Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/May-2010

 

Reason

A strikingly beautiful fresco and an intriguing one encapsulated in a detailed well composed image

Articles in which this image appears

Apotheosis of Washington, United States Capitol, Apotheosis, Constantino Brumidi, Rotunda of the United States Capitol

Creator

Raul654

• Support as nominator --Thanks, Hadseys 23:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What is underneath that thing? isn't it possible to take a picture right from below? Abisharan (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I realize it was an attempt to limit the scope of the image to the center design but the cropping of the border throws the image off in my opinion since you can only see the outside design past the circular border on the sides and it is clipped off right at the edge of the circular design on the top and the bottom. Cat-five - talk 20:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • but this nomination is about the painting not the dome --Thanks, Hadseys 22:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine when judging encyclopedic value but the framing of the shot is relevant to the quality of the image and that's what's being nominated. Cat-five - talk 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not the most compelling composition - and I believe a better angle is possible. This was definitely not taken directly below. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For a 4,664 square foot painting, I would expect a SIGNIFICANTLY higher resolution image to be needed to be a FP of the subject. Multiple image mosaic of many megapixels probably to do it any justice. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

It's of a brilliant standard and resolution, and is a free-use image. Above all I think it looks stunning, adding exceptional value to respective articles.

Articles in which this image appears

Freddie Mercury, British Asian, British Indian, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: M

FP category for this image

People

Creator

Carl Lender, derivative work: Lošmi.

• Support as nominator --TheStig_t·c 11:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is going to take quite a bit more Queen-up. Resizing possibly, but probably a host of noise reduction schemes that will ultimately result in an even softer image, but with less grain/noise/artefacts. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bad puns aside I agree with PLW that this really needs some more cleanup before being feature quality. Since I'm not active on FPC very often anymore permission is given to Papa Lima Whiskey to strike this comment when that has occurred to his satisfaction. Cat-five - talk 20:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm sure there are lots of much better pictures of Freddie Mercury available. The light in the background is very intrusive and the picture in general is way too noisy. It looks like it has been scanned from a magazine print or something. Luca (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

 

Reason

We need more images of something other than nature or late 19th century art. Besides encyclopedic value I think it's pretty, especially streaks left by the sparks. FFfiire!

Articles in which this image appears

Lighter

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others

Creator

Ben_pcc

• Support as nominator --Ben pcc (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice caption, but you can see neither the flint nor the textured metal drum. Overall the picture is a bit too dark, motion blurred and gimmicky overall to be encyclopedically usefull. Looks cool though. I must have a couple of old shots like this somewhere burried on my HD too. --Dschwen 17:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Due to light issues - as per Dschwen - you cannot see two of the main parts talked about in the caption... I do like the spark streaks though... Gazhiley (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that with more light the flint would be visible? Considering that it's covered in metal I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. And if I remove the metal, it's the source of spark so unless the photo is taken not when sparking you won't see much.

I redid this with an out of focus light color bath towel as background and really didn't like it. I was about to upload as alternate but when comparing to what's here now it's obviously poorer looking. I also had it clamped in a vise to lessen motion blur but that worsened the gimmicky-ness, this photo is more natural, only a cigarette is missing. Not that I smoke.

My main issue with my photo, and I'm surprised this didn't come up in response #1, is the overexposure. I tried many ways to reduce (my lens goes down to f/57 and stays pretty sharp :->) it but they all looked terrible. I haven't tried tone mapping though. -Ben pcc (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per Noodle below I still stand by my point - the lighther is so dark you cannot see the parts you refer to... It's a good picture, especially with the sparks - but not EV for the process you refer to... Gazhiley (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support: I hear what is being said above, but, looking at it, I'm learning something. J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but are you learning it from the picture or article? Gazhiley (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture. I've used lighters plenty of times, but I still went "wow, I didn't realise..." when I saw the picture. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It does look pretty cool... Benjamint 04:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose use some flash to make the lighter visable. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/liberato/2521884271/in/faves-26601890@N06/ for the type of result you might expect. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok, here's an alternate. I try to never use flash unless needed absolutely. In this photo it's clamped on a vise, and though the aperture is way, way shut you can see the business end of the lighter clearly. The textured metal drum kind of shows but like I said I don't think I can get flint in... -Ben pcc (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be trying to not use flash unless its needed absolutely. Throw a home made softbox (cardboard+tracing paper) on it and it will look fine in this situation. More generally, do some reading about lighting. this is a half decent start for the use of flash. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know about and have used paper tricks, and have access to a ring light. I prefer natural light though. It worked here, and though the photo in your link is gorgeous (as area all your favorites), if you look closely the sparks and the lighter don't line up. Eww. -Ben pcc (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alternative if it is available for voting... You can see the elements of the lighter better in this picture... Gazhiley (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

