlights, obviously, but thats the point. Appears on Sparkler. Created by Gabriel Pollard - User:Nzgabriel.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tray of Fugu rubripes on ice

This curious looking fish is one of the many cultural rarities of Japan. Being the only delicacy forbidden to the Emperor of Japan, the fish's toxins are traditionally not entirely removed, so that the experience of consuming the fish is enhanced by a slight tingling of the tongue. This image captures the fish as presented in a public market. It highlights the prevalence of culture in Japan, and the slightly under prioritized physiological need of survival. Besides capturing this interesting delicacy, the image presents a myriad of local and universal human curiosities. Fugu Chris 73 (by User:Iamorlando )

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strabismus surgery
Edit 1, rotated per spikebrenan and froth

Although, it's obvious it might not be very pleasing to many eyes, the quality and encyclopedic value of this image is certainly enough to make if FP. It's the most informative image of Strabismus surgery and other eye surgeries that we have. It's used in Strabismus surgery article and Eye surgery. Created by: User:Bticho.

  • lol. I said it, it's not pleasing to many eyes. I don't like it, it really has a ewww factor but this is an encyclopedia and as result, we'll see pictures like this. But i can promise you, this is not my Desktop background. ;-) --Arad 19:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Illustrates the article perfectly. It might not be appropriate for the main page, though, but that's not a requirement for featured pictures. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-01 14:19Z
  • Support. Per great quality shot and encyclopedic value (and ewwwww factor!) :o) Would love to zoom out to see what the instruments look like, but I feel that might take away from the composition... tiZom(2¢) 14:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wow! Awesome. High enc, and a picture not everybody can easily take (subtle pun intended). The caption (on the image page) needs a little attention though, I can understand only half the words. Sounds like smurfal smurfus muscle being smurfed following pre-smurfment of smurfyl smurfes. A Smurfo locking smurfeps is grasping the smurfor smurf of the muscle, while a Smurfson-Smurfi scissors does the cutting. The eyelids are being held by a Smurf smurfum to me. --Dschwen 15:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak support -- Great encyclopedic, however as spikebrennan pointed out the eyebrow below the eye is a bit disconcerting --frothT C 06:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, with a suggestion of the "the ratio and resolution of this image makes it suitable for desktops" message. Because who wouldn't want this as their desktop image? SnurksTC 08:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why has the name of the image been changed? It was perfectly named for english wikipedia, where it was uploaded by Bticho, and should have been reuploaded with the same name on Commons too. The article I was editing, Eye surgery now has an image with a french name?!! Any reasons???? EyeMD T|C 13:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer Yes, indeed it was replaced by the French name. Because It's much more faster and efficient if we have 1 image (if the licence is free) on commons which can be used on all Wiki projects. If we want to have 1 Insertion Du Muscle CO.jpg for each language, first of all, no one has the time to upload a pic for dozens of languages on wiki. So it is a much wiser idea to upload all free licence image on commons for access of all projects. The french name is not a big problem either. I hope i had answered your question. --Arad 19:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted Image:Desinsertion du muscle CO.jpg (It seems to me that the original got slightly more support.) --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manara Sunrise

Sunrise at Manara, Israel with the misty Hula Valley below.

Taken by beivushtang, feb. 2006


Nom didn't say anything o_O --frothT C 07:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, could you please clarify? --Tewy 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sharkface supported 5 pictures in three minutes. I doubt there was much of an in-depth inspection. ~ trialsanderrors 07:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should do a Turing test on him... --Dschwen 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Sharkface has super fast internet connection and super fast reflex in looking at pics!  ;) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 09:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciudad de las ciencias noche
Edit 1 - Fixed the grain and blur and keeping the high res. by Arad
Edit 2 by Fir0002, sharpening/noise reduction

This is a renomination of an image which failed to become FP because it needed a half-support. A high quality photo which also represents the modern architecture (and it was a nominee for architecture portal photo). A good choice for FP and Pic of the day. Author: Chosovi. It appears in Ciutat de les Arts i les Ciències article.

  • Nominate and support. -Arad 17:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reasons as before - it's still poorly focussed, motion-blurry and grainy. There should be nothing to prevent someone from taking a better-quality shot than this; all they'd need is a tripod and some patience. What justifies renomination, apart from the fact that you didn't like the votes you got last time? --YFB ¿ 17:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is about the image not me, or why I renominated this. There's no rule stating renomination must have a very good reason. If you want my reason, the reason is within months no one got a better shot, which means, this is probably the best shot we can get. And I think it's good. If you don't like it, that's fine, just oppose it. Plus I'm not the author of this image and i get nothing from the FP statue of this photo. This is wikipedia and I do what I want within the laws of it, YummyFriutBat. So please, just state your opinion. Thank you very much. --Arad 17:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see you've been to Spain. So if you ever go there again (you're much closer to Spain than I am) please take the time and take a better shot. --Arad 17:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I have been to mainland Spain, but it's quite a big place and I was only there for a week. If I should happen to be in Valencia then yes, I would try to take a better shot than this and in all honesty I don't think it would be that difficult, as the centre has clearly been designed (and lit) to be extremely photogenic. I don't think this photo does it justice and, as has been said many times before, we don't need to have a FP of everything. I meant no offence when I asked why you'd renominated it, I was just trying to understand your reasoning as the image hasn't changed and neither has the building, as far as I know (i.e. it's just as replaceable as it was before). --YFB ¿ 18:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I'm going to be in Valencia in about four weeks time, but no guarantees I'll be able to replicate this shot. If I do find the time to be there at dusk, I'm confident I'll be able to take a comparable/better shot. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • YESS! Diliff's going to take a shot. That's going to be interesting 15MB image. So even if this one gets FP, Diliff is going to supersede it :-D. --Arad 21:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oats, barley, and some products made from them
Edit 1 by Fir0002
Edit 2 by Fir0002

Very high-res collection of cereals, grains, and breads. PD as a work of the US Gov't.

Moved to 'further input required'. Raven4x4x 03:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . I don't think any of the edits truely has consensus. Raven4x4x 06:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flow chart for the creation of an avian flu vaccine using recombinant DNA technology and reverse genetics.
  1. I am nominating this diagram because it portrays a relatively sophisticated process in a clear and aesthetically pleasing manner (much much more clearly than could be done with text alone). Furthermore, avian flu is a hot-topic in the news and as the subject of this illustration, it should generate significant interest in the articles on the technologies portrayed.
  2. Technically: it is very high resolution. No compression artifacts - JPG but I doubt we will get a vector version, as a wikipedian was not the creator.
  3. It appears in vaccine - the only illustration there, and reverse genetics.
  4. Created by the NIH, it's public domain.
  • Nominate and support. - Debivort 21:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a clear diagram producing a wealth of information. Very few jpeg artifacts. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Basically the textbook example of what not to make into a jpeg. Also this picture is worth the thousand words that appear all over it- and that could explain it just as well outside of an unneccessary, almost 2MB image --frothT C 21:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I simply don't know whether this picture is the best way to present the information it contains, but I'm in favour of novel types of FP (i.e. not just panoramas and satellite photos) and would not oppose this simply because of its file format (though I understand why SVG is a desirable format). Pstuart84 22:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is very well done but in order to view this I have to: 1. Click through to the image description page. 2. Click on the image to get it in full view. 3. Wait for it to download and shrink to fit into the browser window. Once it's shrunk it's readable but doesn't look very good – the text looks aliased. If I expand it I can't read it without scrolling because the image size is bigger than my screen resolution. So the image pretty usurps the job of an encyclopedia but makes it more cumbersome for the user to access the information. The images are all well done and should be used separately with accompanying text as copy text in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Trialsanderrors. (UserTalk) 01:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Sharkface217 04:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. great hand-out, but as an illustration for an article I'd rather see this one chopped into smaller pics and have the text in the caption. Fileformat is just wrong, too. --Dschwen 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - sorry, but this really should be either PNG, or if possible SVG, but definitely not JPG. —Vanderdeckenξφ 17:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to go on the record once here with my opinion about JPG/SVG/PNG. I'm not trying to start a debate about this particular nomination - just sharing my broader thinking:
1) I believe SVG is an inferior format, on multiple platforms, in multiple browsers, with images generated from multiple graphics programs, it routinely suffers from a) failing to render text in thumbnails, b) taking too long to render full size, c) scaling text size inconsistently with image size, and d) changing fonts from the original design. Whether being able to translate the text or modify the vectors outweighs these problems is a matter of opinion; I believe the technical problems trump the wikiability.
2) PNG vs JPG boils down to quality vs size. JPG can be made of sufficiently high quality to display illustrations with no or extraordinarily minor artifacts, such as this image. Sometimes JPGs like this are too large. Obviously PNG addresses this, and is my format of choice.
3) When we do not have access to the source image, greater tolerance should be shown in format preference, just as is shown for technical quality of historic photos (for which there is no access to the source subject).
4) I believe people often use technical justifications for opposing nominations when they actually oppose for some other reason. It is extraordinarily easy to fall back on "blown highlights," "needs to be SVG," or "DOF too shallow" when one really means "another boring landscape," "too much text in the diagram / not pretty enough," or "another boring bee on a flower." I believe this is often done (perhaps unconsciously) to spare the feelings of the nominator. Fine, but this will inevitably reduce the efficacy of the FPC process to get us images that we do like.
5) Thank you for humoring the rant. Debivort 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SVG is superior to raster graphics for diagrams and symbols because the data can easily be represented with a few lines of XML instead many kilobytes of data to define individual pixels. Also SVG is perfectly scalable- thumbnails are wikipedia's fault and it'll be fixed eventually --frothT C 19:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until it's fixed, it remains an inferior format for wikipedia. Debivort 19:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And until then you plan to chase off SVG and instead pile up images which are actually inferior? Well, I cannot disagree more on 1) but you hit it right with 4). --Dschwen 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I've chased off anything. Like I said, 1) is a matter of opinion (rather than actually anything) - it's how each of us evaluates wikiability vs bugginess. If SVG becomes not buggy, the question will be moot. Debivort 21:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of opinion; SVG is the ideal data type for these types of things. --frothT C 20:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are arguing. It may be "ideal" theoretically, but by your own statements, it is implemented poorly here. Surely that should lead us to consider alternatives until it is fixed. Debivort 21:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it (in cases where the rendering bugs are noticable) be a reasonable compromise to upload both, the original SVG and a PNG rendered the way its intended to look, and crosslink them on their image pages? Its additional work, but atleast the sourcecode of the image (SVG) gets preserved and we can switch to it as soon as the bugs are fixed. --Dschwen 08:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very good idea. I just hope people will be tolerant of the PNG component when it is explained that SVG is buggy - as they have indeed on some occasions. Debivort 13:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last U.S. F-14 Tomcat aircraft to fly a combat mission

Pictured here is the last U.S. F-14 Tomcat aircraft to fly a combat mission. It was photographed as it arrives on board Sherman Field at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Fla. The F-14D aircraft bureau number 161159 was assigned to the Black Lions of Fighter Squadron Two One three (VF-213), as part of Carrier Air Wing Eight (CVW-8), embarked aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71). The aircraft will become a display aircraft at the National Museum of Naval Aviation. This is an official U.S.Navy photo, and appears in the articles F-14 Tomcat and VFA-213.

Don't vote support per nom if you don't even know what it means --frothT C 07:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scienceworld.jpg
Science World at TELUS World of Science
  1. This is a very calming image. The reflection makes it easy and its framed beautifully. Vancouver Portal.
  2. The image appears on the articles Science World at TELUS World of Science, World's Fair Expo 86, and Main Street-Science World Station.
  3. MITACS - GFDL presumed.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wankel cycle. The "A" marks one of the three apexes of the rotor. The "B" marks the eccentric shaft, turning three times for every revolution of the rotor.
edit 1: without jittering
  1. This animation does an excellent job in explaining how the Wankel engine works. I would not have been able to understand the engine without the aid of this animation. It is labeled and highlights each step of the cycle.
  2. It appears on the Wankel engine article.
  3. It was created by Wikimedia Commons user Y_tambe.
  • Nominate and support. - Riguy 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Very descriptive and well done animation. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 01:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. A lot of static (?) along the black lines and the text. If this could be fixed, then I'd support. tiZom(2¢) 01:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the way it is now. A lot of dithering all over the place. Also aren't all the stages happening simultaneously? Why does each stage name light up like that? --frothT C 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Well, I think it makes it simpler to show the rotation one step at a time. Besides, the sparks show up on each rotation, so you know it's constant. But still the dithering (yeah, dithering, that's the word...not static!) is a problem. Oh and also, if someone's going to fix this up, be sure to close the lines on the left side - the way it is now, it looks like some exhaust could seep into the intake! :o) tiZom(2¢) 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Here is the source for the file if someone knows how to modify it: [23]
  • Support per above points nom. Sharkface217 04:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not really dithering, it is caused by the jitter option of povray, which is sometimes useful to improve antialiasing and is enabled by default, but introduces random variations from one frame to the other. Considering the lines on the left side, I don't know if it is possible to close them; I'm inclined to think it is a feature of the engine: if there is space on the right side there must be space on the left side. --Bernard 09:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question In the article it is explained that there is a single ignition per rotation. Then, why are the plugs sparking when there is no ignition? Alvesgaspar 11:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Does an excelent job of illustrating a difficult concept. revised version is clean and attractive. I agree only highlighting one of the ignitions helps clarity, but perhaps the caption could elaborate? -Spyforthemoon 20:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm inclined to support, but there are two things that befuddle me: 1. From the looks of it, the excentric shaft (B) rotates, but the gear remains static. So is the gear disconnected from the shaft? And 2. I'm also befuddled by the fact that in one case the spark plugs ignite the chamber and in two cases nothing happenes. I wonder if the colors could be applied to all chambers, the A, B and text labels be removed, and the explanation be provided in the caption: "Intake (light blue), Compression (dark blue), ignition (dark red), Exhaust (light red)". ~ trialsanderrors 23:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, center shaft rotation isn't obvious, and that causes confusion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support: I've never supported anything before but I find this excellent animation commentworthy. This should definately be a featured picture in the near future.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ssone cap car.jpg

A fantastic picture of space ship one provided by NASA. A truly worthy FP.

