Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ThirteenthGreg (talk | contribs) at 12:03, 30 August 2006 (→Current nominations: - added Repulse Bay). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the common saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria.

If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the nomination for delisting section.

For promotion, if an image is listed here for seven days with four or more supporting votes (including the nominator), and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus in Featured picture candidates is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support. Note however that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are votes of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close votes will be made on a case-by-case basis.

The archive contains all votes and comments collected on this page, and also vote tabulations.

To see recent changes, purge the page cache
Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Nomination procedure

If you wish to add an image to this page please see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nomination Procedure

Supporting and opposing

  • If you approve of a picture, write Support followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed.
    • To change your vote, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

Votes added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not give any reasons for the opposition. This is especially true if the image is altered during the process. Editors are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.

Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.

Evaluating dark images

In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.

Editing candidates

If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g. add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (eg, Edit 1, Edit 2, etc) and describe the modifications that have been applied.

To see recent changes, purge the page cache
Your comments are also appreciated on images at Picture peer review.

Current nominations

ThirteenthGreg

 
This is a 180 degree panorama shot of Repulse Bay (Hong Kong), taken from the well-known building with a hole through it.

This photo is a clearly-constructed panorama photo of a well-known bay in Hong Kong, famous for its view. What makes it additionally interesting is that it was taken from the building up on the hill which has a hole through it - another Hong Kong landmark. It has been used to support the Repulse Bay article.

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 23:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herzegovina

 
Herzegovina in spring
File:Hercegovacko Neretvanski kanton - edit.jpg
Edit to remove powerlines

This is my image that i took during my visit to Herzegovina. Truly beutifull landscape that everybody should see, and even visit! It appears in Herzegovina article. It is geographical, historic and beautifull region! Subject of the picture is to show how beutifull Herzegovina is, and there is no much words to explain that - image tells 1000 words, and i want to express that everybody must see and visit!

I, HarisM, created this image.

Thanks in advance for any vote!

Note: Some of this debate seem to be on another page: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hezegovina, I have moved content from there to here. HighInBC 01:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just uploaded and linked up a version without the powerlines in it, though that may be going to far in terms of how far an FP should be edited in post production. Cat-five - talk 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For once I don't support the removal of the powerlines. I think taking them out is really distorting reality too far - it's one thing to get rid of an ugly man standing in the corner of the shot or a couple of tiny pink poles. It's another to get rid of what is obviously a permanent, and prominent feature of a landscape. Stevage 08:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like that original photo stays, and if someone like please support it. HarisM 08:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. I like the photo but I don't think it contributes enough to an article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose, agree with Diliff, Strongly Oppose edit IMHO this modification does definetely go too far. --Dschwen 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A very ordinary (although beautiful) scene, it could have been taken in dozens of countries. So, even though I like the pic a lot, I don't think it's FP material - Adrian Pingstone 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Sharp shadows in forground, hazy in background. Nice photo, but the content of the photo contains nothing I can see that is unique to it's subject. HighInBC 15:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's a very nice picture. I don't know, but i prefer the Edit. But it's true, the power lines are a reality. Arad 18:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry, but although is a beautifull ladnscape it's nothing special. it doesn't illustrate the subject well either simply because there is no defining feature that really tells us its hezergovina. if i wanted i could take a bunch of pictures that would look almost the same and i'm sitting on the other side of the world.Nnfolz 22:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Good picture, but I agree with Nnfolz. Strong oppose edit. Image manipulation in the form of adding or removing objects cannot be accepted in this kind of pictures.--JyriL talk 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Adrian Pingstone Jesse 22:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sweet photo. It isn't ordinary in any way in my view. - Darwinek 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose edit. The edit was presumably intended to remove non-natural features - however, several have been modified (hedges/bushes have grown/disappeared) near the closest pylon. On these grounds, the edit is incomplete as there appears to be a pylon just right of the second-from-left foreground bush. The edited version is 3x larger (in KB) than the original, presumably because the original was JPG and it was re-saved with minimal compression to minimise quality loss. I would expect any re-touching of FP images to have been done by working on a non-lossy master. Halsteadk 23:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Île de la Cité

 
Notre Dame de Paris on Île de la Cité, in Paris, France
 
Edit 1 - Image brightened a little.

I'm a bit hesitant to nominate this one given the recent disagreements regarding self nominations. I don't think there was any clear consensus there, though, so I'll continue to put images up every now and then for your consideration. :) This image contributes to Notre Dame de Paris and Île de la Cité. It is high resolution, of a pleasing composition and does a pretty good job of showing the shape of the island, notwithstanding a diagram or map, I suppose. Its a 4 segment panorama taken by myself with my Canon 5D and trusty 24-105mm f/4L IS. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and Abstain. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A good, sharp, and high resolution image. I would prefer to see it on a sunnier day, though. --Tewy 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support edit - full support for a version with slightly higher contrast - thr weather looks hazy and rather ugly here.--Janke | Talk 05:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit - sharp, high quality, encyclopaedic image of an interesting subject - unusual angle, too. Even with the weather, I really like this photo, and nice composition with the bateau mouche on the left. Stevage 08:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I love the angle and the composition. It would be nice if we could get the same with better weather! InvictaHOG 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most excellent in every respect - Adrian Pingstone 14:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's very good. And it's good quality so i vote for it.
  • Oppose Sorry, but this just does not do the subject any favours. It is an unappealing photo of something which has millions of photos of it. There must be a pic out there with better weather, without the bateau mouche (which is too far away to get detail but too close to ignore) and without the sign in the foreground. It's just not a pretty picture. Witty lama 01:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Plus i find the picture a little bit too busy (with the people here and there)--Vircabutar 07:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well composed, good exposure. Encyclopedic content. HighInBC 15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Techinically great as usual, but for a subject inherently beautiful like the Notre Dame, an extra element is needed in the photograph to make it special. Particularly since this is a building and going nowhere fast, it would have made a huge difference to have had it in better lighting. Even though Image:Notre-Dame-night.jpg has perhaps worse composition it has better atmospheric lighting. Just as a side issue, I wonder if you could consider uploading all your future images in a more web compatible format - it's nice to have all the dashes etc in the right place but it does play merry hell with the address bar, not to mention the fact that often you are unable to "flashgot" the image to a download manager - something very handy when downloading your super high res images! --Fir0002 23:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While sharpness is excellent, lighting is poor. Grey sky, grey buldings - not pleasing to the eye. Mikeo 10:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not pleasing to the eye, I think. The almost cut off spire somehow ruins the composition for me. --KFP 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine Marmot

 
Alpine Marmot

A closeup shot of an alpine marmot on the mountain side in the Massif des Écrins national park. Used in the Marmot gallery and the Alpine Marmot page. I took it myself.