Was hanging previously at the picture peer review and saw no objections. Fantasy colors and generally an interesting process

Articles in which this image appears

Fimmvörðuháls, 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull

FP category for this image

Natural phenomena

Creator

Henrik Thorburn

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister[t] 19:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was thinking of nominating this myself, actually - it's a phenomenal image. And it stays with you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. It has plenty of EV, but the composition is pretty lousy really. I suppose safety was a factor, but it seems like a much better vantage point would have been on the cliffs in the foreground. It's hard to get a sense of scale though, not sure if the cliffs are literally right in front of the eruption or quite some distance from it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer would have been better, but there is a ravine between where I took the photo, and the plateau in the foreground. The photo is taken with a 300mm lense and 1.6 crop factor sensor. I took other very similar photos like this and this showing a man walking on the snow just next to the smoke. But for some reason the first one spread, probably due to the explosion in the background. Boaworm (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm, yeah, the caption says overview, but that's not really what it is. I find it somewhat confusing and the steam does not help (not the photographers fault though). As an illustration of the newsworthy eruption event I'd prefer featuring one of the image showing the large ash plume.--Dschwen 21:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High EV for the combination of basaltic volcanism amid snow. The rarity outweighs compositional concerns for me. Ash plume photos are much more common than something like this. --Avenue (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this picture of essentially the same event is more visually impressive, though perhaps less informative. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That strikes me as a fairly standard Strombolian eruption pic. It's nice too, but very different, and not as interesting to me as the nominated one. --Avenue (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (Conditional) Support Impressive. However, as this is en.Wikipedia, the caption should provide a plain-English pronunciation (like “FIM ver loush” and not the cryptic IPA stuff Wikipedia often uses). I assume the above post from Fcb981 is a "support" vote and not a comment? Greg L (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Fimmvörðuháls article has an OGG recording of someone saying the name, so I don't see the need to include the pronunciation in the caption. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• My above post was indeed a comment. In the absence of a bold "support" or "oppose" tag, posts are just comments. I suppose I could have clarified that it was a comment by adding a bold "comment" tag, but I didn't think there would be any confusion since I was simply suggesting an alternative to the nominated image, not judging it. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 18:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I have seen the picture a number of times now and I can hardly make sense of what is happening. The picture Fcb linked to is much better IMO --Muhammad(talk) 13:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done photo, nice colors, high EV --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice atmosphere Hive001 contact 16:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could crank the whites up a bit. Hive001 contact 19:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Fimmvorduhals second fissure 2010 04 02.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

 

Reason

Per the same of North and South America. This could perhaps even be be superior to those two.

Articles in which this image appears

Africa, Natural history of Africa, Geography of Africa

FP category for this image

Views of Earth from space and satellites

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The South America image is 7200 by 10000 pixels, quite a bit bigger than this. Can we get this in a higher resolution? --Avenue (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made another inquiry with Davepape, who produced the SA image. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's an existing image at full Blue Marble (first generation) resolution, uploaded a while ago by User:Dbenbenn - File:Africa satellite plane.jpg. It's a rectangular projection, rather than orthographic, but the difference is moderate. --dave pape (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Update Replaced with much higher definition version dave pape has linked to above. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular ^T · C 17:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose A wonderful image, but too tightly cropped for my liking. I would prefer to see all of Socotra included, for instance, not half of one island. I felt that seeing more of Europe helped convey the scale, too. The originally nominated picture was better in this respect.--Avenue (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've struck this because the image has changed. My new !vote is below. --Avenue (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support per Avenue, although with more of a bias towards the Arabian peninsula and Cape Verde. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Update I'm renominating the original version, which is what I'm sticking with. It's a better scope, as stated above, and meets all criteria in size. Sir Richardson (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Support for wow and high EV; weak because resolution not as good as South American one and could feasibly be higher. --Avenue (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "now with islands". Does anyone know which projection this uses?--Avenue (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's just a crop of the blue marble image, so to the best of my understanding, it would be a rectangular projection. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose original Okay, I think we should re-crop this from the Blue Marble image, making sure we include the islands mentioned above, as well as the Arabian peninsula (I think the latter just looks uncomfortable cropped). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "now with islands". Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Very confusing nom. Does not appear to have quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

I think this animation illustrates the subject well, looks interesting, and showcases the virtues of an electronic encyclopedia.