Just a note, the image that was the subject of this FPC was deleted, at the request of the uploader following some concerns raised by another user. Because of the doubt around this type of image, and the fact that there is currently no appropriate place for the image, the uploader thought that it would be best if the image were deleted. This FPC should probably be delisted shortly but I'll let the FPC regulars handle that. --bainer (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Place of the Imperial Council, West Side, St. Petersburg, Russia.

St Isaac's Square in St. Petersburg, Russia is a major city square sprawling between Marie Palace and St. Isaac's Cathedral, which separates it from Decembrists Square. The square is dominated by the equestrian Monument to Nicholas I.

This photochrom from the 1890s displays a view of the square from the dome of St. Isaac's Cathedral towards Marie Palace. Behind the palace, the capital of the Russian Empire is seen all they way to the Trinity Cathedral.

Photochrome is a colorizing process combining photography and color lithography. It was especially popular in the 1890s, when the technique was used to create a color print from a black and white photo negative, using between four and fourteen lithograph stones, made from rocklike substances, to colorize the print with several different inks.

I believe the image significantly improves our article about St. Isaac's Square. It is downloaded from the website of the Library of Congress. As my previous nomination was criticized for small resolution (150 K), I downloaded 27 M image, but Commons would not allow me to upload the image that big :( All reasonable edits to the picture are welcome.

  • Nominate and support. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support if the size (and possibly detail) can be improved. Anyone want to download the original image and do a better job at scaling it? (and compress it with jpeg to help the file size) --frothT C 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is also part of a whole batch of images at the LoC. I'll try post a link to a quick survey later. (Here is a nice one from Versailles). Although I think this one is pretty solid and representative of the collection. I also think size is ok. The original is twice as big but also has a lot of grain we don't need. ~ trialsanderrors 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Set of clickable thumbnails here. This might be partial though, there doesn't seem to be a portal to this set. ~ trialsanderrors 05:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was me who uploaded most of these images to Wikimedia in 2004 and 2005. At the time, it appeared to me that the nominated image was the most impressive. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those are the direct links to the Library of Congress originals. I was looking for a description of the set at the LoC website but couldn't find one. Do you know the provenance? ~ trialsanderrors 19:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Only from the "notes" section of the image description on the LoC website: "Title from the Detroit Publishing Co., catalogue J--foreign section, Detroit, Mich. : Detroit Publishing Company, 1905." --Ghirla -трёп- 19:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • They have some information in the overview of the Detroit Publishing Company Collection, which contains all these coloured photochrom pictures. "The company obtained the exclusive rights to use the Swiss "Photochrom" process, later known as Aäc, for converting black-and-white photographs to color prints. Photochroms were made by a photomechanical process using multiple lithographic stones. A separate lithographic stone was required for each color in the final print. A minimum of four stones were used for each print, and occasionally as many as fourteen stones were used. This process permitted the mass production of color postcards, prints, and albums for sale to the American market." I couldn't find anything more specific than that. On Commons they should be in the photochrom pictures category, where most need a lot more colour adjustment than this one. --Para 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Stpeteskyline.png Raven4x4x 07:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Full moon

I was helping a couple of friends with thier finals studies at the library when we passed by a young lady's computer and I spotted this spectacular image. That was at five this afternoon, now that I have finally have a free moment from studying it occurs to me that this may be an excellent candidate for FP, so here it is. This was taken by the Galileo spacecraft on December 7, 1992 on its way to explore the Jupiter system in 1995-97. The distinct bright ray crater at the bottom of the image is the Tycho impact basin. The dark areas are lava rock filled impact basins: Oceanus Procellarum (on the left), Mare Imbrium (center left), Mare Serenitatis and Mare Tranquillitatis (center), and Mare Crisium (near the right edge). This picture contains images through the Violet, 756 nm, 968 nm filters. The color is 'enhanced' in the sense that the CCD camera is sensitive to near infrared wavelengths of light beyond human vision. It is a PD image from the commons, from NASA (ok, that was a gimme :-), and appears in the article Full moon.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Yellow-faced HoneyeaterLichenostomus chrysops feeding it's chicks
edit1: cropped and corrected colour
Edit 2, by Fir0002

Pictured here is a Yellow-faced Honeyeater feeding it's chicks, the verticle branch that obscures the bird is unfortunate, however I feel that it's encyclopediac value outweighs this (Only my second nom so I would appreciate feedback)and the image is clear and informative.

  • Support (Original) I'd have some minor quibbles with the foliage, but the subject of the image is in sharp focus, which is what matters. ~ trialsanderrors
  • Weak Oppose Original, Oppose Edit 2, Neutral Edit 1 Don't really have the "wow" factor, the leave on the lower right and the branch(?) that is blocking the bird are quite distracting, bad colour balance (fixed in edit1 (a bit over yellow i admit), edit2 turned the bird to purple...), and resolution on the low side of the scale once cropped useless area. --antilived T | C | G 06:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good enough for my weak support - the foliage is the natural habitat of the bird, so it's OK. (Support is for original edit 2 - edit 1 is too yellow.) --Janke | Talk 08:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Edit 2. Oppose Edit 1. The color balance is off on the original, but Edit 1 is even worse. True the rose (?) branch is distracting but overall a good image illustrating the bird in an interesting scene. However does not add much to the article - perhaps you can expand it or add it to another page as well? If so I would probably change to full support --Fir0002 10:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I just can't ignore that thorny stalk. It's crossing right in front of the subject and is OOF as well. Even if the rest of the photo is vibrant and informative, composition matters. --Bridgecross 14:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The branch very distracting. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The green stalk in the in the foreground is unfocused and extremely distracting. Very unfortunate for a pic what would have otherwise been stunning. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 08:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Sharkface217 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mandelbrot set, the most common example of a fractal. Uploaded with improved resolution 2560x1920
The current FP version with 2500x2000 by BernardH

I would like to nominate an improved version of an image refused in novemver 2006: This image was nominated with a resolution of 1280x960. The majority voted for an alternative image with 2500x2000 proposed by BernardH due to its higher resolution even though some people preferred the colors of the original image. Now I have calculated the original image again with improved resolution of 2560x1920. Furthermore I think most people did not know that it is not an isolated image but an entrance point to a zoom sequence into the Mandelbrot set:

Start
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7
Step 8
Step 9
Step 10
Step 11
Step 12
Step 13
Step 14

This series is accompanied by a second series with frames indicating each image position in its precursor. The description of each image contains a corresponding thumb (except the first one of course) and links to the other images. This affiliation to an image set, selected for demonstrating several basic features of the Mandelbrot set and its infinite richness of different structures, enhances its encyclopaedic value. The cyclic color palette is assigned according to a well adjusted logarithmic function in order to get pleasing results over the whole zoom factor of 1:60,000,000,000. Therefore I would like to nominate it again with improved resolution and BernardH's version for delisting (I don't know if an image series can be nominated as a whole ;-)). --Wolfgangbeyer 08:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think this whole series is feature-worthy, but not as separate images. May I suggest you add the step 1 - 14 gallery onto the start image page as thumbnails, not just numbers. Then they would all be easily accessible by clicking the first image. I'll gladly support after that addition. --Janke | Talk 08:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. --Wolfgangbeyer 09:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, now you get one big, and 14 small supports from me. (Remember, Walt Disney got one big, and seven small Oscars for "Snow White"... ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the single image as not interesting enough. I would support several of the other images. I like the set as a whole the best, and it would receive my strong support. I suggest withdrawing this nomination, and create and nominate a composite image of the entire sequence. It's an excellent set! Royalbroil T : C 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to contradict you, but a composite image wouldn't work like this one does. Click on the big image, and you'll see all 14 zooms in a gallery, and can continue from there. --Janke | Talk 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all images, as a set. This time I'm quite confident this is the proper way to introduce the Mandelbrot set. Alvesgaspar 16:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a pretty awesome idea. I like how you can click through the images and have their positions shown on the thumbnail on the image page. I also preferred the color scheme of your original version. I fully support the big image. But I'm not sure FP is the right place for the series, it seems beyond FP for me (in a good way). Anyway, great job! --Dschwen 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, I don't want a composite image, the set is great. I'd say put the initial image in the FP gallery with a little comment about the series. The similarity between this and the recently promote pic would make this a case where we might think about a replacemnet nomination. --Dschwen 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but just the first image. To promote the entire set seems a bit too much. Has someone created an article pertaining to that particular fractal where they can load all the individual steps? Riguy 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just inserted the gallery with explanations for each image to the corresponding article Mandelbrot set. --Wolfgangbeyer 23:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great, looks really nice. Riguy 03:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made a corresponding 1024x768 high resolution animation with 37MB, which I offer by a link in Mandelbrot set#External links to my private homepage because it is to large for uploading in WP ;-). But there is also a smaller 4MB version with 400x300.--Wolfgangbeyer 07:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mandel zoom 00 mandelbrot set.jpg. This is an unusual nom; I'll stick the FP tag on all the images but only put the first one on the FP and FPT pages. I'll also replace Image:Mandelbrot set 2500px.png with this one. Raven4x4x 07:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through the Mount Rushmore article (which is AOFD), and I saw this picture, which I thought very eye-catching. It is a high-res photo, at 2000x2000, and doesn't have any quality problems that I can spot. It's similar to the penny FP, but much more interesting because there are more things to look at then just Lincoln. It was taken by the US Mint. There is also a png version here, in case that would be better.


Yes, it might be good, but they won't all be minted until 2008 (look at the article, some pictures are missing); we might be able to take them by the year they came out though. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An 1896 $1 Silver Certificate.

The obverse of an 1896 $1 Silver Certificate from the Educational Series. The Goddess History instructing a youth, pointing to a panoramic vista view of the Potomac River and Washington D.C. The Washington Monument and the US Capitol Building is visible in the background. The United States Constitution is displayed to the right. Circling around the motif are the last names of famous Americans.

This particular note demonstrates the neoclassical allegorical motif that makes this series unique in US Currency. Very few US notes match the beauty in the 3 note set. The rest of the notes can be seen in the article Educational Series. Plus, I have yet to see Paper Money appear as a FP. Already a few coins have made the list and attempted to get on.

While taken from a commercial site, because it is an image of a product of currency produced by the United States Goverment, the image automaticlly falls under public domain and is not subjected to copyright.

Not promoted --YFB ¿ 14:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original
Cropped

A lava island in Lake Mývatn, Iceland. I think that it might have what it takes to become featured. It's currently the selected picture on Portal:Iceland.

Not promoted --YFB ¿ 14:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gol Gumbaz
JP06035's version

This is a picture of the Gol Gumbaz, a historical monument in Bijapur, Karnataka, India. I took the picture during a family trip and have released it to the public domain. I am nominating it here because I think it is an excellent, high-resolution picture, and it is historically important for its famous whispering and multiple-echo galleries.


Not promoted --YFB ¿ 14:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bagger 288

This is a great photograph of the largest tracked vehicle on earth. It's 1) high resolution, 2) I see no artifacts, 3) it's an action shot, showing the behemoth gathering more material on the right, and 4) It's not cut off in any direction. I can think of nothing that would improve this image, except perhaps a crop on the sides, and I think it definitely qualifies for a featured image. It doesn't even need a person to supply perspective - the tiny stairways all over the superstructure do a good job. I guess I can see one other issue - it appears to be panoramic, so the bars are slightly bent - unless they're so long, they really look like that. Based on other, smaller images found online, they're supposed to be straight.

Not promoted --YFB ¿ 14:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The debating chamber of the Scottish Parliament taken from the public gallery.

From the [[Scottish Parliament Building] Taken by User:Klauses with Kig. An excellent photo, nice contrast and colours. A high resolution (9098x1858, 3566kB).