No, digital zoom was not used, nor was the picture blown up. To be fair the camera isn't exactly perfct for this kind of use, and I wasn't really expecting this picture to do really well. Thanks for the criticism though. DevAnubis 09:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 23:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Tree

File:Burnt tree.jpg
Burnt Tree from a forest fire at Yellowstone National Park.
File:Picture2.jpeg
Cut version

I think this would be a good picture because it is not too crouded and it looks pleasing to the eye. This appears in the Yellowstone National Park article. I took it myself.

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 23:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales

 
The king himself
 
Edit 1 - proportional analysis

Iconic shot of the man who "makes the internet not suck". Appears in Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia, History of Wikipedia and FOSDEM. If Wikipe-tan can make it, this certainly can.

by the way Wiki-tan is another mistake of being nominated. Arad 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He is too far to the right in the image. Jam01 06:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm gonna go out on a limb here and try and explain why this composition works for me. The offset nature of the subject creates a more dynamic image - the eye is drawn to the right and creates movement. The space to his left is important, looking at his expression one imagines what he might be dreaming of in that space it's a big implied think bubble space. Proportionally I've had a stab at breaking it down into the golden section - the proportion of the image itself is a little out from the golden section (1:1.5 rather than 1:1.6) but it's pretty close, stay with me here - if we discard some backround above the image - call it border - take a look at the Edit 1. For all here calling for better composition I'm curious to learn what criteria for this 'bad' composition might be - yes it breaks symmetry, but for me creates something more dynamic and alive. But hey it's late at night, I'll probably regret this tomorrow. Please address hostile posts to erm......User:JWales. :-) Mcginnly | Natter 00:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't think my comment was hostile, what I mean from my comment is that the image is not encyclopedic. Arad 23:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, we really are worried about WP:NPA aren't we........The above post was pretty tongue in cheek all round (A golden section proportional analysis of Jimbo Wales? - Come on, we can have some fun here) Really no offence taken. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth-Moon.png

 
Earth and Moon to scale. Line below Earth represents distance of Earth's centre from the system barycentre. Line below the Moon represents perigee and apogee with the moon at the semi‐major axis position.
 
Edit 1 - both lines removed and image cropped, but still to scale
 
Edit 2 - Original image with thickened white lines.
 
Edit 3 - Higher brightness, thickened colored lines, less tight cropping.
 
Edit 2 shown at default thumb scale.


Shows the relative distance between the Earth and Moon to scale. Most pictures of the solar system (understandably) show a vastly reduced relative distance. This picture shows how much empty space there really is between us and our nearest neighbour.

Appears in The Moon's orbit. This picture wonderfully (IMO) illustrates the concept.

Done - Jack (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1 modified version. Excellent illustration of the subject. The lines in the original, and in edits 2 and 3 require too much explanation. Edit 3 is way too bright. Mikeo 01:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1. A sharp, dramatic depiction of the distance. Be sure to include that that is the mean distance wherever the picture is shown. --Tewy 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original version. Give a good comprehension --Luc Viatour 04:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 3, Edit 2 or original. White line brings interesting information and is quite self-explanatory, so there is no need to add text on the picture. However, I think the image would benefit from a thicker white line, which can be seen on reduced images. I had to see the image full-size to notice the line. Glaurung 05:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original version or edit 2 I think the white lines are necessary since the image importance is because it's precise and if you don't put the lines, then why do you bother putting such a big empty space between earth and moon? The original or edit 2 are best ones. And I love it even more since Iran is in the centre of the image. hehe. Arad 18:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I realize the lines are pretty informative, but I think they're a little distracting as far as the aesthetics of the image go. Anyone else agree? For instance, the thickness of the lines on edit 2 seem a little over the top. And is it really necessary to see the lines on "reduced images", as Glaurung said? --Tewy 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better if the line was visible at least on its image page (which is not the case for the original nomination). There is no need, however, to have the line visible on the default thumbnail size. Glaurung 05:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Image:Earth-Moon.png This one seems to be the most popular. howcheng {chat} 23:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moulting cicada

 
A moulting cicada
 
 

A moulting cicada, by User:Jodelet. Used in Ecdysis Cicada.

Here's another one by the same photographer... I think it has fewer technical problems, but I like the framing of the first better.

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 23:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honeybee

 
Honeybee collecting pollen

A honeybee collecting pollen. Photo by Jon Sullivan and used in Bee, Honeybee, Palynivore, and Pollination.

Think of the size requirements as more guidelines than rules and it won't be an issue :) Cat-five - talk 08:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI - The bee was alive and buzzing, but it was late in the summer and all the bees there seemed to be pretty beat up. Not sure why that was. But this was a chance shot in the park, and handheld with a very tight macro, so I had to take what I could get. Out of nearly 100 shots this was one of only three that came out well at all. The broken wing is certainly annoying. I actually like this photo from the same session better, but the DoF is even worse there. Oh well.--y6y6y6 19:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the subject is pollen, then it is in focus. HighInBC 22:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true Arad 23:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bee Collecting Pollen 2004-08-14.jpg howcheng {chat} 23:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse 1999

 
Solar eclipse 1999
 
Edit 1 by Diliff - Noise reduction performed.

Self nomination. Hi encyclopaedic interest Corona ,Eclipse , Sun, Stellar atmosphere, Allais effect, Skygazing, Solar eclipse --Luc Viatour 04:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Solar eclips 1999 4 NR.jpg howcheng {chat} 23:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chihuly in Miami

Note image text linked due to fair use status HighInBC 20:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chihuly in Miami.jpg A glass sculpture by Dale Chihuly. Notice the floating sculptures in the backround.

A unique photo of a Chihuly glass sculpture in the Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden in Coral Gables, FL. Cannot be retaken as the exhibit was taken down in May. Perhaps someone could edit the picture to reduce the amount of shade.; appears in Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden and Dale Chihuly, Uploaded by Reywas92. Taken by his grandfather.

If that is the case, then a fair use image should not appear on any page except the articles about it, including this one. HighInBC 19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Systems of the World

 
A map of the different writing systems of the world colored by orthographic category.

This is a highly informative map of the world beautifully and intuitively displaying the different scripts in use today, their orthographic relationships, and their geographic distribution. It appears in Writing system and List of writing systems. It is free and GNU licensed and many people have colaborated on it. Most recently Nickshanks has improved on work by Denihilonihil and Kwamikagami.