Like all animated GIFs, because of a bug in Safari, you will likely see smoother animation by using any other browser, such as Firefox.

Articles in which this image appears

3D modeling and Cobalt (CAD program)

FP category for this image

Engineering and technology animations, Science Animations and Diagrams & drawings animations

Creator

Greg L

• Support as nominator --Greg L (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: As per nom. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Gives a wonderful perspective. Can't wait for it to be applied to the Sports Illustrated models.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A nice image relating to an interesting topic. I'm not sure how many animated GIFs there are on Wikipedia, but they really add an "extra dimension" when describing such topics. Very nice work. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 21:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per previous nom. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice graphic. This looks much better with a lighter background. SteveB67 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avenue (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Looks like a lot of work. Hive001 contact

Promoted File:Jack-in-cube solid model, light background.gif --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

Good quality, EV, lighting. High resolution as well.

Articles in which this image appears

Karnataka High Court, Cubbon Park, History of Bangalore

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Attractive, colorful, and worldly. It seems the brightness could be punched up. In Photoshop, I tried +29 brightness, +9 contrast, and +12 saturation and seemed brighter and more inviting. If not, I still support. Greg L (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think it's bright enough as it is. Certainly the brightest orange building I've ever seen in my life. :-) Is there any reason why you didn't take the photo from precisely straight on? The slight dissymmetry is a shame. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that the central lamp post, the end lamp posts (relative to the columns behind), the flagpole, and other items such as the spires at the roof apex, are very slightly out of alignment. It appears the picture was taken perhaps about a 50 centimeters to the left of the centerline (for a one-meter ∆). This sort of thing often happens in aviation pictures where the photographer will do his best to get smack on the centerline off the plane’s nose. It’s not until they get back to the darkroom (or computer nowadays), that they discover they were off maybe 10 centimeters, which really stands out when it becomes a full-page glossy advertisement. A half-meter or so on a big building isn’t much; you must have an awfully sensitive eye, for when I take the left half and flip it over to the right, nothing appreciably changes except that there are much fewer shadows. Greg L (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I was not allowed to take pictures from inside the Cubbon Park where the building is situated. So I stood outside a metal fence and took pictures through the space between the bars. I tried to be as centrally placed as possible but If I remember correctly, a larger bar was in the middle of the fence and that probably led to the slight mis-alignment --Muhammad(talk) 02:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah I see, I sympathise then! There's usually a good reason. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I must withdraw a previous comment about neoclassic buildings having little wow effect... :) Good lighting and the birds add further dynamism. Elekhh (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why cut off? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is impossible to see the whole building from ground level. I have tried to include as much as possible and you can confirm this by comparing with other images of the court. --Muhammad(talk) 13:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take it this was done as a single exposure, and you cropped it where the trees start to conceal the rest of the building? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stitched image, otherwise yes --Muhammad(talk) 17:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, well I'll weak oppose for now since I generally don't agree with that kind of cropping - I think it's better to actually include one tree either side because that gives an idea of how the subject is framed in real life. It works for some subjects, not for others - difficult to decide without having seen the wider crop. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like the most ideal crop to me. File:Karnataka High Court.jpg gives a different perspective which may help others decide. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite some sympathy with PLW's view. Nice work, good subject. --Avenue (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice Hive001 contact 16:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore MMK.jpg —Maedin\^talk 06:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

Isn't it gorgeous?!

Articles in which this image appears

chromium

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator: Sorry, I got a little carried away on the caption. Maedin\^talk 07:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looks pretty good to me. I would be inclined to say the caption's a little non-neutral, though. A clear bias in favour of chromium :P J Milburn (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like a professional-grade picture from one of those posters offered by chemical-supply companies. Very nicely done. Greg L (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per Greg L --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice picture Hive001 contact 16:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite a few blown highlights. Caption needs to be trimmed. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Chromium is a highly reflective metal. All the crystals a small mirrors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• @HereToHelp—The caption is not used for anything, I don't see why it couldn't stay as it was. "Needs to be trimmed"—why? Maedin\^talk 11:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It becomes the draft for the POTD on the Main Page. It has been trimmed since I was last here, to about a quarter of its original length. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as creator. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chromium crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 23:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

High encyclopedic value, good quality, and eye-catching. Restored version of File:Great presidential puzzle.jpg.