  • Nominate and support. - Globaltraveller 23:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is shot at an awkward angle and cuts off the subject, lack of vertical view angle and quite severe blown highlights (although I know you can't do much about it other than HDR) --antilived T | C | G 23:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Solid quality pano. I don't see any stitching faults, it's sharp, and captures the subject nicely. Screw the blown out highlights. I ask myself, am I missing info or detail because of the BOH? No, I don't. Detail in the windows would distract rather than add. And HDR is not the solution to all problems. Face it, the dynamic range of a cam and a monitor is very limited, use it for the interesting parts of ypur picture. --Dschwen 23:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can the windows at least be taken back a notch so they aren't so bright? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per Dschwen - I'd have liked half a stop less exposure, though. --Janke | Talk 08:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Magic! - Adrian Pingstone 08:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Focus issues throughout picture. --Bridgecross 16:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. There are indeed vertical bands of slight unsharpness. I wonder if that comes from the stitching process (in that case a restitch would help), or from real focus issues on the edge of th econstituent pictures (bad lens). --Dschwen 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I think we need a shot with no people and a better camera to make it sharper, less blowout. I think it's a reasonable request since it's not too difficult to get into that room without many people (I was in there with just my class) and they run tours through it. Good idea, jut needs slightly better execution. gren グレン 13:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not worried about the people - architecture isn't a sterile art - it's supposed to be occupied. My concern is the element that impresses in this space is the roof which is cropped off and plays little part of the image. Encyclopaedicly the roof element need to be included, not least because they had to evacuate the chamber this year because a beam became detached.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcginnly (talkcontribs) 16:46, 9 December 2006
  • Oppose - I half-agree with Dschwen about the highlights, but these are a bit too blown - I think the whole image is half a stop or so over-exposed. There are also some annoying stitching/focus issues, which a restitch might or might not fix. I'd probably weak oppose even a fixed version because of the glare. I'd also like to see more roof, as that is one of the iconic features of the building. --YFB ¿ 23:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A good picture! Sharkface217 19:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Seems cluttered and messy (could be exactly what it's like in real life, but I don't think it's a clear depiction of the subject), probably a view from a heigh would be more helpful. Terri G 12:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Janke. --Iriseyes 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --YFB ¿ 15:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rothschild Giraffe, Melbourne Zoo
Edit 1 by Fir0002, noise reduction, slight sharpening/color balance

I thought I might try another shot from the Melbourne Zoo. This one shows a detailed head view of a Rothschild Giraffe. Although taken in the zoo, there is not indication that the giraffe is in captivity.
Alteranative: Image:Giraffe07 - melbourne zoo.jpg (shows horns behind ears)

When I said "Although taken in the zoo, there is not indication that the giraffe is in captivity." I meant the photo gives the viewer no indication that the image was taken in a zoo. Not that I couldn't find any indication that the giraffe was captive! --Fir0002 10:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugly bokeh!? This is beautiful L class bokeh here! Maybe you meant the background noise? --Fir0002 03:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I meant the bokeh, especially in the top right section with all the little circles. But hey, I know ugliness is a subjective quality.--Andrew c 06:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support per nom. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 02:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose as they stand - they're both good shots, although the first looks somehow a little fuzzy around the nose - was it chewing or something? I disagree with antilived, there's not a great deal to suggest to the casual viewer that these are zoo shots, although there is something incongruous about the giraffe/eucalyptus(?) combo in the alternative image :-). I'd like to see some serious noise reduction on the background before I'd support, though - the graininess isn't very pleasant on the eye and should be easily fixable. --YFB ¿ 03:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What particular part of the background do you find distracting? --Fir0002 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask, the blobs of sky behind the head. I'd prefer a more even BG, maybe only sky. (A natural habitat BG would be much better, like [29] - but I do realize that we can't ask you to got to Kenya just for a shot... ;-) Seriously, a sky BG would take care of that, right? --Janke | Talk 08:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, unrelated to Fir's photo: that image, [30], has a GFDL license, but it appears to be scanned from a printed source - see the moirees! A possible case of copyvio and false licensing? Anybody cares to investigate? --Janke | Talk 08:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Asked the uploader about it --antilived T | C | G 11:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Giraffe08 - melbourne zoo edit.jpg --YFB ¿ 15:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A female Lesser Brown Blowfly on a white background (note: this image has been re-uploaded with a revised file name)

Behold that loathsome and disgusting pest, the common housefly Lesser Brown Blowfly, in high detail! Not the most pretty subject, but technically I think it is very good. Specimen was a live adult, and about 15mm long.

  • Support Self Nom --Fir0002 10:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice, but are you sure about the species? It looks a bit odd to me. --Dschwen 10:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very nice capture. Depth of field cannot realy be expected to be any better in a single exposure. Good focus on the details that matter. As you said, this fly was live, but did you try putting it in the fridge for a while to 'settle its nerves'?  ;-) If you have more time to work with it, perhaps try taking a few photos with varying focus points so you can create a composite with more of it in focus. I've never tried it myself, but I've seen a few good implementations. Eg here. Question: What aperture and light arrangement did you use? Is the surface edited out (not really a problem since it evidently wasn't an au naturale shot anyway, and doesn't necessarily have to be). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did try it: Image:Fly focus bracket.jpg but it's more of a technical exercise as the fly is clearly collapsing under its weight! Also I didn't take enough gradation and there are some bits missing (out of focus). No I didn't put it in the fridge (don't think mum would have let me!) but I did keep it in a jar for a few minutes and after flying around and hitting the sides a few times he was pretty quiet. I took the image at f/16, the fly was on a white piece of paper (so no the surface wasn't edited out) and used a halogen desklamp (not very good) for a diffuse light and a flash for the main grunt. --Fir0002 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was about to say the same thing. Do you have an in focus photo of the wings and mouth parts to help identification (though I'm not great at it, I can try)? I don't think it is a blowfly, as they have metalic bodies, I am going towards the Stable fly, though I am sure there are hundreds of possibilities. --liquidGhoul 00:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grrr, check out the very first comment on this nomination. It got completely ignored. For the whole time a potentially wrong picture was and still is in the taxobox of the Housefly article. I'm no biologist, and neither is Fir. That's actually a quite a problem. Being a good Photographer doesn't qualify you for decissions like replacing such an image. Maybe a better way would be putting the image on the talk page and ask for feedback first. Apparently it takes a few days for anyone to notice. On the german wikipedia there is a nice service where you can post pictures and have the species determined by some pretty competent experts--Dschwen 08:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm 99% sure Melburnian is correct, it's a Calliphora stygia, common brown blowfly (or eastern goldenhaired blowfly). The Wikipedia blowfly page is a bit misleading as it suggests in one place that blowflies always have metallic bodies (this is not the case, at least not in Australia, as Melburnian's links demonstrate). It doesn't appear to be anything like any of the other suggestions. These things are common as muck in country Victoria where this was taken, and are a regular pest in houses, far more common than the 'common' housefly. --jjron 14:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, fully agree with jjron, and thanks to all the people that helped out on the ID. And thanks Dschwen - but personally I'd rather forgo the interesting pix and not have the bushfires here! --Fir0002 09:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Until this is cleared up I commented out the pic on both pages it was used. It is a pretty good picture, but with a potentially wrong caption it does more harm than good in an encyclopedia. I can only urge contributors to have species double checked before replacing images in articles. Anyway, this shouldn't affect the nomination too much (we might want to suspend it though). After this matter is cleared up we can insert the pic into the appropriate article.--Dschwen 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-Fascinating Picture of the most irritating creature on the face of this Wonderful World Booksworm Talk to me! 18:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nice photographic work and the usual excellent service from Wikipedia's resident taxonomists. --YFB ¿ 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have re-uploaded the image under a new file name, placed it in a new article and changed the caption and image description information based on de:User:Doc Taxon's identification obtained by Dschwen.--Melburnian 02:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Nice clear encylopaedic image that has now been identified. A second view from above showing the dark blue patch on the abdomen would be useful in the future.--Melburnian 06:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I can wholeheartedly Support. --Dschwen 13:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Incredible picture, technically flawless, and great encyclopedic value. Sharkface217 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now it's apparently correctly identified, although I wouldn't mind if Fir0002 could confirm that it had the 'dark blue patch' of Calliphora augur (perhaps he took some other photos that show this) and that the nominated pic and this one were in fact different flies as has been identified. --jjron 03:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree jjron, for us fly non-experts it would be good to have a visually distinct cross-reference. If Fir happens to have more pictures from above like this this it would be good to see them even if they're not FP material. The "blue" patch of Calliphora augur seems to be quite subtle - I'm yet to find a photograph that shows the colour distinctly. For the record, here's the discussion regarding ID at the german-language wikipedia. It does appear to me that Image:Fly focus bracket.jpg has a bit more "golden fuzz" along its underparts than the fly in the other two photos--Melburnian 05:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry but I didn't think to take any top down shots - all of them are side on or face on. However I can confirm that this fly and Image:Fly focus bracket.jpg were two different flies so they could have been different species (althogh they looked pretty similar to me). I can't gaurentee they had a dark blue patch from memory but it is possible --Fir0002 10:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anecdotal comment. I live in the same part of Victoria as Fir0002, and did a bit of check when I went home from work today. I found eight of these flies (I told you they were common), as best I could identify five of them were C. stygia, three of them C. augur. Although they were dead specimens (some of them long dead which could have affected the colouring), even with the specimens right in front of me it wasn't that easy to identify them in all cases, although it does indicate that C. augur is more common around here than I thought, and I'm a bit more comfortable with the identifications. (BTW Melburnian, I think the CSIRO site shows the difference pretty well, C. augur and C. stygia - remember on an insect the abdomen is simply the back section of the body, it doesn't specifically refer to the underneath.) --jjron 12:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • My focus on the underparts ("golden fuzz") was to differentiate the individuals in Fir0002's set of 3 photos rather than the species (although it may be a species differentiation as well), but Fir0002 has confirmed image:Fly_focus_bracket.jpg is a different individual now anyway. I came across the CSIRO illustration when I put together the little article as a home for the candidate picture, the illustration shows the “blue patch” on top clearly, but it doesn’t seem to come across so strongly in photographs of the real thing and, going on jjron's observations, the “blue” colouration isn’t even really that obvious when you look at the actual beast. I certainly have learnt a lot about blowflies in the last few days!--Melburnian 01:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're totally right, as is so often the case the obvious differences in type specimens or descriptions are not always so obvious in reality. The real problem was that the dark blue on C. augur can be so dark as to be heading towards black, and the brown on C. stygia can do the same, at least on my dead and dusty specimens. On some the colouring was pretty obvious, but not on others. Before this I always thought they were all the same species, so I have learnt something. BTW, given that the CSIRO pics are copyright free, do you think they're worth putting into the wikipedia article(s)? --jjron 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very good quality, and now identified. We need one like that of the housefly. NauticaShades 14:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. howcheng {chat} 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Major depth of field problems. --Dgies 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 04:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Detailed and encyclopedic 212.10.217.122 22:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Calliphora augur whitebackground.jpg Raven4x4x 05:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery prior to docking with the International Space Station.
Edit1: slightly lightened and colour corrected, removed hot pixels.

I am nominating this picture for Featured Status because I feel it manifests all of the characteristics of one of Wikipedia's finest images. As far as significance goes, the picture is important to the space domain of Wikipedia and asserts current significance as it has just embarked on a new space journey. In terms of photographic expertise, the picture is centered and perfectly clear and it meets the size requirements for Featured status. This picture is one of Wikipedia's best and definitely deserves to be featured. The picture appears in Wikipedia's article on the Space Shuttle Discovery and was created by NASA.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas, South Dakota, May 13, 1936. Buried machinery in barn lot during the Dust Bowl, an agricultural, ecological, and economic disaster in the Great Plains region of North America.

When I saw this, it made me say "wow". It seems to be an excellent illustration of the Dust Bowl. It was created by the USDA and so is public domain. Their web site says that a higher resolution version is available on request. -- Beland 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Picture that I found on the web. The previous one had some quality issues. Hopefully this one is better. This picture is on the page for Space Shuttle. It was taken by NASA and is in the public domain. It was found at this website:http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/shuttleoperations/alligators/kscovrespve.html


Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Space Shuttle Discovery launching at night for mission STS-116.
File:STS-116 Launch edit1.jpg
Edit 1, lightened with curves
Different angle of liftoff
Fish-eye view

I have nominated this picture because I find it to be a nice shot. I realize it has some problems with quality, but I hope somebody can clean it up. This picture is currently not in any articles; however, a version that is used as a thumbnail is found on the main page. That version is not as high-quality as this picture. It can be found here. This image was taken by NASA and is public domain. Photo credit: NASA/Sandra Joseph, Robert Murray, Chris Lynch

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atlantis on Shuttle Carrier Aircraft 3.jpg
Atlantis Shuttle in Transit


Well, Toby needed help with this process, so I'll fill in the proper info. Toby nominated this because he believes this to be an encyclopedic and well-taken picture. I admit that it has some quality issues, but nothing that can't be touched up. This image can be found in the following articles:

This image was taken by Carla Thomas for NASA and is public domain.

Hope this helps, Toby! Sharkface217 19:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I had issues setting this image up. I am slowly learning the process. Anyways thank you to everyone for your help and yes I find this picture worthy of FP because it is an informative/interesting picture and anyone who sees it does a definite double take. --Tobyw87 19:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo highlighting the structure of the clock of Taraxacum officinale

Clean and crisp.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrich, Melbourne Zoo

Another image from the Melbourne Zoo showing an ostrich in an interesting pose. I think this image doesn't suffer as much from the background as the Giraffe shot.