  • Nominate and support. - Chris Quackenbush 22:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose looks confusing Reywas92 23:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets every criteria of WP:WIAFP. It's illuminating on the subject of languages throughout the world, something important for the wikipedia being the multi-lingual site that it is. --Mitaphane talk 04:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Mitaphane. Glaurung 05:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The map shows Hokkaido as using katakana in solid red, Honshu as kanji and kana in yellow with a red outline, and Kyushu and Shikoku in solid red. A person who looks at the map might conclude that (1) Hokkaido uses katakana (written side to side), but neither kana nor kanji; (2) Honshu uses kana and kanji (written vertically), both of which are different from katakana; (3) Kyushu and Shikoku use red (syllabaries) but not yellow (logographies). All three conclusions would be incorrect. Certainly, the map would have to communicate more accurately the writing systems of Japan in order to be featured. Fg2 07:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work - it's pretty messy at the moment, and the different sized fonts are distracting. I also noticed the katakana thing, and found it odd that I had to search everywhere until I hit South America to see what script England and Australia use. The legend at the bottom left is quite oddly arranged, and would be better if it had the examples of the different scripts there. The mass of unlabelled scripts around India is just too much - a better way of presenting that is needed. The overall idea is great, but it needs polishing. Stevage 09:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with all the objections above. In addition, I don't see why the Chinese characters are unlabeled and why there isn't a example of writing for Yup'ik. A sharper, antialiased version of the world map should also be used. Redquark 14:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Great idea, but still needs work. The map its to busy and i'm having a hard time figuring everything out I would suggest correcting the color so that they look more diferent (and don't put similar colors next to each other) and removing all the examples from being on top of the countries and instead placing them on a more elaborate leyend.Nnfolz 14:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose regretfully. This is something that would be wonderful, if the map was large enough to hold all the text, it is too cluttered. Also the reported errors by Stevage concern me, as accuracy is essential in a FP diagram. HighInBC 15:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Stevage. It's way to cluttered in Asia, and overall it's just too confusing. And SVG, again, would be nice as well. --Tewy 04:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with all of the above. It's an interesting map, but not good enough to be featured. Chacal 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Weak Support Neutral Iranians and Persians writing is far more different than ARABIC. Go learn something The image needs a lot of work as mentioned above. Ok I'll be civil. I still believe that Persian writing has changed a lot during centuries from Arabic. It's my opinion. Even if I'm wrong (which I think I am, lol) this map is very busy and too small for such a great number of writing used in the world. Arad 18:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. From Persian language: The Persian alphabet adds four letters to the Arabic alphabet, due to the fact that four sounds that exist in Persian do not exist in Arabic, as they come from separate language families.. So Persian writing really is not very different from Arabic writing, imho. Could you elaborate? --Bernard 23:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image formation from pixels

 
Pixels become prominent as we go closer to the screen.

Self nomination. Inspired by the FPC below. Pic shows how an image gets progressively distorted as an observer gets closer to the screen. Used in LCD and pixel articles. Picture shows difference between the image we view and the image actually displayed. The top and bottom images are not the same size, its actually been magnified several times to make the pixels visible and then scaled to match the original.

 
Difference between image pixels and screen pixels
  • Oppose I don't get that 1x = 64x and 8x = 512x. The images are clearly at the same magnification... This is rather confusing -Glaurung 05:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Neutral I get it now. Second image and second caption are much clearer. Glaurung 06:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what's happening is that in the bottom image, the graphic was actually zoomed out, then a photo taken with a big zoom in. It's weird, but look at the concentric circles in the 1x image - clearly, the circle is very round, and at least 100 pixels wide. The image below it is of a much "smaller" circle - around 25-30 pixels wide. Other that that, I really have no idea what the image is trying to show. Stevage 09:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Author comment I agree, the magnification factors were confusing (although they were accurate) so i have removed it. The purpose of the image is to show the differece in the pixels that store color information in an image and the pixels of a screen which displays the the image. Hopefully this will make it easier to understand. Please take a look at the image again and reconsider your vote -- PlaneMad|YakYak 11:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still very unclear what the relationship is between the image pixels and screen pixels, which seem to be at unrelated sizes; and the image of the screen is still not sharp. And why are the colors so different? And your image is not yet accepted in any article, is it?
The top image is a screen shot while the bottom one is a photograph of the screen, so it really is not possible to match the colors. There doesnt have to be a relationship between the two, it just illustrates the role of pixels to store and diplay color information (which is why i removed the misleading zoom factors). -- PlaneMad|YakYak 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: this is obviously an LCD screen, it's probably worth mentioning that in the image description/caption etc. A CRT screen would look completely different. Stevage 09:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The "dot" on the 'i' is composed of only 9 pixels in the blown up image, but far more than that in the "large" image. What gives? This is not a valid comparison if the resolution of the image is different left to right. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset at Grain Elevator

 
Picture of a beautiful evening sky featuring the cresent moon next to the planet Venus over a grain elavator. The photo was taken outside Champaign, IL on August 8th, 2005 shortly after sunset
 
Edit 1: Grain reduced.

It's a beautiful, GNU Free Documented image; Appears in Illinois,Venus, Twilight, Evening Star, Observations and explorations of Venus, created by Shakil Mustafa.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 
Each pixel on an LCD monitor consists of three discrete colors.
  • Weak oppose. Mostly because the original image is grainy. Since just about any image could be used as the original in a remake of this picture, I think one of those (such as a current FP) should be used instead. I will support a version with a better original image, but for now, I don't think this is FP material. --Tewy 03:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it's a poor choice of image for this example, because the large amount of action in the background is distracting from the small piece that depicts what's actually being shown Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You cannot see the pixels here, only colored stripes. You really need an authentic micro image of the pixels, showing the small "dots" of transistors, too. There are black lines between the pixels in an actual display, missing here. --Janke | Talk 05:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose. Get it more like the previously featured picture, without much action or anything else distracting, just without anything that may have bee copy righted. Then properly display the pixels and it will be near perfect. say1988 02:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. At first glance I thought it was a poorly cropped image of a shuttle. Then I noticed a oddly looking "building" behind the shuttle. Only after reading the title I realized that it is about LCD. One should immediately understand the context of the image (at least vaguely) when seeing it, without the need of zooming.--JyriL talk 22:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless man NYC

 
Homeless man, New York City
 
Edit 1, a tiny bit less noise and less "whiteness" on the ground.
 
Edit 2, rotated entire image of Edit 1 so that the column is perfectly vertical.

A well-composed b&w portrait of a homeless man in New York City by User:CGP. Used in Homelessness in the United States, Poverty in the United States, and Social conflict theory. Yes, it's tilted, but the angle of the shot is such that the pillar and the line separating the black and white glass panes cannot both be straight vertical.

Comment What kind of monitor are you using? I can see the head clearly in thumbnail view. HighInBC 19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is obviously impossible to align the image without cropping it, as white edges would have appeared at the corners. -- mcshadyplTalk Cont 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that's why my point was: Don't align it! --Dschwen 18:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca pilgrim

 

I really like the composition of this. I know there's a blown highlight on the top of the guy's head, but this picture has such great encyclopedic value that hopefully that can be overlooked. Used in Mecca, Pilgrimage, Hajj, Islam, Prayer, Haram, and Saudi Arabia.

It's featured on Commons, not here. -- Moondigger 00:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Not promoted Mikeo 10:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half Dome Side View

 
Original: A side view of Half dome
 
Edit 1: Adjusted color, contrast, saturation, sharpness
 
Edit 2: Converted to black & white, adjusted contrast, brightness, sharpness
 
Edit 3: Better color edit?
 