Articles in which this image appears

1880 Republican National Convention

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

James Albert Wales (artist), Mayer, Merkel, & Ottmann (lithographers)

• Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^T · C 01:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note bonus points: artist is Jimmy Wales ;-) Jujutacular ^T · C 01:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mime’s reaction :·) Greg L (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. And as a political history junkie, I feel honor-bound to point out that a certain person is not even visible on the cartoon... :-)--Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Funny pic Hive001 contact 16:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A quality, informative, and memorable picture. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avenue (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Fabulous scan. NauticaShades 18:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Great presidential puzzle2.jpg —Maedin\^talk 22:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

 

Reason

Fairly high quality photograph with good EV for seaweed farming. Decent enough EV for Nusa Lembongan as well considering the island has a "seaweed farming micro-industry." See PPR nomination here.

Articles in which this image appears

Seaweed farming, Seaweed, Nusa Lembongan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other

Creator

Jean-Marie Hullot

• Support as nominator --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great composition and great EV (I just wrote/added seaweed farming). It could be sharper, but the rest of it makes up for this. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting, encyclopedic, and well composed. It also adds to our understanding of Indonesia, which is underrepresented in Wikipedia and WP:FP. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is an unfortunate picture. The farmer is pictured from the shadow side, and with nothing impressive done with respect to DOF or compositional elements aiding the isolation of the subject, a good quality is not achieved. I find this picture fair but not feature quality. Abisharan (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very good picture. I like the composition and I think it has lots of EV, which is what matters most, IMHO. Luca (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A bit noisy and a bit out of focus, but the composition and the EV (I think it can't get more EV than this) easily compensate, as already mentioned above. Luca (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It might not be perfect. But I like it anyway. Hive001 contact 16:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. The edit improves some aspects, but makes the shadowing of the farmer's face worse. --Avenue (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the edit, please: which do we prefer? Maedin\^talk 22:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Slightly prefer edit. Pretty small change, but marginally more appealing in my opinion. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, the edit is an improvement. NauticaShades 15:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Seaweed farming -Nusa Lembongan, Bali-16Aug2009 edit.jpg —Maedin\^talk 17:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

Close-up, high-quality image of the newest training aircraft to enter United States Air Force service.

Articles in which this image appears

Diamond DA40

FP category for this image

Aeronautics and Aviation

Creator

Uploaded by The Bushranger.
U.S. Air Force photo by Mike Kaplan.

• Support as nominator --The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, I think if the photo is to illustrate the plane, it needs to show the whole subject and preferably with a bit of flair. This doesn't do either. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry. As per Diliff. Some aviation pictures make you stop and stare. This just isn’t one of those. Greg L (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is definitely not a good candidate for a FP. It's just dull and boring, and does not show the whole plane! Desiderius82 (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per Diliff - needs to be whole plane at least, let alone some form of wow... Gazhiley (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not to mention, the tailfin of another plane is "growing" out of the nose. I"d love to see an FP of this plane but it needs better composition. Fletcher (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have no real issue with a tarmac shot but it's not a great shot of the plane unless it shows the whole plane. Cat-five - talk 21:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Problems with composition and blown-out highlights. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 21:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed per WP:SNOW. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

Not wowish, but high EV (the easternmost evidence of Roman military presence) and clearness.

Articles in which this image appears

Gobustan Rock Art Cultural Landscape, History of Azerbaijan

FP category for this image

History

Creator

Grandmaster

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister[t] 06:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The depicted object is of great importance, but the picture itself is simply poor.--Desiderius82 (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The subject itself is interesting, but I'd say this fails criterion 3b. NauticaShades 12:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion 3 says that "historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all", but looks like we are talking about tastes here. Brandmeister[t] 13:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, but 3b says that a picture should "illustrate the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more." I'm not saying that this picture should be beautiful, just that it is not particularly compelling. NauticaShades 14:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - In this case it is not about beauty, it's about depicting the subject in the best way possible. To start with, the angle at which the picture was taken, makes it more difficult to read than if it was taken with the camera sensor in parallel to it. This is not the kind of subject that is extremely difficult to photograph, so we can hope for a better FPC. I totally agree with Desiderius' and Nautica's comments above. Luca (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Shouldn't have been taken at such an oblique angle. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Articles in which this image appears

Himalayan Griffon Vulture

Creator

Benjamint 03:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator (Identified by Shyamal) --Benjamint 03:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Quality is not that great and size is small considering that we will soon be upping the requirement --Muhammad(talk) 17:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, we are opposing noms now because of future guidelines that aren't even in effect yet? That strikes me as being wrong in quite a few ways. Cat-five - talk 21:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider the quality to be the reason for oppose and the size just a comment --Muhammad(talk) 00:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Muhammad. Greg L (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have issues with the quality on this too, a better shot is possible. Cat-five - talk 21:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The contrast seems a bit too low, and the image isn't very sharp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

Found this while browsing. Thought it was a very good image.