I didn't think you cared so much about blown highlights: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Scottish Parliament Debating Chamber --Fir0002 22:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The key issue is: are important details lost through clipping (or DOF)? In the parliament picture I just didn't care whats outside those windows. It would have distracted from the inside of the room. With the ostrich I care about the texture and color of the beak, which is (imo) a quite essental part of the birds head. A big part of it is blown-out, lowering the enc considerably. Satisfying answer? --Dschwen 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, thanks for clarifying --Fir0002 05:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manarola in the Cinque Terre

Fascinating-to-examine photo of a civilized town crammed onto a big rock. The terraced heights above the town are staggering, the sheer heights are breathtaking, extremely varied shot with lots to look at. I wish I could vacation there!

  • Nominate and support. - frothT C 18:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lovely picture, but I think you missed the sky. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yeah, the sky and the associated glare make it unappealing. It's also leaning (unless that's the way the build houses in italy). Otherwise the quality is ok, slightly soft but what do you expect at 6MP. --Dschwen 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had assumed it was a cloudy day and the clouds were way out of DOF. You might be right about the glare though. As for the tilt, it would be impossible to tell --frothT C 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As for the tilt, it would be impossible to tell - not true, simply look at the house windows and house edges, not every house would be built tilted! The tilts are particularly obvious on the 3000 pixel version (so long as your computer doesn't resize it to fit your screen). The clouds were way out of DOF - not true. You have the houses (which are effectively at infinity) in focus so any clouds would in focus. That means that either your choice of exposure could not cope with bright sky or there was fairly solid cloud. So, the tilt and the dead sky kill it for me - Adrian Pingstone 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Tilt would be fixable (it's certainly not "impossible to tell"!) but the blown sky is pretty distracting, especially along the horizon where it's bled into the rooftops. It'd make a superb evening shot, I'd have thought, I bet it would look stunning in the sunset (or early morning if it's not facing into the sunset!). This looks like it was taken towards the sun, which makes it near enough impossible to expose for the foreground without blowing out the sky. --YFB ¿ 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the reason I said that it would be impossible to tell the tilt is because it's entirely possible that none of the houses are perfectly vertical so there's no point of reference -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Froth (talkcontribs) 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And people who are standing are standing like that in real life? Gosh how awkward would that be... --antilived T | C | G 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the street lights are also tilted at the same random angles? Seems strange that everything is tilted at basically the same angle. Either they were sloppy builders but everything coincidentally started leaning the same way, or we can safely assume the camera was simply tilted at that angle and correct it! ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's about one pixel off vertically for that entire stretch of horizon --frothT C 14:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, the horizon slope is obvious to the eye (no matter how few pixels it is). The largest version of this pic has to be looked at to see the slope. Well done, Michael, for spotting that horizon, I hadn't! - Adrian Pingstone 16:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of main sequence stellar spectral types

This POV-ray image shows the human-perceived colors and relative sizes of the different spectral types of stars in the Morgan-Keenan classification. It is high resolution, pretty, and helps visualize the classes in its article, Stellar classification. Created by User:Kieff and licensed under GFDL.

Addition For reference, here is the first direct (resolved) image of another star, in this case, a red giant: Image:Betelgeuse star (Hubble).jpg
  • Nominate and support. --Dgies 07:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - clean, illustrative. Would prefer a bit more bit depth, but it's great otherwise. Debivort 07:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why are they put on that reflective surface? That distracts and makes them look like light bulbs. Also, I'd prefer to have some surface detail instead of the - yes, you guessed - "blown out highlights". --Janke | Talk 07:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surface detail is only visible on the sun when viewed through a filter which blocks out 99% of light, and in the process makes it look more like a swirly circle than a star. --Dgies 07:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The reflections look dodgy (many do not even start at the base of the sphere). Also the texture of the stars looks unconvincing and the image is somewhat low res considering it is a fairly simple diagram and can presumably be rendered in far greater detail. Is there a reason that the largest star has far less white area in comparison to the rest of the stars? --Fir0002 07:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I like it, it's certainly eye catching. I hope it is a reasonably accurate representation, but it's a bit difficult to tell without having access to a reasonable telescope. I think the whole blown highlights thing is a bit silly when we're talking about stars from the human perspective, as this would seem to be what a human eye would perceive. Terri G 11:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Why the color of blue stars changes from white to blue when moving from the center to the edge and the color of red stars changes from yellow to red? Should not it be the same color over the whole surface of the star? Olegivvit 12:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, it should. I think there are two reasons why the creator did not do that. First is that it would not be very pretty. Second is this: In reality the per-pixel brightness of these stars should vary by perhaps 1000-fold or more from smallest to largest, but an image which reflects this would not be viewable on conventional 8-bit-depth displays, so by varying the saturation and adding glow, we can provide some sense of the difference in brightness, despite the limitations. --Dgies 15:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Reflections. ~ trialsanderrors 21:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. Absolutely stunning. The reflections only add to the quality as they make the picture seem a size at which most people can comprehend the differences between the different stars. Although, you could have made them look like real stars and not lightbulbs, though. Otherwise, its great. Ilikefood 22:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I kind of like that they look like lightbulbs. wtfunkymonkey 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this could be counted as a serious vote, as looking like "lightbulbs" is surely a detrimental quality? --Fir0002 09:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's appropriate to suggest someones's vote shouldn't count because of a comment that could easily be facetious. Debivort 21:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 06:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centre Block of the Canadian Parliament
edit1: Perspective corrected

I found this majestic image of the main building of the Canadian Parliament by Steven W. Dengler. I've cropped out some stuff in the foreground and lightened it a bit from his original image. It seems to fit your criteria for featured images.

Yea that was a quick and dirty fix. This time it is slightly better but still not entirely perfect... --antilived T | C | G 10:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support edit 1 I don't like the bits and pieces that are left in the foreground of either version, but it seems like a good picture generally. Terri G 11:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose original, weak oppose edit 1 - There is something unnatural about the geometry of this building not totally corrected by the editing: horizontal lines are very slightly curved, which is disturbing to my eyes. That's why I don't normally appreciate wide-angle building photos or panoramas. Also, the colours are somehow washed out. Maybe be these are natural colours, but a slight saturation correction wouldn't do much harm. Alvesgaspar 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose original, oppose edit 1 Too many distracting objects make this a bit of a tourist shot. If we feature this, we better stick to the original though. ~ trialsanderrors 21:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak, weak support, original edit 1 is too far, but orig isn't enough. Reywas92Talk 21:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, too much foreground clutter. This picture could be improved by taking it from the other side of the street. Then you lose the road, the ugly yellow sign, the foreground rope and the two foreground pedestrians (although it's always a problem taking this building without people intruding into the photo — maybe an early morning photo in summer is what's really needed). Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both. Artifacts on the tower combined with low resolution. Noclip 05:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 06:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A B-1B Lancer sits on the ramp in the early morning at Ellsworth Air Force Base

I saw this photo and immediately liked it, so here it is. Its a public domain photo (USAF property), and appears in the article B-1 Lancer.

Not promoted --Fir0002 06:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wupatki Ruin, Wupatki National Monument, Arizona

This image provides a visually dramatic impression of the ruins of the eleventh century Wupatki Pueblo and its harsh environment. It is the principal illustration in the article Wupatki National Monument.


  • Nominate and support. - SteveMcCluskey 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Quite soft at this resolution, and I think it had been down sampled quite a lot and thus the original must have been very soft. Also makes me wonder what is to the left of the image and not the nothing-ness to the right. --antilived T | C | G 03:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also makes me wonder what is to the left of the image, but thats not your reason to oppose, is it? Hell, I could oppose any image with a makes me wonder whats behind the camera, except for 360 degree panos... The composition is fine, in full size you see it covers the whole complex and the right part is certainly not nothingness, but needed to show the circulat structures (whatever they are - BBQ pits?). But the shadows are too dark, making it hard to grasp the structure of those ruins. And the person on the left is doubled. --Dschwen 08:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well my wording is kinda confusing, it's just that I feel most of the parts on the right is nothing but nothing-ness, while the left part is busier but was cut off from the panorama, and thus I don't quite like the composition. --antilived T | C | G 09:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The soft colors are real: grey/green sage and pinkish orange sand, contrasted with the intense blue of the sky and white of the clouds. I didn't try to produce Kodachrome-like colors. To the left is an uninteresting park center -- a modern addition -- while to the right is the real nothingness of the distant Little Colorado river with circular and oval "ball courts" in the foreground. The composition was intended to place the pueblo in its environment and I think it does that. --SteveMcCluskey 14:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK I get you point but the softness is still there: you can't see any detail in the shrubs even though it (assuming it's stitched from multiple shots) had been downsampled quite a lot, which means it's soft in the originals and not much useful pixels in the photo. --antilived T | C | G 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. As Dshwen pointed out there are some doubled up people. Great shot though --frothT C 14:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. There are a lot of minor problems, including the blown clouds, dark shadows, stitching errors, and uneven composition (as Antilived explained) that add up to my weak oppose. --Tewy 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good res, interesting pic. Are somewhat dark clouds really that bad? Reywas92Talk 21:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Spherical distortion kills it, and could have been largely avoided if the main subject was framed a little more tightly. Levels problems too. --Dgies 06:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I believe it is cylindrical distortion I don't quite see how it kills the picture. There are almost no straight geometrical features on it. Are you opposed to panoramic images in general? --Dschwen 10:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've seen much worse distortion, but it is exaggerated by the hills and staircase on the left, and could be been reduced by cropping empty dirt on the right. I'm not opposed to panoramas, but if they can't keep the horizon horizontal it is very unreal looking. --Dgies 18:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The horizon is not flat, but it is not distorted; we're looking at a site with a lot of curved features. The sidewalk and staircase are curved to follow the natural contours. At the larger scale, on the left there are foothills, which are readily apparent, on the right we're looking across the valley of the Little Colorado river to the distant upslopes on the opposite side. For a good reference to the true horizontal, look at the flat under surfaces of the afternoon clouds.
In view of the comments, I could work up a version bringing out some of the detail in the shaded parts of the ruin. --SteveMcCluskey 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 06:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How eutrophication works in an estuary
How eutrophication works in an estuary (edit)

Very good diagram to illustrate Eutrophication, an excellent trace from Lycaon

  • Comment - As a benchmark re SVG format: On my G4 PowerBook (1.67GHz 2gB RAM), hardwired ethernet, Firefox 1.5.08, it took 21 seconds of browser paralyzed rendering for the full size version to appear. By comparison, less than 2 seconds for its image page to load, and 6 unparalyzed seconds to load the 3k x 2x full size Manarola nomination below Debivort 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, it takes a while to open. I am not the author of this svg, maybe he or she can help optimize the rendering time? --antilived T | C | G 06:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, takes a whooping 3 Seconds to render on my Athlon 64 (2.8GHz) in Konqueror using KSVG. If anything should be optimized, then its the Firefox renderer. --Dschwen 07:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha indeed! It took 3 seconds for me as well, but in Internet Explorer. Amazing. Debivort 08:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it took considerable time to open it in Inkscape is well. It is not THAT complex and shouldn't really make my Inkscape slow down to a crawl. --antilived T | C | G 11:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my Inkscape (0.44.1 on Linux) stays snappy as ever, no signs of a slowdown. I'm sure we could go on forever, bottom line is we obviously don't have an objective measure for the SVG rendering time :-) --Dschwen 08:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Less than 1 second on an Intel Core Duo 2.16ghz in firefox. It doesn't matter people, in 5 years firefox will be far improved and so will people's computers. --frothT C 14:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In 5 years, 7% of us will have died and be turning into dust. I'm not sure why this timescale is relevant to the discussion, but I think I get your point :-) Debivort 23:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Too decorated, like a children's illustration (the sun, the lettering, the animals,...). Would prefer a more sober and schematic drawing. Also, as Debivort says, the concept of eutrophication (the excessive accumulation of nutrients in the water) is not clarified in the picture (the same happens with the article...).Alvesgaspar 08:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. The text-shadow is a bit irritating at small sizes, but the sun is fine, I see no problem in making the illustration appealing. After all, kids are using WP as well... --Dschwen 09:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, amazing job, and all FP don't have to be betifull blue sky, Wikipedia have also many shemes, and we can be proud of this one. Yug (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Graphics OK, but the dropshadowed text is not. --Janke | Talk 15:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. Wonderful diagram! Sharkface217 01:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Doesn't tell me what eutrophication is... Pstuart84 Talk 10:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support that's the job of the article psturat --frothT C 14:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, the diagram must take some of the responsiblity for explaining the concept. However, there are technical errors also - look at the fecal pellets. If the circle is the zoomed area in the sea then the fecal pellets should be entirely contained within that circle, not deposited in the sky. Pstuart84 Talk 16:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Keen as I am to get more good quality illustrations of scientific topics, I think the shadowed text needs to go, the fecal pellets need to be inside the circle and the word eutrophication needs to be in there somewhere. Perhaps a change to the caption under the dead crab would be sufficient, ie mentioning the oxygen depletion (ie eutrophication) requires the sea life to escape or die? Also a change of arrow when pointing to features compared to inputs and outputs of the system would be good to prevent confusion. Terri G 11:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have tried to address all concerns in the new edit. Criticism welcome. Lycaon 20:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Eutrophication is an extreme situation, when the excess of organic matter causes oxygen depletion. That normally happens in still waters (swamps, for instance), not in open sea. That is not the situation illustrated in the image, where the waves suggest we are in the ocean and the accumulation of nutrients is being compensated by fresh water from rain and rivers, and the solution of new oxygen is being helped by turbulent mixing caused by wind and waves Alvesgaspar 09:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Looking at the diagram makes me think it's discussing O2 transport, not N/P/K transport. And why is there the "effect unquantized" comment on it? --Dgies 06:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that all criticism about the scientific content—and some of it is certainly justified—should be directed at the orginal makers (EPA, USDA, or whatever american institution that made the original drawing). I'm willing (and probable able ) to implement lots of changes. But just saying: this is bad and that is not good, etc. is not very helpful. Please add some constructive comments on how to improve the drawing. Lycaon 09:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would like to be more helpful but I don't know how. To illustrate eutrophication I would rather use a diagram of a swamp, with little depth, still water, lots of organic matter and maybe some discharges of polluted water. Alvesgaspar 00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Support The first one is to bright, but the second has some shading making better than the first one.--¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 17:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 06:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

im how and ready for you loving

Mexican Wolf
YFB edit 1 - reduced noise and boosted contrast
YFB edit 2 - as edit 1 + levels adjustment

A nice high resolution action shot.