Edit 4: Another take on the color

A unique photo of half dome showing how perfectly flat it is; appears in Half Dome, Created by Reywas92.

Fixed the colors, of rock & sky separately. Is edit 3 better? --Janke | Talk 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 00:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Quarter

 
A United States Quarter
 
An actual photograph of a coin (not for voting), although this coin isn't cameo, and so shouldn't exhibit any of the lighting effects illustrated above.

A rather well detailed image of a standard US Quarter as seen from the "heads" side. The image appears in the article Quarter (United States coin). I am nominating this image for its excellent detail.

  • Nominate and support. TomStar81 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it's as good as the other US Mint photos that are already featured. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 21:51
  • Support, Nice detail, even the artist mark is very clear. HighInBC 22:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Just a good overall image; about the same quality as the featured penny image. --Tewy 01:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nice. Cat-five - talk 07:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not special coin, not special photo. In principle, this coin has few details to be interesting.Olegivvit 11:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So would you delist the current featured pictures that are US Mint photos? This picture illustrates the subject excellently--the very definition of what a featured picture should be. Are you suggesting that Quarter (United States coin) is part of a special subset of articles that are undeserving of featured pictures, because the subject itself is "not special"? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-25 15:40
      I would delist. Why this photo should be featured but not, for example, many of these [1]?
      • I think this is an invalid oppose; FPC guidelines state "Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed", and this one does not. TomStar81 19:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note the first two word is that quote. say1988 02:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am aware of that. For me, if you can not give a specific reason for opposing that can be adressed I think to be either a boring picture, or something someone just does not like about the picture. In either case, I believe that to be beyond my ability (or anyone elses, for that matter) to fix or improve. I am not saying that the people who dislike the photo can not vote oppose unless they have a valid reason, I am just saying that it seems a little hard to count a vote that states something that can not be addressed. TomStar81 03:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Some pictures just plainly aren't good enough and can't be improved. Hence the "Where possible" You get an image from NASA that has part cut off, you obviously can't fix that, so oppose votes for being cut off shouldn't count much in that case? say1988 02:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Beautifully photographed, I love it! - Adrian Pingstone 16:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Encyclopedic, high resolution, good image quality. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Personally, I don't think any of these kinds of coin shots should be featured, primarily because they're product shots produced as advertising for the sale of proof sets and the like by the U.S. mint. Also, they don't appear to be legitimate photographs -- every single one has the same yin-yang-shaped highlight/shadow section that doesn't correspond to any kind of lighting I could imagine (or to the shape of a coin). At best they started as photographs, but are so artificial-looking in their final forms as to be best described as illustrations. Now that alone doesn't mean they aren't feature-worthy, but to me it means that since every coin the mint produces ends up with a similar illustration, we're going to end up with dozens and dozens of product shot featured images simply because each nomination couldn't be said to be worse than the last coin image nomination. -- Moondigger 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm I bet you could make that lighting effect with a flexible piece of reflectic mylar. HighInBC 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give it a try and post the results. ;^) Seriously, there's no way you're going to get a border between shadow and highlight with that even, gradient-tool transition. And even ignoring the border, the lettering isn't going to magically form neat black outlines in the highlight area to set it off from the background. The more I've studied this image the more I doubt it ever was a photograph at all. -- Moondigger 00:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Skim through these Google images (or [2] or [3]) and you'll find some photos exhibiting this effect, such as [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. There are also examples on eBay, such as [14]. Most coins aren't proof with deep cameo. This illustration depicts such a coin. You should be more careful before influencing so many other voters in the future. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-29 04:37Z
  •   Support I find no problem what so ever with product shots - they're the most encyclopeadic images possible. And I actually like "yin-yang" lighting - I always wondered how they did that and I am slightly envious I can't do it. Makes it look really shiny in a bizarre way. Good image --Fir0002 12:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well photographed, high resolution, and deserving of featured status. Hello32020 12:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shiny support - Shame that there are no shiny coins like that on American streets. Iolakana•T 13:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per moondigger --Vircabutar 16:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Moondiger, it looks artificial. What's so special about this pic again?Nnfolz 22:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Moondiger. No different than the dozens of other US Mint product shots. Nothing special, not a FP. Chicago god 01:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Moondiger. I think he is right that it has been manipulated - on the upper right part of the head, in the black part of the field are edge highlights that look like sloppy masking in clearing out the background to make it black, same along some of the letters, none of which have black components as dark as the yin-yang. Debivort 02:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It hasn't been manipulated; it's just a drawing, not a photograph. The shading effect is not fake, whether or not you think it looks fake. See my reply to Moondigger's vote. The Susan B. Anthony coin is not a cameo coin, so of course it wouldn't show this effect. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-29 13:39Z
  • Oppose per Moondigger -- mcshadyplTalk Cont 03:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I've got to agree that the lighting looks highly artificial (that was the first thing I thought when looking at it; the lighting is too perfect) and thus smacks of photo manipulation, but I don't think that in particular should prevent the image's promotion. However, I don't think it's particularly interesting, just high quality. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-27 03:35Z
  • Oppose Per Moondiger and Chicago god. Chris Quackenbush 22:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think people are getting too hung up on aesthetics and are forgetting the fundamental purpose of FPs, which is to illustrate the subject. This is aesthetically pleasing enough to qualify as a FP because it is such a valuable, demonstrative illustration. Dylan 23:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a better illustration of a quarter would be an actual photograph of one. I don't believe this is a photograph; it could have been put together in Illustrator and Photoshop without even starting with an actual coin. I'd prefer something like the Anthony dollar image we have here, posted above for comparison. -- Moondigger 00:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Moondigger and Debivort. I also think that if the image was manipulated, the author (if present) or the nomitor (if he has knowledge of this) should release the information. --Chaos Reaver 05:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me be clear -- I don't think the manipulation itself is reason enough to oppose; the U.S. Mint web site doesn't even claim they're photographs. (They're product illustrations that many will assume are photographs.) My opposition is because I think a better (more accurate, more encyclopedic) illustration of a coin would be an actual photograph of a coin. -- Moondigger 14:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. per Moondigger. I would also be in favor of an actual photo of the currency. This illustration just looks way too fake, especially when you compare it with the photo of the Susan B. Anthony coin. --Nebular110 15:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the shading effect is not fake, whether or not you think it looks fake. See my reply to Moondigger's vote. The Susan B. Anthony coin is not a cameo coin, so of course it wouldn't show this effect. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-29 13:39Z
      • There are cameo Susan B. Anthony coins, though obviously this one isn't one. There are also cameo quarters, but the vast majority of quarters are not cameos.
        • Well, obviously... — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-31 18:40Z
      • The U.S. Mint images were designed to look like the cameo images you linked to, but the blacks are too perfectly black, the highlights are too perfectly smooth, and the border is too perfectly graded, clearly done with a gradient tool in a graphics program. The letters in the highlight areas of the photos you linked to aren't all perfectly outlined in black to set them off from the light background -- sometimes they're imperfect because of the way the light source hits them. Here's one of the images you linked to for comparison: [15].
      • I'm a bit confused by your objections to my comments anyway. You admit the U.S. Mint images are "drawings, not photographs," which is what I said. That they are thought to be photographs by casual viewers is a big part of my objection. I believe a photograph makes for a better, more encyclopedic depiction of a given object than a drawing of that object does.
      • As for my "influence" on others' votes -- I voted and gave my reasons for voting the way I did. You voted and gave your reasons for voting the way you did. How is what I did any more objectionable than what you did? -- Moondigger 14:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I only objected to your claims that manipulations were necessary to create the yin-yang effect, and those incorrect claims influenced later voters. Specifically, you said, "every single one has the same yin-yang-shaped highlight/shadow section that doesn't correspond to any kind of lighting I could imagine (or to the shape of a coin)." — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-31 18:40Z
          • No, as I explained below, I mentioned the yin/yang shadow/highlights as evidence that the image isn't a photograph, which (contrary to your objection) is absolutely correct. I elaborated shortly thereafter, mentioning the gradient-tool border between shadow and highlight, the pure blackness of the shadow, etc. None of that corresponds to any kind of lighting used in product photography, and is indicative of either a drawing that never began as a photograph or a heavily (and unrealistically) manipulated photograph. If the way I phrased the comment caused confusion or misunderstanding about what I meant, then I encourage those who may have been influenced by my comment to reconsider their votes. -- Moondigger 00:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment with respect to the feature-worthiness of this particular image. It's being used to illustrate the articles Quarter (United States coin), Gallery of coins and Gallery of circulating Western hemisphere coins. Since it's clearly a drawing of a cameo coin, as you point out, it's entirely inappropriate for a gallery of circulating coins. It's also not a terribly good choice for the Quarter article since the vast majority of quarters people are likely to come across aren't cameos or proof-quality. All IMO, of course. -- Moondigger 14:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Reading back through the discussion above, I think I understand your objection now. I mentioned in my Oppose vote paragraph that the yin/yang shaped shadow/highlight sections didn't correspond to any lighting scheme I could imagine. You're pointing out that dark/light sections are common in photos of cameo coins, and that therefore such lighting isn't 'fake.' I get it, and you're right -- it's not 'fake' from that POV. But my comment was only meant as evidence that the image was not a photograph; I focused (excuse the pun) on how the border between shadow and highlight was clearly done with the gradient tool, and how perfectly black the shadow section was, etc. My point is that this image is almost certainly not a photograph, though it might appear to be one by casual inspection.
    • The truth is that I have a coin collection, including several proof sets and cameos, and I get the U.S. Mint brochures/catalogs in the mail all the time. The illustrations in those catalogs are the same as used on the web site, and I believe they are poor representations of the actual coins. I would prefer legitimate photographs, and find such photographs more feature-worthy even if they don't have perfectly smooth borders between shadow and highlight, etc.
    • If anybody's vote was swayed by a misunderstanding of my comments, I encourage them to reassess their votes and change them if necessary. I didn't mean to imply that such shadow/highlight areas were impossible in a photograph -- only that the nature of the shadow/highlight areas in this particular illustration are indicative that it's a drawing rather than a photograph. -- Moondigger 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To adress Brian0918 - while the images you link to as examples show high-contrast fields, they are clearly photographs as evidenced by the noise in the fields. The black parts of this image have absolutely no variability - their RGB value is #000000. To get this from a camera is essentially impossible over a large field because of instrument noise. Should it be considered as an illustration? Perhaps, but I say no because it looks like a photo, people will view it as one, and walk away thinking coins could actually be as shiny as the one portrayed here, which they cannot. Therefore it deceptively illustrates the very topic it is supposed to portray. Reiterate my opposition. I might be more sympathetic if it had been created by a wikipedian rather than a governmental marketing department. Debivort 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it's an illustration. I only objected to Moondigger's claim that, "every single one has the same yin-yang-shaped highlight/shadow section that doesn't correspond to any kind of lighting I could imagine (or to the shape of a coin)." — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-31 18:46Z
  • Support This picture is very clear and the shading/shadowing is very appealing. It is also a significant coin to the United States. --midnight_rider 01:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf structure