Articles in which this image appears

Private library

FP category for this image

Places

Creator

Emgonzalez

• Support as nominator --Raul654 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful lighting. Interesting library. Makes one want to click on it for a closer look. Greg L (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a beautiful image, but bad technical quality: jpg artefacts and nothing realy sharp. Sorry, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm… I’m not seeing any jpeg artifacts. And I would hope that others who might vote here understand that the Nikon 5700’s 5 MP resolution, like nearly all digital cameras, look fuzzy when zoomed all the way to their native resolution. This is because of the way camera manufacturers count each R, G & B sub-pixel as a “pixel”, which is unlike computer monitors, where only three-color triads are considered as a pixel. All one need do is zoom out 50% to obtain pleasant sharpness in digital pictures. What contributors might consider doing is using Photoshop to reduce their native-resolution files by 50% (to 1280 in this case) and then people wouldn’t see fuzziness. But then, that would be pushing the lower limits of what is considered acceptable resolution for FP status. Give the industry another 18 months and the 5 MP cameras will largely be replaced by 10 and 12 MPs. Greg L (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Yes, it's not amazingly sharp, and yes, it has blown highlights, but it's still a fine image. The criterion is not perfection, "only" excellence. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - looks great! Airplaneman ✈ 02:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sorry, I don't see the "amazing" sharpness. There's a bit of noise in the dark areas and the highlights are blown out. Also, the composition is not very good, unbalanced and not centered. Luca (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He wrote “Yes, it’s not amazingly sharp.” Greg L (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, yes, you're right. But still, nothing changes regarding my opinion and comment in general. Luca (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too blured at full res - a better camera would take a better pic so I cannot support this as can be re-taken with a better cam to obtain a better picture Gazhiley (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Maybe some sharpening could be useful? Brandmeister[t] 17:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment… So I did. I took the image, hit it with one shot of “Sharpen edges” in Photoshop, and reduced its dimensions by the square root of 0.5 (to 1810 pixels wide). The result is very sharp at 100%. Anyone can repeat this themselves, or can e-mail me via Wikipedia’s e-mail facility. I’ll e-mail back with the file. Greg L (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's nice, but the standard for architecture is high, and I don't think this is as sharp as we would expect; and it looks like it was supposed to be composed symmetrically, but isn't. Fletcher (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sharpness issues mainly, but also colour balance and lack of perspective correction. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Issues with sharpness, and visible noise. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

 

Reason

This picture is of high quality, a good example of weightlessness and cohesion in space and an example for the STS-131 mission

Articles in which this image appears

Weightlessness, Clayton Anderson, STS-131

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Aeronautics and aviation

Creator

edited and uploaded by Hive001, Original created by NASA

• Support as nominator --Hive001 contact 16:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cool picture. Yes, the guy in the background is a bit out of focus. But the water ball (the focus point, both literally and figuratively) is tack sharp. As it is exceedingly hard to re-take the picture, I’d like to see it on Wikipedia’s Main Page for 24 hours. And, by the way; this picture works quite well upside down. Greg L (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Greg, acceptable but not amazing technicals outweighed by value and rarity. It works well on the side too - there is no up or down, it's space! HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The guy's face in the background is not the main focus of the shot, and as such is supposed to be out of focus. The floating ball of water with his image in it is the focus of the shot. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Barely meets size requirements and quality is not very good --Muhammad(talk) 06:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't know why the picture site on Wikipedia shows a lower quality ((1,024 × 768 pixels, file size: 67 KB) than the one on Commons. If you go the the site on Commons you'll see that it is bigger (1,322 × 780 pixels, file size: 354 KB). Maybe this problem came up when I uploaded a new version of this picture (my first upload was the wrong version). Has anyone an idea how to update the image page on Wikipedia? Hive001 contact 07:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And yes, the guy is supposed to be out of focus. As said above Hive001 contact 07:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have seen both versions. The one nominated here barely meets the requirements now(and we are in the process of upping those). --Muhammad(talk) 15:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Could you be more specific as to the source of the image for the image description page? I ask partially because the cropped version is a higher resolution than the uncropped version [3], which is a bit odd. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• is it cropped or just another image, I thought it was just another image zoomed in that someone replaced the zoomed out with...? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The original, which is a huge file, can be downloaded here [4]. I cropped it to the interesting stuff. As I said, my first upload was the wrong version (just a smaller version of the uncropped original) Hive001 contact 08:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see, thank you. I think it would be little bit better not so cropped, so I added an edit. Support edit 1. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mhm, I still prefer the cropped version. Only the bubble is in focus and Clayton Anderson has an ugly shadow on the chin. Hive001 contact 16:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's most interesting is the optics of the image produced, which isn't being explained. I take it the water ball is behaving as a completely spherical convex mirror, but it's amazing it can route the light all the way around it, if i'm seeing this right. Fletcher (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's scope for using it in some articles on optics, but it's not being used that way yet. --Avenue (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original cropped version, not the broader view per Hive001 (chin shadow, focus) and due to distracting background. --Avenue (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either --Avala (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. The image benefits from emphasized bubble I think. Brandmeister[t] 17:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. It just has a certain quality that grabs the viewer's interest. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Clayton Anderson zero g.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