Promoted Image:Mexican_Wolf_2_yfb-edit_1.jpg --Fir0002 06:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mona Lisa.

It seems self-evident that the Mona Lisa should be included in Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork. It is probably the best-known painting of all time. If someone finds something wrong with this version of the file, it should be easy to upload a better quality image.

Not promoted MER-C 07:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A large bee swarm congregating on a fallen tree

Perhpas not remarkable on aesthetics, this image is certainly remarkable in subject matter. This large swarm congregated on a fallen tree on a warm day in October. Good enc value and an unusual subject. Another angle of the swarm can be seen here: Image:Bee swarm on fallen tree.jpg

150mm so a little breathing space! --Fir0002 05:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics of Alzheimer's disease.

One of several images, featured in the Progress Report on Alzheimer's Disease 2004-2005 and displaying the five causes of AD (disintegrating microtubule, neurofibrillary tangle, cleaved beta-amyloid, amyloid plaque and loss of connections between neurons). Currently links to two articles, no retouching was done.

Not promoted MER-C 06:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Market Library in Greenwich Village, New York City, facing southwest from 6th Avenue.
Edit 1: Slightly straightened and color adjusted.
Edit 2: Edit 1 with added sky at the top

This image does a great job of illustrating Jefferson Market Library, and also happens to be a quite pleasing to the eye, at least to me. I love the composition with the tower on the right and 6th Avenue and the three taxis on the left.

It appears in Jefferson Market Library, Greenwich Village and Sixth Avenue (Manhattan).

Photographed by User:Kmf164.


  • Nominate and support. - -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 01:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Both I like both. They would be good featured pictures. Sharkface217 04:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The spire literally touches the edge of the frame, so composition isn't great. That alone is probably enough to seal a weak oppose, but there is perspective distortion (could be corrected) and poor sharpness too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I've fixed your first comment by adding some more sky (is that cheating?) with Photoshop. As to the perspective distortion, I don't have the skills to fix that. And by poor sharpness, do you mean it should be sharper? Becuase I can do that in about 4 seconds with Picasa. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 00:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that is just artificial sharpness. Sharpness really means resolution, which doesn't mean the number of of pixels in an image, but the ability to distinguish fine details. If you didn't capture it in camera, you cannot get it back in any way. --antilived T | C | G 09:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Awkward angle/perspective, scaffolding, crammed composition (not only the top, but also the bottom). And ack antilived about the acuteness. --Dschwen 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You sky replacement/extension seriously screwed up some details on the tower (strong oppose edit2). All versions have that high-rise about to top over in the background. --Dschwen 10:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I did it in a bit of a hurry Friday. I could probably do a little better job, but is it worth it? -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Honestly? No! Don't get me wrong, the picture is not crap, I'm sure it's a welcome contribution in the articles it's used. But the amount of work spent on this pic just trying to havde it pass FPC would be better invested in providing more pictures of Greenwich Village / NYC even if they only appear on commons. I'm fairly sure with some persistence and reshooting you can improve on some of the existing pics. --Dschwen 09:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William-Adolphe Bouguereau's The Nut Gatherers.
alternative from [1]

I was browsing through artwork images, found the FA of Dante and Virgil in Hell, and then came upon this gem. The painting is by William-Adolphe Bouguereau. It's quite the image, from its realism to its eerie sexuality. The softness of the full-size is from the artwork, not the scan.

Maybe I've been corrupted by art classes. But when going over his works, a huge emphasis in our texts and lectures was the sexual and provocative side to his works. Or maybe that was just my school? --Iriseyes 23:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I'm a computer science guy so I can't say I'm too schooled in art :) I guess I should stick with technical issues with FPCs --frothT C 00:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<inappropriate> I think it's inferred from the title of the piece. </inappropriate> Debivort 05:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She's holding nuts. And they're female. --frothT C 14:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - If we look here [36] we can confirm that the softness of the image is just the result of being out of focus (or, maybe, of resampling from a smaller picture), that is not Bouguereau style for sure. The same with the blown highlights in the sleeves. Alvesgaspar 08:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh that one is much better. Support that one if someone can get their hands on it --frothT C 14:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is. --Bernard 19:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bad jpeg artifacts though. --Bernard 19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Alvesgaspar 23:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Along the sharp edges, like the arms of the right girl. I am quite confident it's jpeg artifacts. --Bernard 00:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or in the left girl's left check - there's some checkering. :-( Debivort 08:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 06:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Niagara River cascading off Horseshoe Falls.
Edit 1: Cropped, re-colored.

The Niagara Falls article has a plethora of high-quality images, and I figured one of them should be featured. I think that this one, by Dylan Kereluk, adds the most encyclopaedic value by giving a close up view that captures the power and scale of the falls in a way that a wide shot of a tour boat beside them cannot.

  • Oppose I dont think the main subject is the stuff behind, the focus of the top is better than the water. User:Voshvoshka Dec 22, 6:23pm
  • Oppose both Not interesting enough. Sorry but the re-colouring has worsen the picture, the colour of the water is far from natural. Alvesgaspar 10:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian saffron threads from Iran.

While it may be a tad overexposed at the edges, I think this image still has high enc in that it shows the threads in high detail towards the center; appears in Saffron, and Rainer Zenz created the image

Besides, I don't get some of the oppositions here. ¿Why1991 states that is it encyclopedic, but opposes it because there "isn't anything special about it". Come on, being encyclopedic far outweighs one person not finding a photo pleasing. Not to mention the usefulness of this image, as it can be easily placed into one's design projects due to the white background.
Alvesgaspar says that this image doesn't have enough "encyclopedic relevance". Now, don't get me wrong, but there IS a saffron article, right?
antilived, as Dschwen pointed out, some shadow brings a necessary three-dimensional element to a two-dimensional photograph. The reason why you see little shadows on certain spots is simply because of the lighting angle and that saffron is so small that it is practically lying flat on the surface.
On the other hand, we have people like Arad supporting because "IT'S FROM IRAN!" Sorry for this long support, but I'm getting tired of seeing these kinds of responses to nominations. ♠ SG →Talk 06:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree that some of these reasons are questionable, and some probably should have explained their position better, but I think that Why1991 opposed because it lacked the "wow" factor some feel is necessary for FP, and I think Arad was kidding, and just didn't leave a real reason. --Tewy 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Iran saffron threads.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Death of General Wolfe, painted by Benjamin West, depicts British General Wolfe's death after his victory at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759.

The Death of General Wolfe, painted by Benjamin West in 1770, is probably the most often reproduced image of pre-confederation Canada. It depicts one of the absolute most important events in Canadian history: the battle that put French Canada under British rule. The image contributes to several key articles, such as British Empire, Canada, History of Canada, and Artistic licence, in addition to having its own article. In terms of quality, for a 200-year-old painting its resolution is quite good.

Oppose picture I would fully support this painting if the picture was a higher quality. Sadly, it is not. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backdropped by a colorful Earth, astronaut Robert L. Curbeam, Jr. (left) and European Space Agency (ESA) astronaut Christer Fuglesang, both STS-116 mission specialists, participate in the mission's first of three planned sessions of extravehicular activity (EVA) as construction resumes on the International Space Station. The landmasses depicted are the South Island (left) and North Island (right) of New Zealand.

I saw this image on the main page and instantly thought it should be a featured picture. It is very large (3032x2000), showing a lot of detail, and it is very pleasing to the eye in my opinion. The only negative I can see is that there are some blown highlights, but they aren't distracting to the subject. It is one of the best pictures from a Space Shuttle mission in recent years in my opinion. It is on the STS-116 page.

Promoted Image:STS-116 spacewalk 1.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High dynamic range image of New York City at night

In my opinion, this image shows the possibilities of high dynamic range imaging far better than this picture, which is currently a featured picture.

Not promoted MER-C 11:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous painting of Napoleon, it was painted by Jacques-Louis David. The names of Hannibal, Charlemagne (Karolus Magnus), and Bonaparte are engraved in the rock bellow, comparing him to Hannibal anc Charlemange
  • I did a google search on this pic and this is the best image I could find. I really like this painting of napoleon and I would like to see it as a FP. I can understand why people would have a problem with the quality but i decided to throw it out there for the heck of it. It is a 18th century painting after all. --Tobyw87 14:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings surrounding the World Trade Center were heavily damaged by the debris and massive force of the falling twin towers
Edit 1 by Howcheng: Downsampled to 1324px wide (max width of camera) and sharpened.

Great depiction of the 9/11 attacks; September 11, 2001 attacks

Not promoted Way too stale... MER-C 11:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meerkat, Melbourne Zoo
edit1

A detailed image which shows the entire animal and does not suffer (as did the ostrich photo) from blown highlights.

Not promoted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MER-C (talkcontribs).

Skyline panorama of New York City from Empire State Building.
Reason
Even though there are some problems with the stitching, I have seen much worse panoramas; the Microsoft Encarta panoramas look pretty bad compared to this one. I believe this is a picture of extraordinary value, hence my nomination.
Articles this image appears in
New York City, Empire State Building
Creator
Martin Dürrschnabel (Martin-D1 of de.wikipedia.org)
Nominator
Wutschwlllm
  • SupportWutschwlllm 21:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are clear visible edges (?) in the image, one for example 30% from left, the different parts have different colors also. the vertical resolution is a bit low for panoramas of this sort, should at least have a vertical resolution of 1000px. AzaToth 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Changing the thumbnail size does not make the actual picture any bigger. What AzaToth was talking about is demonstrated here. Also, in order for a picture to become featured, it must be at least 1000px in either the vertical or horizontal direction. This one is 7979x740 pixels, so it does meet the requirement in the horizontal direction. I've reduced the size of the thumbnail from 1000px (and that's actually the total amount of pixels, not just the number of pixels in one direction), so that it will fit on most screens. --Tewy 23:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret the requirement to be both 1000px vertical and horizontal resolution. AzaToth 23:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From part 2 of Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?: 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. There's that tiny little word "or" in there. So actually, if you come across a worthy image that is 1000px in just one direction, you can go ahead and nominated it (I too recently learned that it could be in either direction). --Tewy 23:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I just changed the size of the thumb, so that the image is a little bit better visible. In case of the 1000px rule, I'd go along with Tewy. In my opinion, this panorama conveys enough information in this resolution (although it is understandable that one would argue for a higher resolution; the question however is, if this image is good enough to be a featured picture and I'd say it is). -Wutschwlllm 01:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Something I forgot to mention is that in my opinion this panorama adds to the quality of both the New York and the Empire State Building articles enormously. In my opinion it is very interesting to see a panorama shot like this. -Wutschwlllm 01:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The 1000 pixel size is desirable but is not a "law" so, because this pic is so interesting to scan over, I support it. Any stitching errors do not spoil my enjoyment - Adrian Pingstone 23:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. (Dah! Two edit conflicts in a row...go figure). While there may be much worse panoramas, there are also better ones on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama for examples). I think this image's biggest problem is the different exposure times. The far left and the far right of the image, which include the same buildings, should look almost identical, but the left is much darker. There is also a bent horizon, but I'm not sure how readily that can be fixed. --Tewy 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Tewy. FP is for the best of the best. I can imagine this picture much better. tiZom(2¢) 00:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Roller coaster horizon, tilting buildings... i.e. very bad stitching. --Janke | Talk 06:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bad stitching, tilted verticals, bad choice of time of day/weather (shadows too hard, a (partly) overcast sky would be better), most of the buildings in shadow (which also indicates limited dynamic range), and the high-rises should be in the middle of the panoram for composition reasons. --antilived T | C | G 08:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also it's quite soft even though it had been downsampled (even my soft skytower panorama is sharper than that), lacking in vertical view angle (where it starts to get really annoying in stitching), and stitch outline uncropped in the top left corner... Just a list of faults I can list out of my head, you would have better chance using a better stitching software such as Hgin, or as someone reccommends, ptgui. --antilived T | C | G 08:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have always loved this detailed panorama ("I can see my office from here!") but the horizon makes me seasick. I'm sure there are worse stitching jobs than this, but not many. --Bridgecross 14:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose More than 360 degree panorama is confusing. Also, I assume the photographer must have walked around the observation deck as he took each shot; panoramas should be taken from a fixed position or it's easy to spot the distortion --frothT C 19:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In most places it is really impossible to take 360 degree panorama from one single point inside a building, the centre point is usually where the elevator is and even if you remove the elevator you would be so far away from the windows the view angle is very limited. --antilived T | C | G 00:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yeah, you'd have to climb to the top King Kong style. Nonetheless the quality like this is not acceptable for FP. The only way I see is settling for several smaller angle panos. --Dschwen 10:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is great! Ilikefood 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak but-not-so-weak support. Sure there are stitching problems...but it is unique and it is some of Wikipedia's best work. Definitely more imaginative than some view from Jersey City or Brooklyn's waterfront. Further, I can see my house from there, where I used to work, where I asked my girlfriend to marry me, etc. etc. etc. —ExplorerCDT 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Done to death, not a spectacular image despite spectacular subject. I suppose you could resolve the stitching problems even from multiple points by taking an excessive amount (like 50) of overlapping shots with a wide FOV, then stitching highly cropped versions. Regardless, an NYC skyline panorama taken from the river would probably illustrate the subject better anyway. Noclip 05:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The problems with this panorama are not as a result of parallax error. As long as you don't photograph anything particularly close to the building, the error is minimal and probably completely concealable. The main problem with this is simply that there is major curvature of the horizon. Where stitching faults exist, they are extremely minor. The weather is slightly ordinary too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't like how it's all spread out and the stitching together could make it seem counfusing since those things aren't really in line like that. --¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 01:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MER-C (talkcontribs).