 
 

I randomly found this image, and think it is a very simple and clear diagram. It was designed by DynaBlast, and is used in Leaf and Palisade cell.

Christus Ravenna Mosaic

 
A 6th century mosaic of Jesus at Church San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, Italy.

I found this image during a debate over what image should top the Jesus article. This picture is of a mosaic at the Church San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, Italy and I think it demonstrates the beauty of early Christian art.

  • Nominate and support. - —Aiden 04:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Historic, and beautiful. HighInBC 05:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clear, historic image that is impressive even at thumbnail size--Melburnian 06:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, provided that the colors are accurate. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 12:28
  • Neutral. I had a look at it full sized and there is clearly a lot of jpeg artifacts due to overcompression. They blend in a bit due to the tiled nature of the image, but they are there and don't look great. I would support a re-upload of this image with much lower compression. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure those are artifacts and not just the surface structure of the mozaic pieces? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 14:10
      • No, there is definitely heavy and noticible artifacting. You can see the block quantization in many areas extends between tiles in the image. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-24 14:35Z
  • Weak oppose. Excellent except for the jpeg artifacts (I noticed them too on close examination). If the artifacts are fixed I will support. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Worthy, competent, engaging photo of a significant art work. The technical matter is the question of whether it meets the criterion "free of compression artifacts (such as in highly packed jpg files)." In my judgement, this photo meets the criterion. It is not completely free of compression artifacts. Artifacts are present, but I would not have noticed them until they were pointed out to me. It is free of compression artifacts of the extent that is visible in highly compressed JPEG files. So while I wish for more technical quality, this image has plenty. Fg2 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I would support this if a) it were larger and cleaner, or b) if a Wikipedian created it. But this is not outstanding compared to a lot of PD art scan images floating around out there. A good find, but not quite FP quality.--ragesoss 16:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment The PD seems valid, why should it matter if a wikipedian scaned it or not? HighInBC 16:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant if a Wikipedian had taken the picture, rather than it being a scan of a printed reproduction of a picture.--ragesoss 17:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

80486DX2 200x

 
Upper interconnect layers on an Intel 80486 DX2.
 
Edit 1 - Corrected barrel distortion, increased saturation and contrast a little

This image provides a good visual for explaining integrated circuits and microprocessors, and is an unusual find on Wikipedia at this resolution. I think it's rather striking and is a good supplement to Image:80486dx2-large.jpg. At the very least, it's a nice change of subject compared with the typical featured picture nominees. Note: I had originally uploaded a slightly different image ([16]), but went with this one because it's a good bit sharper.