Good quality, composition and featured on commons. EV is particularly good because it is the only nymph picture on wiki. Unfortunately, it can not be identified any further because unless physically observed and dissected it is not possible to identify nymphs. Identifying expert mentioned on description page.

Articles in which this image appears

Coreidae

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 05:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I rarely vote on these types of pics as I don't know enough about insects but I will support this as I found it very high in EV as I didn't realise "baby" insects were called nymphs, and that they looked identical other than in size until adult... so for the EV alone I am supporting this... It's also good quality pic, no flaws that I can see, other than the rear legs (in the pic - in reality it's the front and rear left legs) are out of focus, but apparently this is ok... Gazhiley (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It's hard at first to see what's bug and what's plant, and the orange antennae are out of focus. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it may be difficult to to figure that out but I think that's one of the adaptations of the bug. Quoting from the article,"They are also called “leaf-footed bugs” due to the leaf-like expansions some species have on their hindlegs." --Muhammad(talk) 14:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good quality, resolution and obviously good EV. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 17:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avenue (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Very little encyclopedic value. We have dozens, maybe even hundreds of good photos of squash bugs on Commons (with genuine free licenses to boot). A photo of an unidentified nymph is relatively useless. I don't even think it should be in the article, honestly. Kaldari (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the expert, nymphs are almost impossible to identify. The image is used to illustrate a nymph, enlighten me as to how it is useless. I don't expect this picture to be the sole FP expected of a squash bug. We can have one showing the adult as well.--Muhammad(talk) 00:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per Kaldari, considering the article this picture is illustrating. This nymph does not represent all nymphys of the Coreidae family. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I am trying to say. If the experts can't place it any further than the family, then IMO it is representative of the family --Muhammad(talk) 17:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (lol) Nice try, Muhammad, but I can't believe you don't see the flaw in your reasoning... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then tell me where my flaw lies --Muhammad(talk) 18:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I didn't want to give the impression of patronizing you! The fact that nymphs are more difficult to identify is because they usually don't show in a clear way the features characteristic of each species or genus, not that all nymphs in this family of some 2k species are similar. As a matter of fact, they are not! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not following that. If one stumbles upon a nymph and wonders, "hmmm, I wonder what that is", then Wikipedia will tell one that it is a nymph of the Coreidae family. Where exactly is the problem with that? That sounds like EV to me? Maedin\^talk 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The lol had me there with the patronizing. The very fact that they do not show distinctive features and thus illustrate a general view is a reason why they can be used to illustrate the family article. Of course, not all nymphs are similar just as all monkeys are not similar. But a monkey article would do well with a picture of a monkey showing the general features the tail, ears etc. Similarly, IMO the family article benefits from the nymph picture. To add to the argument, would you propose removal of all images from all family and genus articles and keeping images only in the species articles because not all the members of the genus are similar? --Muhammad(talk) 19:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Who said that this particular nymph (or any nymph) illustrates a general view of the whole family? That is certainly not true. If this individual is difficult to identify is because there are (probably) several species sharing these same visible features, as nymphs. Not the whole family, as shape and colours vary a lot! I also didn't say that this image does not add value to the article, only that its EV do not justify the FP status. Well, do you really believe that all non-FP images should be removed from the articles? ;-) Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • This bug was difficult to identify further than family but till the family it was much easier. When I was photographing it, with my limited knowledge, I thought here's a Coreidae and when I sent it to the expert, he with all his resources came to the same conclusion. Now I am not saying that all nymphs of Coreidae are the same but they have many similar features which is why they have been gropued together. Secondly, I always thought adding value to the article = EV, was I wrong? I really don't undertsand your question about removing non-FPs from articles. I asked you a genuine question and now we are asking rhetorical ones? --Muhammad(talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • (clarify) This nymph certainly shares some of the distinctive features of the family, otherwise it wouldn't have been identified as a Coreidae! But the fact that the genus could not be identified doesn't qualify it automatically as a good representative of the family, like Muhammad pretends -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • And again you state your belief but don't explain why or provide any evidence. Why doesn't it qualify as a good representative of the family? --Muhammad(talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Last try (not a question of belief but logic):