File:Scostman1.jpg
4472 "Flying Scotsman" at Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, UK

I think this ticks all the boxes in terms of quality, resolution etc, but particularly the encyclopedic requirements. It appears in LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman. It is under a free licence and was produced by Michael J. Irlam.

Not promoted MER-C 11:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The video add significant value to the article (since it is the the only one to show shots from inside the plane) It is pleasing to the eye in that is is a plane crashing and catching fire (don't worry no one got hurt) as part of an experiment. It is historically-important because I don't think it is going to happen again. it appears in Controlled Impact Demonstration Created by NASA

If gif animations can be featured picture I don't see why not videos is well (although there should be a seperate Featured Video/Animation Candidates page for that. --antilived T | C | G 23:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Ogg is the standard format for videos on Wikipedia. Meniscus 00:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but wonder why not a "standard" standard is used - such as mpg or avi or wmw, accessible with almost all players... --Janke | Talk 00:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is the case if you use Windows. On Linux (well the distributions that don't include proprietary codecs anyways) the only thing you can play out of the box are oggs and flacs. WMV, AVI and others have patent issues and are not open and patent free like ogg and flac. --antilived T | C | G 01:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, it could be accessible on almost all windows players if they so chose, that's the point. Leon 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please remove your objection on these grounds. Ogg/Theora is the only video format we permit so it is unreasonable to oppose on that basis. Other more popular formats are patented and can't be legally implimented by free software in countries where the patents are valid (like the US). Sometime soon we'll have a built in browser based player for these videos, just like video sites such as Youtube. The player is already written, only the mediawiki integration remains to be done. Also, if you actually tried following our Media Help and had trouble, could you *please* provide some feedback? Because everyone who I've had sit down and try it says it works without a problem. --Gmaxwell 23:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can't see it either but you're right, it's a full fledged video not a gif so I don't think it should count as a picture. The gifs I've seen are generally moving or rotating representations of things that can be viewed as static, like car engines or a molecule rotating. This is clearly different.Simondrake 00:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree on that but the file format should not be used as the sole arguement for opposing something. Compare this and this, they basically show the same thing (zooming in on fractals), where does the line that seperate video and animation go? --antilived T | C | G 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but neither of them are Featured Pictures. I'm not sure that either version would pass. Besides, FPs need to be viewable on the main page as POTD (or at least, thats the idea). An OGG file requires an external player and does not integrate into the pages themselves. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That might be about to change. It has been discussed a while ago to use an existing Java OGG Player to allow video embedding. (if the toolserver weren't fracked righ now you could see a proof of concept here) --Dschwen 08:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We feature animations frequently and looks like a "series" of images will become featured. No harm in some flexibility. That said, there should be a parallel Featured Animation/Movie process. Debivort 02:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. I'll archive this discussion for now... The nomination can be renewed once we have a process for featuring videos. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Pinkerton, President Lincoln, and General John A. McClernand, Antietam, Maryland, October 3, 1862
Uncropped version.
An alternative view.

What struck me about this photo is the telling poses, expressions, and even stature and dress of these three men that seem to perfectly illustrate their relationship to each other and to the war itself. Even the way the spy (Pinkerton) is separated by the tent rope from the official, public face of the Civil War seems fitting. The major flaw of the photo is the blurring of Lincoln's face, but to me that's forgivable for an 1862 photo of historical significance -- the overall quality is otherwise high and I believe, along with the content, more than compensates for the blurr.

The photo is used to illustrate the Allan Pinkerton and American Civil War spies articles.

The photographer is unknown Alexander Gardner; the image was taken from [37]

  • Nominate and support. - Bobanny 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It just barely scraps by the size requirement. But the stuff on the edges bothers me. But if we cropped that out it would be too small. Hbdragon88 23:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Hbdragon88. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 04:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as uploader. The image is lacking in detail, so you really can't make out much of each face, and the interpretation that Bobanny is giving seems to read a little more into it than is shown. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pinkerton was a under rated as a historical figure, also I've never seen a picture of Lincoln standing before, that man was skinny!--Niro5 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tried cropping out the deteriorated edges, and it seemed to lose something more than just size, made the shape too square or something. In response to the other comments: I still believe it to be featured material. It's an 1862 photograph, and I think the image quality is fine for a non-studio, outdoor shot from that long ago in comparison to others I've seen. For comparison, see how much quality was forgiven in the Golden Spike featured picture from 1869. As for my interpretation, perhaps it is subjective, as interpretations tend to be, but the photo nevertheless is an excellent illustration of subject, however others wish to interpret it. A scan at a higher resolution would be nice, but as with the last spike photo, wouldn't do a lot to compensate for the technical flaws that are more to do with its age. Bobanny
Thanks for that link, Night Gyr, and for the photographer's name. I went there and found a high rez version and replaced it for the nomination. I cropped out the edges (more narrowly than my first attempt, looks fine now). I think that was the biggest problem with the original nominee.Bobanny 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you upload the original with the generic name, and add the crop as an edit? That way if someone needs to work off of the original, then it will be available to them. Thanks. --Tewy 23:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Comment. As the creator of the Alexander Gardner article (heh), I thought this looked familiar, yet the picture started out here unattributed. Turns out there's another version. This seems to have much less blurring. I request, if it's supported, that someone make a high-res, cropped upload of it to Commons from the source TIF (context link), for I don't have the software right now. –Outriggr § 06:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. So now there are three versions: 1) cropped 2)uncropped, and 3) alternative view. Bobanny 06:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looks like it's blurrier than I thought. (I don't investigate too deeply on this particular monitor and web connection...) –Outriggr § 09:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's good quality for such an old picture, and it has historical significance. Sharkface217 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good old Abe at his best. This is a fantastic picture that deserves FP status. I don't think wikipedia should have the policy of banning all images on the basis of them not having a high enough quality regardless of historical significance just because the technology didn't exist to create such images. The picture is very well done and adds to the history of one of our greatest presidents. I support the original edit. --Tobyw87 23:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support uncropped version Too historical to ignore. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I agree with Sharkface217. --RandomOrca2 00:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - Quality isn't bad for a photo taken outside in 1869. Pity about the blur of Lincoln's face though. I wonder if Fir fancies doing one of his famous retouch jobs to get rid of the worst of the dust? --YFB ¿ 02:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As much as I like Lincoln I really don't find this that spectacular a picture, and I'm not as convinced of the historical significance of this as many others seem to be - maybe if it had McClellan rather than McClernand in it the significance would be a bit higher. --jjron 12:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with Jjron here. This just a picture of three guys standing around, and the blurriness on one face really kills it. What are they doing? Having a chat? Planning a secret operation? Coincidentally all just standing in the same location? In other words, this image really tells me nothing except that the three men know each other. Now, I might support this if Lincoln publicly denied knowing Pinkerton or something and this served as proof that he did, but otherwise, it does't seem particularly noteworthy. howcheng {chat} 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support original cropped version. Seems like an interesting picture, but a bit blurred, but it's not like it could ever be taken again. Terri G 11:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For the reason given above. Absolute historic value and signifigance outweigh slight technical issues that simply cannot be fixed without a new (and impossible to get) photo. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again I can't determine which image should be promoted. If there are three images up there, just saying 'support' doesn't really help :) Raven4x4x 05:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:PinkertonLincolnMcClernand.jpg Raven4x4x 01:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Hine's Power house mechanic working on steam pump (1920), an iconic depiction of industrial work and masculinity
File:Lewis Hine Power house mechanic working on steam pump edit.jpg
Edit 1 by Fir0002, cleaned, downsampled, slight sharpening/contrast

This is an iconic Lewis Hine photograph from 1920, created for the Works Progress Administration. It appears in the articles Lewis Hine, Masculinity, Survey Graphic, and Mechanic. I added the following caption:

Lewis Hine's 1920 Power house mechanic working on steam pump, one of his "work portraits", shows a working class American in an industrial setting. The carefully posed subject, a young man with wrench in hand, is hunched over, surrounded by the machinery that defines his job. But while constrained by the machinery (almost a metal womb), the man is straining against it—muscles taut, with a determined look—in an iconic representation of masculinity.

Yea, I had realized the WPA association was wrong (it's just in the WPA archives); that's no longer in the Commons caption. Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out where it was published. Not in the Survey Graphic, which started in 1921; probably The Survey, but I have found no evidence.--ragesoss 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I don't have any good arguments for keeping the caption except that I find analytical captions very helpful, and the photographer's original intent is not the final word on how images are read by viewers. If someone wants to change the caption, be my guest.--ragesoss 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one comment on the edit? I'll have to move this to the 'further input' section. Raven4x4x 05:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Lewis Hine Power house mechanic working on steam pump.jpg Raven4x4x 01:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf spider focus bracket, consisting of 8 images taken at f/11 and composed in Photoshop
Single frame of the series
The last frame in the series

I'm rather proud of this image as it has largely overcome the huge problem of shallow DOF in very close macro work. This image was taken at almost my lens' minimum focal distance (1:1 macro) and a single image taken at f/11 would show only the very top of it's head in focus with the rest rapidly declining into a blur. By taking a focus bracket I was able to achieve nearly prefect DOF without the problems of diffraction caused by very small apertures (f/22 and beyond). I had to taken several series before I was able to shoot the entire set without the subject moving (yes he was definitely alive!).
The image not only illustrates a Wolf Spider well, it provides an interesting illustration for the Depth of Field and macro photography articles.