  • Nominate and support. - uberpenguin @ 2006-08-24 00:47Z
  • Weak oppose (prefer Edit 1) Low saturation, vignetting, and barrel distortion HighInBC 01:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's pretty difficult to avoid with my microscope setup. For an extra $2k or so I could probably do something about it. Anyway, if this image is doomed because of prevailing circumstances, so be it. I doubt there are many other folks on Wikipedia who could produce this picture, though. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-24 04:15Z
I know how you feel, I have been trying for months to take a FP with my $300 camera, and I have not even got one I would nominate. HighInBC 04:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see what I can do with that image in photoshop. HighInBC 04:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool... By the way, the color (or lack thereof) in the image isn't incorrect. The materials you're seeing are most likely aluminum and silicon dioxide. The colors you see in the whole-die shot are largely from diffusion, refraction, and the very different lighting condition. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-24 04:38Z
HighinBC ... yeah me too... I have like 6000 pics with my canon S500 and not one is FP material. I have some close ones but nothing that is Fir quality. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose This is a very interesting picture. Too bad you cannot obtain a picture quality comparable to your featured whole die picture of the processor. Glaurung 06:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose it's a great picture, and that's most obvious in how much I really really want to see beyond the edges of the black, but I really would rather have a picture with more in the frame, since we can only see a single small part in this one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You guys do realize this is under an optical microscope, right? 200x magnification, remember? Used an optical microscope lately? The limited coverage of the objective is due to the magnification, comes with the territory, and is unavoidable; as is the circular viewing area and to some extent the vignetting (though it is admittedly worse here than it could be). Sure I could tile several of these things together and produce a lovely rectangular picture, but that has its own problems and I'd prefer not to seriously mess with an image other than to correct minor defects (like the barrel distortion). Lordy, would you folks fault an AFM picture for not showing enough of the target? Images produced by good microscope optics will NOT look the same as those produced by a 35 mm lens and while I don't claim that this picture is perfect, I rather think some of you are expecting a microscope to be a super macro lens pointed at a well-lit target. I can't help but notice that most (all?) of the featured micro-"photographs" on WP are produced by SEM, not by optics... Am I to understand that microscope optics produce sub-standard pictures and that I must use SEM in the future? If that's the case let me know and I won't bother nominating pictures produced by optical microscopy in the future. Sorry for the rant. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-26 20:14Z
  • That's fine, nobody is saying that the photograph was poorly taken, as you explained the problem clearly lies in the equipment used. The fact that there were technical limitations to the photo does not excuse it from the aestetic opinions of those who vote here. The standards of featured pictures is kept high on purpose. It is a great picture worthy of inclusion in the enclyclopedia and surely helps it's article greatly, but a featured picture needs to be an example of wikipedia's best. There are images that are much like yours such as Image:Microphoto-butterflywing3.jpg and Image:Microphoto-butterflywing4.jpg, and their are others of higher quality such as Image:Wirebond-ballbond.jpg and Image:Diatoms through the microscope.jpg. Now ask yourself if we are really being unfair or unreasonable opposing based on these technical faults? Is this image an example of wikipedia's best work? This is about the picture, we are not trying to judge you. Sorry for the rant. hehe HighInBC 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't meant to suggest I perceive some slight towards me. No, far be it from me to get upset about something like this. I just think that there might be some irrational 35 mm bias going on... Not that my conspiracy theories are likely to change anyone's opinion, but I thought I might as well comment on it. To directly answer your question, yeah, I do think this is some of the best work you will see from an optical microscope on Wikipedia. Maybe I could do a bit better with some more time and maybe I could spend a week trying to get time on an SEM, but I obviously thought this was a possibility for fulfilling FP requirements, otherwise I wouldn't have nominated it. Anyway, I'm done ranting... I respect the validity of most of the criticisms raised. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-27 01:30Z
  •   Oppose I can appreciate the difficulty, but the colors/vignetting combined with a none to sensational subject just don't make this image special enough for FP status IMO. A nice image all the same. --Fir0002 12:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already explained the color. I don't know what else I can do other than inaccurately add false color to match whatever prior expectations you have... -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-26 20:27Z
  • Oppose. Per Fir0002. --Tewy 19:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 00:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Goose in Flight

 
Canada Goose, Burnaby Lake Regional Park (Piper Spit), Burnaby, British Columbia
 
Edit 1 by Pharaoh Hound.
 
Edit 2 by Diliff - similar cropping to Edit 1 but additional noise reduction in the background

Maybe not quite as tack sharp as the Brown Pelican, this is still sensational (and for those that were concerned it doesn't have a visible halo)

Promoted Image:Canada goose flight cropped and NR.jpg Mikeo 00:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curlew

 
Long-Billed Curlew, Fishing Pier, Goose Island State Park, Texas

Another terrific image, sharp, well composed and shows great detail of the bird - what more could you want?

  • Nominate and Support --Fir0002 22:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More source info, for one thing. I checked the site and I coudl not find anything on it that indicates that the images are under a ShareAlike 2.5 license. If the photographer released it under that license in the eamil, could you copy it to the discussion page? Hbdragon88 08:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the front page of their web site, in the first paragraph: "We consider each image to be in the Public Domain with the proviso that their use conform to the general spirit of the rules governing Attribution-ShareALike 2.5 as described by Creative Commons in their summary deed." I have copied this statement into the image description. -- Moondigger 12:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense, since PD means you can't put any restrictions on it. Maybe someone should suggest they simplify the statement one way or the other (PD or CC-BY-SA). --Davepape 14:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I sent them an e-mail requesting clarification of their licensing terms. Their response indicated that they wanted their images used in compliance with CC-BY-SA 2.5. The ambiguity of the statement on their webpage notwithstanding, the license Fir0002 applied to the image is correct. -- Moondigger 14:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To expand on that a bit... they do seem to be a bit confused, as they equate "public ___domain" with "CC-BY-SA 2.5." But the terms they require are equivalent to CC-BY-SA 2.5, so I believe the license Fir0002 specified is valid. -- Moondigger 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm the one that suggested to Al that a CC license might be more suitable than public ___domain, since it "ensures" attribution. He then asked for my opinion about the new language on his web site, and I said what has been identified above. Also, technically, all current images on his site (until he adds a new gallery) were already released into the public ___domain, so I suggested that he make that clearer on his web site... eg. galleries 1-x are PD, and galleries x+1 onward are CC. Maybe I'll go check my email to see if he responded. Also, Fir, hit FPC with too many bird pics at once and people will stop supporting them!! I was going to put up some Gannets next but I think we're good for birds right now. :-) Outriggr 23:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent photo. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-24 01:22
  • Support. Excellent depiction of the animal. (And Outriggr is right about too many similar pictures at once. People start comparing them to each other). --Tewy 19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Purty. - echidnae 21:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose The bird is too far to the left. Jam01 10:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's ok. Sometimes it is deliberate to place the subject on the side of the image opposite the direction toward which it faces. It provides a space into which that subject looks dliao 2006 August 30 06:19 UTC.
  • Support. Lovely. --Nebular110 17:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent pic, particularly the composition - Adrian Pingstone 07:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Curlew - natures pics.jpg Raven4x4x 09:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Pelican

 
Edit 1 - Brown Pelican, Fulton Harbour, Fulton, Texas
 
Original - image I was sent

Another great image from Nature's Pic's. A mid flight shot is very hard to get, and a perfectly focused one like this is exceptional.