• If the experts can't place it any further than the family, then IMO it is representative of the family . This is a fallacy. If something makes it representative of the family is the set of features it shares with the other members, not the dificulty in identifying the species;
• It is not me who has to prove that this nymph does not represent the whole familiy, it is you who has to convince the reviewers it does (which you were not able to do so far). The concept of type has been used by biologists to designate the genus that best represent a certain familiy. Can you show us (other than with a fallacy) that this is the typical genus of the Coreidae family? Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are partially right. Yes, the nymph shows characteristics of a squash bug nymph, but that is not particularly useful to an entomologist. If it showed diagnostic characteristics of a particular species or genus, it would have far more EV, but squash bugs typically don't show those characteristics until they are an adult. The same is true of most spiders. That's why I don't even bother uploading photos of immature spiders. They just don't have enough EV to be useful. Kaldari (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. Slight DOF issues with the antennae and hind legs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In such close-up macro work, getting the whole insect in focus is nearly impossible. The DOF is small and short of a focus stack, one would hardly ever see a an insect in complete focus. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's still out of focus... and that's frowned upon normally but for some reason this time it's ok... Gazhiley (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If this is indeed representative of all nymphs in this family, I see no problem with the lack of specific identification. NauticaShades 22:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Squash bug Coreidae hz.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

 

Reason

Amazing composition, good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Agama sinaita

Creator

ST

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well, aren’t you prolific? Very, very well done! Greg L (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)  P.S. My support vote may apply to either. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Unusual animals always make good FPs. upstateNYer 01:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning! TheStig_t·c 06:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Perfect photo, nice colors --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Head and shoulders are the only part of this animal in focus... Very unapealing at full res due to blur... Gazhiley (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limited depth of field happens (a lot) in close-ups; particularly macro close-ups. Physics and optics. While your observation is entirely true, it strikes me as a bit overcritical, like faulting this portrait of Einstein because his ears and the hair behind is ears aren’t in focus. The photograph of Einstein is still interesting because his face is the most important part; similarly, this lizard’s head and shoulders, IMO. Greg L (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but just because there's a reason for it doesn't mean we should ignore it... FP nom's often get picked up for DOF issues so it amazes me no-one else has mentioned this... Gazhiley (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can make a focus bracket, you just have to live with it. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, prefer edit. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the noise reduction pulled away a lot of the detail in the head, did you mask the head? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NR was done in sections - some parts of the head were least NR'ed, other areas more. Imo, noise is present all over the image. The human eye still does a better job of filtering it out, but FPC sometimes has low tolerance for acknowledging this fact. ^^ Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of that detail is minor artifacts. I prefer them smoothed out. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any Beautiful! Luca (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Elekhh (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the original. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both version are very beautiful and amazing. Hive001 contact 16:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, prefer edit Per all above, a stunning shot. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, prefer original as it has more detail and negligible noise IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenue (talk • contribs) 09:41, 3 May 2010
• Weak oppose. I find myself echoing the concerns of Gazhiley a little. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don´t see much difference between the original and edit 1. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 17:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Avala (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Cool lizard! I don't see a major difference between the edit and the original, so support either. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Hmm, looks like something from Avatar. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:AgamaSinaita01 ST 10.jpg —Maedin\^talk 16:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I acted too hastily in promoting the original. If you have a preference for either the original or the edit, would you please state it in the next couple of days. Thanks! Maedin\^talk 10:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies; it would appear that an almost identical edit uploaded over the original, after the alternative was produced, has confused the discussion (and me). I consider at least two preferences for the original null, then, and will alter the promotion accordingly. Maedin\^talk 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:AgamaSinaita01 ST 10 edit.jpg —Maedin\^talk 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