I thought someone would bring this up - including the legs would have meant that a focus bracket would have been largely unnecessary (the spider has long legs) and therefore this image wouldn't have been usefull in illustrating this technique. Also the extreme closeup provides an interesting look at the spider's face. --Fir0002 07:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind missing the legs, but I'd prefer seeing the whole opisthosoma, if that's the word. ~ trialsanderrors 07:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, natural light (sunlight) and a shoe mounted flash --Fir0002 07:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose, I'd prefer an image that shows the whole body, but damn that's detailed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm willing to support this picture as a very good enc illustration of focus brackting when it is put in the right article and a proper reference is made to it in the text. This does not happen in the articles on depth-of-field and macro photography, where the photo is just a "decorative" element. Alvesgaspar 12:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see why a reference needs to be made in the text, the image is perfectly in context with the article and contains an explanatory caption. --Fir0002 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In scientific texts it is a common practise to refer to and discuss all figures, since they are used exclusively to illustrate concepts or to show results, never to decorate. This way the attention of the reader is drawn to them at the proper time and details that may not be easily perceived or understood are explained. In the present case, and following Dschven suggestion, it seems you will have to re-write the article on bracketing ;-). Alvesgaspar 09:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Actually I already tried to move the picture arond to the appropriate sections. But I didn't notice that it wasn't even used in the bracketing article. Anyway, its use in the main article Photography was the most purely decorative of them all and thus I removed it from that article. The use in Insect is questionable too, as the capion basically just says this is not an insect :-). Well, its a really nice picture, but I think Fir got a little overly enthusiastic, sticking it in any article possibly imaginable (except for the bracketing article, oh irony). If this is put in bracketing, could some pictures from the focus series be uploaded too, to illustrate the composition process? That woul make a really great addition! --Dschwen 13:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note the context in the article (Insect): Other terrestrial arthropods, such as centipedes, millipedes, scorpions and spiders, are sometimes confused with insects. Thanks for pointing out the bracketing page - I had no idea it existed and the image now resides there. I'll try upload an image from the series sometime today --Fir0002 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, but isn't this picture a bit too special for that purpose? After all it just shows the body of one spider, not even the legs, largely contributing to its overall appearance. Let's either replace it with a more representative pic, or remove it to avoid confusion. --Dschwen 09:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, because legs are cut off - that hurts! (The enc, that is... :-) Manual stitching, I assume? Impressive, even though it is not perfect. (Will reconsider vote if Dschwen's suggestion above is fulfilled.) --Janke | Talk 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - It's an amazing image, but I really want to see what the legs look like in that detail. --Arctic Gnome 19:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I like the extended depth of field, but the legs are cut off, and the double shadows are unattractive. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Uploaded a single frame --Fir0002 01:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think those opposing this image because "the legs are cut off!" are missing the point. A great illustration of focus bracketing - maybe a three-image composite with a close focus, far focus and the bracketed shot would be an even better way to show the effect? --YFB ¿ 03:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very reluctant Neutral. Used in the spider article, it has a problem with leg cropping. Used in a photo article, is not as illustrative as it should be because it only shows the final product. A mosaic showing the different frames and their composite would be more illustrative. It's so nice I'd like to see it for POTD, but it's not quite the perfect photo for any article. --Dgies 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What about a Brady Bunch-style compilation, with the composite image in the middle?--ragesoss 05:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Anyway, even if this pic now illustrates the Wolf spider article I think it deserves FP for its excellent technical quality. Why does every FP have to show the entire animal? Close-ups focussing on certain body parts have just as much value (if not more). --Dschwen 09:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The only thing I do like is the high quality but I would like it better on like a rock or something outdoorsee, and a full body shot.--¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 03:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. WOW! That's amazingly detailed. This is stunning! Great job! Ilikefood 18:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Compiled as a series
Different assembly sequence
  • Support the series. Very good illustration of focus bracket. However, I would prefer having the final picture in the last frame. It seems more logical to me to have the first photo of the set (focus on top), followed by the last one, and then the final result after combining the frames. Glaurung 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Series if it is put in the focus bracket article. There, it has high enc. --Janke | Talk 09:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support whatever arrangement of the source images and final composite that everyone thinks is the best. I think it does a wonderful job of illustrating the bracketing article, and therefore the leg argument has little significance in this nomination. But of course, Fir, if you really wanted to blow people away, you could pick a smaller specimen that allowed for extremely close-up macro photography and showed the subject in its entirety. --Tewy 23:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any series. It is an excellent illustration of the technique. Alvesgaspar 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moved series as a seperate nom to help clarify position --Fir0002 07:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Forgive my amateur attempt, but would something along these lines help explain the focus bracket concept? Pstuart84 Talk 12:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, but personally I don't think it would be very enc as the process of combining the images is much more complex then rectangular sections (it involves manually erasing away between two layers and finding the points where the focus in one image ends and where the second image begins). I appreciate that what you have made is just a simplified representation, but all the same I can't say I'd prefer it - but others may disagree --Fir0002 22:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit with focus areas

Promoted Image:Wolf spider focus bracket series02.jpg Raven4x4x 01:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Eastern Grey Squirrel eating a nut in the safety of a tree in St James's Park, London
Edit 1 by Fir0002, removed background branch

I took this about a month ago and thought it might be worthy of nomination but never got around to it. Its a sharp, detailed and very encyclopaedic image of an Eastern Grey Squirrel for the following reasons. You can see almost every major part of the Squirrel - The paws, feet/claws, bushy tail, typical food (well, in a park!) and typical habitat (a tree). And above all, it is also really cute. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Eastern Grey Squirrel in St James's Park, London - Nov 2006 edit.jpg Raven4x4x 01:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Bridge in London at twilight, viewed from the North East side
Current Featured Picture
You asked, I delivered!

I realise that I already have a FP of this subject, but I feel that compositionally and artistically this is a superior image. I just really like the atmosphere of this shot. The resolution is far lower though as it is only a four segment panorama (not ~50 as in the previous FP, which is the largest panorama I've ever made, by the way!) but obviously resolution isn't everything. This one is 2500x1265 so it should be enough detail. If necessary, I'm happy for the previous FP to be delisted, but as both images have different strong points (composition vs detail), perhaps it isn't necessary.

  • Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support whichever version that Diliff thinks is best , even if it's the queen version. I like the older one better: it has a non-distracting, easy on the eye sky (a very saturated blue sky is just a bit too much...), the light is softer and less perspective distortion. --antilived T | C | G 01:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually there is more perspective distortion on the other one.. Look at the lean on the bridge supports. And the sky was actually like that.. I didn't increase the saturation at all. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I understand what you mean by perspective distortion, sorry. I'm assuming you mean the difference in height between each tower - I was just slightly closer to the bridge so the camera is looking 'up' at the bridge somewhat more. In terms of distortion though, I still maintain that the previous image is less corrected - it leans towards the middle somewhat. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 02:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yea the old one is more of an eye level shot and also more frontal than this one. I didn't say the sky is fake but just that it is not a very good background to it, too distracting and tiring to the eye. Also the new one still looks a bit tilted upward to me. --antilived T | C | G 08:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with you Diliff. Although the older FP has more detail and sort of looks better in thumb view (IMHO), this one has far more better composition, and the position of the camera is better plus there is no distracting boat on the river. And of course, it's made by Diliff. --Arad 08:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I posted the current FP for direct comparison. ~ trialsanderrors 09:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I prefer colors, sharpness/resolution, homegeneous lighting, and neutral/soothing background of the existing FP a lot compared to the new one. --Dschwen 10:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I prefer the much higher resolution of the other one, but looking at it closer today I noticed an unusual area of blurriness - perhaps a restitch? Have a look at this crop: Image:Tower Bridge London Feb 2006 crop.jpg. Also by replacing the previous FP from it's position on the Tower of London article and putting it into the gallery section, the old FP is really contributing significantly to any article --Fir0002 11:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that was noted during the original nom and is an out of focus constituent-image. --Dschwen 11:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is a reasonable expectation in order for one image to replace another as FP, it has to also replace its significance to the article. If this nomination fails, I will move the original image back again. Even if someone were to anal-retentively nominate the original image for delisting due to new-found lack of contribution to the article, I would imagine they would also take into account this nomination and its progress. Seems like a bit of a non-issue at this point in the process. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some of us have certainly thought about that but no one dared to suggest: what about putting the sky of the 1st picture into the second one?... Alvesgaspar 14:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yikes! You do realize the two pictures are shot in opposite directions? So if you are hell-bent on swapping the sky you might as well take any random sky, and f*** up the enc just as much. Apart from technical considerations (the first pic having a much lower res than the second) there would also be a weird color mismatch. --Dschwen 15:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am still convinced that the English Wikipedia is the right place to find some sense of humour and politness. One exception is not enough to make me think the other way. Alvesgaspar 16:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This image would clearly pass if nominated on its own. I won't stand in the way of Diliff swapping the old one out if that's what he thinks is best. Also, its pretty rare and sweet to see an image in which there is actual detail at the 1-pixel scale! Debivort 16:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support I completely agree with this statement, and prefer the newer to the older as well. Preceding comment added by Jellocube27 04:32 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I find the dome on the left side of the bridge distracting. - Mgm|(talk) 17:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great shot! Sharkface217 20:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends :-) - I'd support the addition of this as a new FP independent of the first, so long as they're both in the Tower Bridge article with captions reflecting a) the enormous resolution of the original FP and b) the fact that they're different views and some comment on the major landmarks in the background. I'd oppose the delisting of the old and/or replacement by this image, as I actually prefer the sky in the original and I'd hate to see such a stunningly detailed image, which I regard as one of the best featured pictures, removed from the list. --YFB ¿ 03:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per YFB; I wouldn't recommend a delisting, as I prefer the current FP's sky and resolution to the nominee. --Tewy 03:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Come on, we have to choose, it is ridiculous to have both as FP! And between the gorgeous sky of the first and the amazing resolution of the second, I choose the actual FP(pity that Dilif didn't accept my suggestion ;-) ). Alvesgaspar 00:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree - why should two FPs of the same subject, under different lighting conditions and showing completely different views, be any more ridiculous than having three Space Shuttle FPs, two koala FPs, two house sparrow FPs, two crepuscular rays FPs, two aerial-view-of-cyclone FPs... ? --YFB ¿ 02:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhm, we already have even more similar FPs... --Dschwen 10:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with YFB and Dschwen for lawyerly reasons. We often resort to strict interpretations of the FPC criteria when arguing about controversial images - for consistency's sake, we should follow them here, and they say nothing about subject redundancy. That said, I don't mind defering to the creator's preference. Debivort 19:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tower bridge London Twilight - November 2006.jpg Raven4x4x 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Virgin and Child with St Anne and St John the Baptist.
A smaller, less frothy alternative

I figured since that since the Mona Lisa nomination below isn't likely to go through below, I should try my hand with one which may; the main motivator being that I believe there are too few featured artworks on Wikipedia so far.

This is another Da Vinci. I don't think I need to argue for quality or significance of the painting. To my eye the scan seems fine; I corrected the colours so it's more vivid than the original ARC version. The detail is such that individual charcoal strokes are visible. There are different levels of "completeness" — it appears the cartoon wasn't finished as the outlines are unpricked — hence Leonardo's creative processes are to a small extent transparent.

It appears in articles as a fantastic example of a Cartoon, and of course as itself in The Virgin and Child with St Anne and St John the Baptist.

  • weak support less frothy edit1, per froth. This was a bit of a tough decision - I felt there was still some scan noise, but as has been pointed out, it could be in the original. Furthermore, the nomination suffers from the problem of being too high resolution - like many nominations in which people complain that the original 4k x 4k image is "blurry" when they wouldn't complain at all about a 1k x 1k downsampled version. If this one was down sampled even more agressively to barely meet the min resolution requirements, I think it would pass with flying colors. I don't think it should be downsampled further though - I think it's best to pass a nominee with as much resolution as possible, and it looks like this one will pass. Debivort 04:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Don't forget the original drawing is decaying and itself seems grainy. But I remember the colors being far less luminous?. Maybe use a very faded smart blur and desaturate a little? --JonM 02:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Leonardo_-_St._Anne_cartoon-alternative-downsampled.jpg Raven4x4x 01:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False color Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter image of a side of the Chasma Boreale, a canyon in the polar ice cap of the North pole of Mars. Light browns are layers of surface dust greys and blues are layers of water and carbon dioxide ice. Regular geometric cracking is indicative of higher concentrations of water ice.
edit 1

This is an aesthetically pleasing image of a very awe inspiring subject - an ice canyon on another planet. It illustrates the layering of the ice cap and shows evidence for the presence of liquid water in a way that text alone could hardly match. It is very high resolution, and free from artifacts. In fact, I downsampled it from an original 4000 x 10000px because the upload seemed unable to handle a 21MB file. It appears in Planum Boreum. Created by NASA so no copyright.

  • Good call. I'll try an edit later tonight. Debivort 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it seems like some of the CCD elements are variably sensitive, leading to darker or lighter red streaks during the orbital scanning. I guess there won't be much servicing of the instrument, sadly. I did some adjustments to the red channel, and reduced the streakiness, especially in the dark regions. Debivort 02:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or just make the pictures wider... --antilived T | C | G 09:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, that's too easy ;-) --Dschwen 10:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was to put the HiROC description on the image page itself. MER-C 12:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose — sorry for the late comment, 1st: wasn't it more metadata in the original image? 2nd: where can we get the original image; 3rd: why this small image? wouldn't it be better to have a more "normal" format? i.e. does this kind of image need this formaT? 4th: what "in laymens" word do we look at? AzaToth 00:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I'm not sure what a lot of this comment means. I mean, is 4k x 10k small? and what is abnormal about it? and #4 totally confuses me. But also, is it kosher to add either an oppose or a support after the week of nomination? I don't think it will make a difference here - 6 supports 2 opposes 1 weak oppose, but it is close. Properly, the nomination should already be closed right? Debivort 00:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:MRO image of Mars North Pole.jpg Raven4x4x 01:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers practice with their rifles during a live fire exercise