Not promoted . Quite close, though. Raven4x4x 09:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

African Hawk Eagle

 
African Hawk Eagle

An excellent image, which I think meets all the criteria. Used (to little effect in the taxobox) in the species article and in the article on bird flight. Also demonstrates the excellent free content that can be found on flickr.

Not promoted Mikeo 00:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Towers of Bologne

 
the famous "Two Towers" of Bologna.

I recently returned from a computer science conference in Italy. While there, I got to tour Bolonga, and see the two towers, featured in the picture to the right. I wanted to see if wikipedia had any images of these towers prior to me uploading images, and I found this picture in the Bolonga article. The quality of the image was much more impressive than anything I took while visiting the towers, so I figured I would nominate it here.

Not promoted Mikeo 00:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chopsticks

 
Chopsticks

A detailed picture of a chopsticks courtesy of the commons. The image is hi-res, and appears in the article chopsticks.

  • Object. The image is pretty simple and boring, and besides, most people can imagine what chopsticks look like. --Dark Kubrick 21:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FPC guidelines state "Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed". If you find the image boring that's fine, its an opinion and I can respect that, but I can not in good faith address those problems as it is a matter of taste. Could you maybe give a more valid reason, or perhaps change your vote to neutral? TomStar81 21:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps boring was the wrong word. I'm just saying that the subject matter itself, used here, is not very interesting to most people, and it's not hard to imagine a pair of chopsticks. I would go with Howcheng's idea, and find a more stylistic, cultural pair of chopsticks. That would be a nice picture. --Dark Kubrick 02:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's a lot of noise in the background. Also, if we're going to have a picture of chopsticks, they could be a lot nicer than the ones pictured here. Some nice black lacquer ones with a good pattern on them would look a lot better. howcheng {chat} 22:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sorry but, I too find it rather boring and un-appealing. The composition does not make it 'pleasing to the eye. Maybe executing howcheng {chat} idea would be nice.Nnfolz 02:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose too plain. needs to be jazzed up somehow. -Ravedave help name my baby 02:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Plain, no context. Perhaps an image of them by a meal or held by hands. The photo tells me nothing of what they do. HighInBC 13:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are several quality issues, such as the noise in the background, the subject not being completely in focus, and it being so dark. It's also at a funny, almost upside-down angle. --Tewy 01:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Chopsticks come in many different shapes, sizes, materials, and colors. To limit the concept to these two chopsticks in a rested static state does not contribute enough. A child trying to master the eating utensil by picking up noodles from a bowl would do a great job. It should be more like the picture (http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/images/image082.gif) illustrating different uses of a mouth that was included in the Golden Record on the Voyager probes. Sudachi 07:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 00:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earthrise

 
Earthrise
 
Earthrise colour image for comparison

For your consideration, the first-ever photo (by humans) of the Earth rising above the surface of the moon, taken on December 24, 1968, during the Apollo 8 mission by Bill Anders.

Comment LOL! Now that I see the color image i would support that one rather than the black & white one (can I do that by the way?).Nnfolz 02:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support The colour image is better because it shows the contrast between the two bodies. One is uninhabited and the other is full of life. It is also a great picture because of its sharpness and greyscale. --midnight_rider 01:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpg Raven4x4x 08:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!

Older nominations requiring additional input from voters

These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.


Closing procedure

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    • {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }}
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the August archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  3. Remove the {{FPC}} tag from the image and any other suggested versions. If any of those images were on Commons, be sure to tag the description pages with {{missing image}}.

When promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}}
    • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
    Promoted Image:FILENAME.JPG
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the August archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  3. Add the image to Template:Announcements/New featured pages - Date, then alphabetical order
  4. Add the image to Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom
  5. Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian)
    You might want to use Template:FP: {{subst:FP|file=|description=|at=|by=}}
  6. Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian)
  7. Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top
  8. Update the picture's tag, replacing {{FPC}} with {{FeaturedPicture|''Image name''}} (the "Image name" parameter will link back to the FPC discussion), and remove {{FPC}} from alternatives of the promoted image. If the alternatives were on Commons, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
  9. Notify the nominator by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|Image:file_name.xxx}} on the nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}
  10. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|Image:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}
  11. Optionally, you can check Wikipedia:Picture of the day and feature the image as upcoming POTD. Note that these are featured in order they are promoted.

Nomination for delisting

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. Please leave a note on the original uploader and/or nominator's talk page to let him know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

Note: Please use Delist or Keep as your vote.
  • If consensus is to keep status then archive nomination for removal on archive page and optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page, also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section.
  • If consensus is to remove status then replace the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag with {{FormerFeaturedPicture}}, also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section. Also remove the image from Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
  • Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from FP in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).
Archived removal requests

Moscow Metro, Kievskaya station

 

Barely meets size requirements (1000x667 px), blown-out highlights, and an overall green color cast (probably as a result of fluorescent lighting).

Delisted Raven4x4x 03:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Twilight wilderness big.jpeg

 

Way too many JPEG compression artifacts.

Delisted Raven4x4x 06:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Parliament

 

Too small and the whole sky is blown out.

The smaller version has been delisted in October 2004. I don't see when the larger version has been relisted... --Bernard 05:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that might explain it. I was going through all the old POTDs and found this one with no nomination for FP status or nomination for delisting either. This one is really just a larger version of a delisted FP after all, so this exercise is pretty much moot then. howcheng {chat} 05:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previously delisted. howcheng {chat} 16:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended nominations

This section is for Featured Picture candidatures whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.

Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2B Glider

 
Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2b glider being launched at Lasham Airfield in UK.jpg - a copyrighted image.

Too small, slight discolouration, copyrighted image, available on Commons as well as here, non-remarkable. Also has a generic filename. Good point, I was mistaken.

  • Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist (see below), but suggest nominating for speedy deletion if it's violating copyright. Also, doesn't meet resolution requirements. -- moondigger 20:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, it is copywrighted and therefore ineligible for FP, but as the holder of the (c) has allowed the use of the image provided the source is cited, it does not need to be deleted from Wikipedia (but it could be as it also exists on Commons) --Glaurung 06:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The copyright is fine ATM, the terms fall in line with GFDL or the acceptable CC licenses. The filename is not as generic as you think as it's based on the aircraft's model name if I remember correctly and the coloration is an example of the distance it was shot at. PPGMD 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per PPGMD --Fir0002 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, IMHO featureworthy -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nobody is concerned about the FP minimum resolution requirements? When I began participating here a few months ago, I was led to believe that even photos that just met the requirements -- i.e., 1000 pixels on a side -- would likely be voted against no matter how nice the image was. In fact, I remember seeing a few oppose votes on FP nominations for just that reason ("...nice image but only just meets resolution requirements; would support a bigger version..."). Now people seem unconcerned when an otherwise ordinary image falls well short of 1000 pixels. (By "ordinary" I mean something that is without major technical flaws but lacking in "wow" factor, such as this one.) This isn't sour grapes... I'm genuinely curious. -- moondigger 17:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a current example, see the Mexican Wolf nomination near the top of the current FPC list. Diliff changed his "Neutral" to "Support" after the photographer replaced her 1000 pixel image (meets resolution requirements) with a larger one. I know I've seen other similar situations in the past... yet this image and others currently nominated for delisting are below 1000 pixels, and few people seem to think it's a good reason to delist. (Note: I understand that any of the criteria can be ignored if something else about the image is so outstanding as to merit doing so; it's just that I honestly don't see anything that spectacular about many of these images.) -- moondigger 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist (and delete): The site wants *every single user* of the image to obtain permission for their images, thus the image does not meet our minimum standards for free content. --Gmaxwell 00:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The images meets the copyright standards of wikipedia, it's copyright, and given for free use so long as the site is attributed, which is allowed per the Wikipedia copyright policy and is in line with GFDL and the acceptable CC licenses. PPGMD 01:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and possibly delete. The licensing tag placed on the image page is invalid according to the terms on the originating site, which says: "all images and parts thereof are the property of the originator -- copyright the White Planes picture co. - permission to use must be obtained." No documentation of permission exists on the image page, though it claims permission was obtained. The claim is not sufficient without an actual statement to that effect. Furthermore, whoever uploaded it to commons also removed a www.whiteplanes.com watermark from the image prior to doing so. Was permission to alter the image obtained? At minimum this requires more investigation, and the required licensing terms should be made clear to the copyright holder as is being done for the Eiffel Tower image. We can't just assume that because the tag on the image page is compatible with Wiki licensing requirements that the original image is compatible with the tag. By that reasoning anybody could upload any image they find anywhere and put a compatible licensing tag on the image page, whether that license is acceptable to the copyright holder or not. -- Moondigger 10:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh the uploader got permission to use them, and got none watermarked images from the photographer after the uploads were nearly deleted. The uploader knows the photographer, the aviation community is gather small in the US, even smaller in countries like the UK. Please at least try to at least contact the uploader before making accusations like that. PPGMD 15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is documented... where? I am also curious about whether the copyright owner is aware that a free license on Wikipedia must also equal free commercial licensing everywhere and without restrictions on derivative works. -- Moondigger 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move this one to the suspended section until the copyright issues have been resolved. Raven4x4x 07:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly it is good that this discussion group finally contacted me. I originally posted the image after getting specific permission for the use of this image (and another) on Wikipedia from the owner, Neil Lawson. I have reproduced the request that I made to him by e-mail in May 2005 and his response.

Neil There is a free on-line encyclopaedia called Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page The article on gliding lacks a couple of good photos eg of a winch launch and a competition finish. (There are sexier gliders than a Blanik.) However they are fussy about taking photos unless there is clear evidence that the owner has given permission. Would you be interested in two of your photos being used? The photos as they are on your web site showing the copyright details would be good publicity for you (as well as gliding in general). The caption would also include a credit to Whiteplanes.com. They need not be very large. I could reduce them to any size that you specify, so no work would be needed from you.

Hi John, I'd be all for that, thanks for the suggestion... wow! do they need some of those pictures replacing... the "Modern Aerobatic Glider" shot is just phenomenally dull! How about you try and tempt them with the attached. Same for the "Touring Motorglider". And anything else they're stuck for - it's in our own interest really. If you're in touch with them, I'd be happy to supply images as long as there are credits. I could supply versions without the copyright strap, no problem. I'd also be happy to do any re-sizing. How about the attached to replace W280022? Slightly more dynamic. Cheers Neil the White Planes picture co

Unfortunately Neil was killed at Husbands Bosworth while photographing a glider in Aug 2005 [17] If you really insist, I could get further clarification from his friends who manage his estate including his photo library, but I think his intention was very clear. He was a remarkably generous man who was happy for his images to be used to promote the sport of gliding.

The file name is the one that Neil used. I have no problem with it being renamed. If the images supplied by Neil are thought to be small or discoloured, then they should be replaced, but only when better images become available. (I believe that the small white streak is a vapour trail.) Whether it is a remarkable photo is a matter of opinion, but the bend on the wings alone is impressive in my view. Please contact me again if this discussion threatens the use of Neil's images on Wikipedia.

Would Moondigger kindly suggest some way of proving that copyright permission has been obtained apart from a physical signature? Neil was the person who removed his own watermark and I resent implications that I might have broken his trust.

I also note that the proposal to remove this image was made by a 14 year-old. JMcC 16:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Please do not bring my age in to a discussion such as this, where it is not (or should not) be a factor in deciding whether the image is good enough to represent Wikipedia's best work. I would ask that you remove that line (and this one), or at least strike it out using <s> </s> tags. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that permission to use an image on wikipedia is not sufficient, at least for FP. Do they not require the image to be available for any commercial enterprise that chooses to use the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Say1988 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 August 2006

Your request for permission only stated "However they are fussy about taking photos unless there is clear evidence that the owner has given permission." but you need to make it clear that the image must be released for any third party use. I'm not sure who the copyright of the images belongs to now, but I imagine whoever inherited the company (his family?). If this image is to stay, another request must be made, making in explicitly clear that the image needs to be freely licensed. ed g2s • talk 15:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that after conversation with the person who manages Neil's estate that there is no objection to the photograph being used by any third party provided that the whiteplanes picture company is credited. JMcC 12:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An email would be best. ed g2s • talk 01:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the reply that I got. "Hi John, I’m quite happy for this, but I’m a little unsure about allowing ‘any third party’ to use the images where the usage may be commercial – I don’t think that others should be profiting from these images. Is there any way of allowing this with the exception of commercial usage?" JMcC 21:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's a noncommercial-use-only image and not allowable on Wikipedia. Delist and I will have the image deleted from Commons as well. howcheng {chat} 22:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, Thanks. There is no way that use of these images can be restricted to educational or non-profit purposes. The standard copyright box attached to images is clear about this. Neil viewed the photos as promoting both his business and gliding and wasn’t worried at the time (see below).
John, Ok, no problem. I think it’s a shame that wikipedia can’t make the distinction, but hey-ho! Feel free to continue using these images for this purpose. I think in an earlier email you mentioned whiteplanes.co.uk – please make sure that the credits are www.whiteplanes.com! JMcC 08:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. I hadn't gotten the ball rolling on deletion yet, so we're all good. howcheng {chat} 16:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for delisting was sidetracked by copyright issue. Delist discussion goes here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=72805156"