Three soldiers armed with assault rifles engage in target practice during a two-day live-fire exercise. PD picture, currently used in the article live fire exercise.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A hawk (juvenile red-tailed hawk — Buteo jamaicensis) eating its prey (California meadow vole — Microtis californicus).
Postproc (edit0)
Edit 1, by Fir0002
Edit 2, by Fir0002 - reduction of sharpening near tail as per Dscwhen's comments
Edit 3, by Fir0002 - lightening
Reason
It's a good and shocking image, shows how brutal the nature can show it's self. it's currently also nominated on commons, and I belive that the added criteria on wikipedia for featured pictures is valid for this picture.
Articles this image appears in
Death, Predation
Creator
Steve Jurvetson
Nominator
AzaToth
PS don't forget the fac tag. Terri G 17:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed AzaToth 17:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that this image is an exception of §1 of WIAFP in that concern. AzaToth 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Agree with AzaToth, the enc value largely compensates for any minor technical flaw. But I won't show it to my children... Alvesgaspar 23:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support How in the world did you get that good of a picture and angle?? I like how you can see the mouse's eyes WIDE open.--¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 03:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yum, yum. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Apparently the mouse didn't see that coming. Not the best way to get ahead in life.. Thats a bit spineless of me to say from the comfort of my desktop though.. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A bit of unnecessary space on top, but a great shot! Happy I'm not a mouse - or am I? [39] --Janke | Talk 11:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent choice, AzaToth, quite the killer photograph. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm very puzzled. We have a lot of supports here for an out-of-focus picture. You all seem to have been overwhelmed by the wonder of the picture itself and have ignored the fact that FPCs are expected to be in first class focus no matter how hard the pic may have been to acquire. At the moment a blurred pic seems certain of FPC status, something that I cannot remember having happened before! Really weird!! - Adrian Pingstone 13:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mh, if you'd downsample it to a 1000px in height I bet it'd look sharp. Anyways, I wouldn't go as far as saying the bird is out of focus. It is jus a bit soft. And some features (edge of the wing) suggest its not a focus issue, but camera jitter due to the use of a strong telephoto lens. Lots of exceptions have been made from the rules for pictures which cannot easily be retaken, be they historic, or - like this one - of rare spectacular events. Thus, it gets a weak support from me. --Dschwen 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Dschwen. It looks about as I would expect under the circumstances. I suspect it is cropped significantly from the original image. A lot of the time, we downsample an image prior to uploading it for the benefit of perceived sharpness. That doesn't meant there is actually more detail. In this case, I don't think it has been downsampled so it will always be softer than we're used to and is probably slightly motion blurred as the shutter speed isn't particularly fast for the focal length. As Dschwen mentioned though, consider the sharpness at minimum resolution and I think you'll find it acceptable. Not ideal, obviously, but acceptable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent composition makes up for any lack of focus in the background. Off with 'is 'ead! --Bridgecross 14:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The picture is superb, and describes a predator clearly. The details, although not sharp, are still clear enough to see the hawk with the vole's head in its mouth, as the vole's body and organs fall to the ground. --RandomOrca2 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now I am really curious about what will be the responce to this picture when it is featured in main page... --antilived T | C | G 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Look at this in the thumbnail, which is about how it would look like on the main page. The mouse being eaten is not very noticeable. The bulk of the frame is out-of-field background, jittery near background, and a slightly blurry photo of a hawk. The actual area of interest is only perhaps 700x1000, and blurry at that. If we downscale the picture to fix the blur, then the "featurable" part of the photo would clearly fail the resolution test. Basically, it passes the resolution test by the letter of the law, but fails in spirit. I suggest that if this is promoted, the POTD thumbnail should be taken from a smaller region so people have some idea what they're looking at. --Dgies 05:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1. Great capture --Fir0002 10:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • On the off chance of sounding picky, but although the noise removal in the background is very nice, it is not necessary/overdone on the dirt in the fg. More importantly the bird gets posterized and the feathers loose subtle color nuances. Check the tail feathers, and look at the beak and eye, those look like they were painted with 4 colors now. Could you maybe create another edit? Pleeease? --Dschwen 10:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See if Edit 2 is more to your liking, but what I think you are referring to as posterization is the effect of sharpening/haze cutting --Fir0002 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, it's an improvement on the tail and the foreground. If you could tone it down like that for beak and eye it would be great. But you might want to hold off for now, as the original might be provided.--Dschwen 23:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with Dschwen (starting to sound like a fanboy) again. Not sure that the bird looks posterized, but certainly it looks a bit worse in the edit. I'll have a go at processing it tonight. I'd really like to get a hold of the original (preferably RAW), but I'll see what I can do with this. It looks about 1/3 stops overexposed and this could be corrected better from the RAW file. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original. Please, please, PLEASE stop adding more than one edited version of the original image. As differences are only stylistic and often the "best" edit is chosen by personal preference, multiple minor edits sabotage the image's chances of being featured by lessening the likelihood of consensus on any one edit, thereby failing an image which would have otherwise achieved consensus. Noclip 04:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting here that whenever I close a nomination I try to never let that happen. If I see a nomination with lots of support but no clear consensus on which edit I move it to the "requiring additional input" section. I will admit, however, that seeing five different version here depressed about the thought of having to close it... Raven4x4x 07:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can sympathise, but I agree that it would still get the required supports to avoid failing FP nomination.. The question is simply of minimising the unnecessary edits. The hard part is determining redundant edits and removing them from the nomination for simplicity. The trouble is when someone comes in, supports a particular edit and then promptly disappears from the discussion. If that edit was subsequently determined to be redundant, where would the new vote go? Maybe we can bring this to the FP talk page? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Brrr.--Eloquence* 06:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was certain this photo was fake, the mouse head just looks really unnatural and kind of pixelated. But after viewing this set of photos on flickr, it seems a rather more probable photo. It still looks fake, but I'll admit it probably isn't. Not only is this behavior (decapitation) routine, the repeated discarding of intestines is also described. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. -Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 10:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It brings to mind a photoshop job because the mouse head is separated from its usual context, like what happens when you cut-and-paste in an image editor. Decapitated heads look unnatural! Redquark 14:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest that if it is promoted, we use a cropped thumbnail like this for the main page POTD so that people can see what the subject really is. --Dgies 16:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggested main page POTD thmbnail
  • Support. Not sure if my vote counts, but this is my favorite photo. In the next frame, she swallows the head whole. It is real (I can prove this via email to any curious people. You can email me at SteveJ@boxbe.com). The photo is cropped but not photoshopped. The background is blurry because of the depth-of-field. It is an intended effect to remove visual distraction. The bird and prey are in tack-sharp focus on my original. I wonder if you have a blurry version from someone else's post-processing? I re-sent the original to AzaToth on this list. I do have an interesting post-processing version done by Barry Schuler. I sent that to AzaToth too.

The photos on this page do look a little blurry to me. Here is a link to the original: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=226587515&size=o --jurvetson

Here is the image Jurvetson sended to me: thumb|right|200px AzaToth 19:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Hawk eating prey.jpg Raven4x4x 01:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The 28.6 mile (46.03 km) long Paulins Kill drains an area of 177 square miles (458 square kilometers) in northwestern New Jersey and is part of the Delaware River watershed."
Edit 1 by Janke, higher contrast
Reason
This is probably the best and most comprehensive map I've seen in my 2.5 years editing Wikipedia. I believe it meets or exceeds all the criteria listed at Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?, especially condition no. 3. This is an image that "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work." The article this image is used in, Paulins Kill is currently a candidate for Featured Article status
Articles this image appears in
Paulins Kill
Creator
User:JimIrwin
Nominator
ExplorerCDT
  • SupportExplorerCDT 00:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Prepare to be barraged with 'needs to be .svg' opposes. Good map though, IMO. 195.92.168.163 00:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Low contrast, and yes, not in SVG. --Tewy 03:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don 't care about svg or png, but contrast is an issue (unless the area is steeped in perpetual fog). Also, when clicking on Image:Paulins Kill.png I expect to be able to read at least the labels for the key features of the map. Having to look at the full-sized image is too cumbersome. ~ trialsanderrors 08:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I do care about SVG (at least provide the source somewhere), but size and contrast are the more pressing issue here, making it hardly legible. --Dschwen 09:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Map generalization taken too far, resulting in a representation with poor detail, not only in specific thematic information (rivers, lakes, etc.) but also in general geographic information (roads, elevations, etc.) . Also, too small and poor choice of colours. Alvesgaspar 10:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose original, neutral for own edit. Agree with above opposes. However, to show the difference a higher contrast provides, I uploaded an edit. Some of the tan-colored text which was very hard to read in the original is now much clearer. Unfortunately, other text has become a bit too strong, especially the blue. (BTW, SVG is a better format, since it is scalable, thus much more useful. However, the file format should not be the sole cause for an oppose.) --Janke | Talk 10:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's another problem with PNG. You can't correct colors, contrast, etc. without treating it like a photograph. --Tewy 19:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a rasterized image, you can't do anything to it without treating it as a photograph - this is not a specific property of color or contrast adjustment - two processes that are easier to do to a photo than vector elements, in my experience. Debivort 05:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for revised version by JimIrwin Edit 1. Ruhrfisch 14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure of the etiquette for revisions based on the comments, (or even the etiquette for adding comments like this), but I uploaded a new version of the map with improved contrast to the original page. It is similar to the version created by Janke, without some of the harsher effects of doing the contrast modification with an image tool. As for SVG, I don't have tools that will properly convert the GIS map to SVG. When I attempted it, I obtained a 33 MB SVG file that tooks many minutes to render in Firefox, which is obviously unacceptable. Thanks for the suggestions for improvement. JimIrwin 22:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • png -> svg conversion is not a trivial process. It involves manually trace all the shapes of the png into vector lines and curves, and most automatic conversion algorithms today doesn't produce acceptable, and definitely not FP quality svg. --antilived T | C | G 03:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • sounds like Jim Irwin was trying a second export from the map database, rather than a conversion. Maybe we could get that 33MB version into the hands of an SVG fan who could pare it down a bit? Debivort 05:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

View of the Chicago River at night.

This was an incomplete nomination. So I do not know the rational behind it. It's included in Chicago and Chicago river among other, and was taken by a wikipedian User:Kkmd.

Here is the nomination for the larger version. --Tewy 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Capsicum and cross section

Taking up on the suggestions offered on my onion FPC nom, I created this image of a red capsicum and a cross section. It has a high enc value and in my eyes is aesthetically pleasing with a clean white background and soft shadows

Oh the lighting was nothing fancy (I need an umbrella flash!) - backlight with natural light, fill flashed with a shoe flash. I put tissue paper over the shoe flash to diffuse the light a bit. --Fir0002 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Red capsicum and cross section.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Strip at sunset during the 2006 Holiday Season.
Cropped
Reason
Great night time picture, the quality and image content is comparable to comercial images sold in tourist shops. The image adds siginificantely to the articles on which it is posted.
Articles this image appears in
Las Vegas, Nevada, Boulevard, Casino, Hotel, Nevada, The Las Vegas Strip
Creator
Brendel
Nominator
SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS
All of it or just the left-hand side? SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 21:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I cut off the blurry left hand side. I of course don't think it's that blurry (;-)) as I am able to count the floors on buildings and am able to identify objects such as windows and cars. SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 02:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you upload the original again, but without overwriting? That way if someone wants the uncropped version they can access it. Thanks. --Tewy 04:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 04:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might also consider uploading to Commons. It allows a single uploaded image to be used in all the projects, and in all the languages, not just the English Wikipedia (See this). --Tewy 04:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If have given the commons a try recently and have every intend of uploading this an a couple of other pictures to the commons. Thanks for the tip! Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought that's the best format in which to save a picture. Why, would JPEG be better? Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 16:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PNG is lossless, so it doesn't compress the image at all, resulting in a relatively large file size. JPEG compresses the image, creating a smaller file size, but can introduce compression artifacts as a side effect. And actually now that I think about it, I wonder how you managed to introduce artifacts to the cropped version if it was saved in PNG... --Tewy 19:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info! SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 22:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this is an encyclopedia, so if you don't know something, read the article! :-) --Tewy 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, I could have just looked up PNG vs. JPEG (lazy me ;-)) SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme oppose as a featured picture candidate; may I be frank, but this picture is a disgrace to full view, large-resolution images! I mean, it looks better in the small view! Neither the original nor cropped images are up to expectations of a large image. It's a good shot, but the image quality turns me off. Even in PNG format, the cropped version looks worse than the original version. In my estimation, this picture is not of featured material. Sorry. -- Altiris Exeunt 03:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, it is not that bad. I can see the windows in Ceaser's Palace and count the floors, in a building that was over 2 miles away form the location where the picture was taken. There are post-cards being sold where you can't even count the floors on relatively distant buildings. SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to compare this to some very clear night shots, see User:Diliff's page (Under "My featured pictures"). --Tewy 03:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, until now my main reference point were post-cards in drugstores ;-) -in which my case my pic doesn't look bad at all. I am an amature photographer, not a prof, but I am able to see that those pictures are sharper than mine. I do. however, have two or three more pictures that I will nominate in the fututre, they are all day pictures and I think blurriness won't be a problem with them. Thanks for your help! Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brendel, perhaps you should shoot the picture as a PNG image, if that is possible. Doing so should help greatly. My main problem with the picture is the fragmentation. If you can try to reduce the fragmentation that occurs with almost every JPEG image, I think you'll get my vote. -- Altiris Exeunt 14:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

taken by Sandra Fenley, Uploader:Googie man

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

View through a sniper scope.

Discovered on the page telescopic sight. Uploaded by User:Jellocube27 and released into the public domain.

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Dove

My personal favourite out of all the fantastic images I've seen from Nature's Pics so far. The picture shows an amazing capture of a midflight Rock Dove or Rock Pigeon.

Oh I'm only counting the ones I uploaded from Natures Pics --Fir0002 22:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Rock dove - natures pics.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]