 

Reason

Very professionally-done picture showing hummingbird mother feeding her two chicks in a nest

Articles in which this image appears

Hummingbird, Bird, Parenting, Calliope Hummingbird

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

User:Wwcsig

• Support as nominator --Cumbiagermen (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit I agree - nice and unusual colours, great control of focal plane, no motion blur (not easy with a hummingbird, I imagine). Looking forward to more nominations from this photographer (check out his userpage - nice stuff!) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit The sharpness is up to (but not over) our standards, and the EV of three birds interacting in a nest is too good to pass up. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice and high EV. --Elekhh (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either per comments above. Fletcher (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I wish more of the nest could have been in focus, but the birds themselves are fine. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit. Great EV. NauticaShades 15:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Well-executed, good DOF. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Subject and composition is good, but frankly it is noisy and not sharp. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit High quality and good information value. And they're adorable, aren't they?-Link (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Calliope-nest edit.jpg —Maedin\^talk 16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

Stax has returned to FPC (briefly)! Johnny Evers, the midsection of Tinker to Evers to Chance. A Hall of Famer, though noted by Bill James as one of the worst Hall of Famers of all time, probably owes his infamy to that poem. Restoration of this (even this isn't a pure original, someone cropped that a bit).

Articles in which this image appears

Johnny Evers, Baseball's Sad Lexicon

FP category for this image

People

Creator

George Grantham Bain Collection, restored by Staxringold

• Support as nominator --Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. The guy doesn't look like a professional athlete. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotta love old school baseball. Ever seen Conan O'Brien's skit playing old-timey baseball? Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I love those old unusual-looking bats and gloves. -- mcshadypl ^TC 18:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Interesting historical photo, but the composition seems pretty uninspiring. Centred, with a tight crop under his foot but tons of space everywhere else. A crop on the left would improve it, but probably not enough to be an FP IMO. --Avenue (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• They aren't making any new photos of Johnny Evers. I would say historical value trumps style preferences. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, they're not making any more, but this isn't the only one either. A Google image search picks up some much nicer photos of him, IMO. Even if this was the only photo ever taken of him, it seems this isn't the best crop we could get. The uncropped version here doesn't cramp his toes, for one thing. It doesn't look as clean as your restored version (which is nicely done, by the way), but I think it's at least as good as the original version you linked to in your nomination above. --Avenue (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW I actually worked off the true original from LOC. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I didn't notice that. It's a shame the LOC image was cropped so haphazardly. On the issue of historical value, I don't know much about early baseball, but the galleries here and here make me think that the Evers picture doesn't stand out on that front either. On the positive side, there seems to be plenty of material out there to work with - good action shots,[5][6][7] and interesting posed ones [8][9][10] (or some combination).[11] --Avenue (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Historical image, quality not bad for the time. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks great, good work. High EV, good quality scan. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High EV, good quality. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hive001 contact 17:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Johnny Evers 1910 FINAL2sh.jpg —Maedin\^talk 16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

 

 

 

 

Multiple images in a single box. Demonstrates why it is unnecessary to combine the photos into a single file.

 

 

 

Set 2.

Reason

Highly encyclopaedic and good quality illustration of the plant

Articles in which this image appears

Opium Poppy

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Info - Difficult to be more enc than this. I hope that it will not be declined by some irrelevant technical details like this one. I'm adding a possible alternative, but really prefer the original. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An image not being in focus is an irrelevant technical detail now? --Dschwen 14:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, when the flaw is minimal and does not affect the illustration purpose. Anyway the alternative didn't have such problem -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not nominate this as a set? Lumping it together into a single image does not make it more usefull, but rather less useful. --Dschwen 14:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. It is more useful for illustration purposes if the images are kept together imo. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can always put them together using wiki markup, however you cannot re-layout them once they are lumped into one image. --Dschwen 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I can. They are all available as separate pictures. Just give me some time to refer to it in the image file. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, then please provide a vertically stacked series, a picture with the Flower on the bottom and the two other pictures on top, one with the flower on top and the two others on the bottom, one with the flower on the right and the two others vertically stacked on the left. Thanks. --Dschwen 16:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, what does that achieve? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The flexibility that separate images would have. ;-) --Dschwen 16:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • yes master, anything you say ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Info - I made a mistake and nominated the wrong image. It is fixed now. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added a box showing the multiple images displayed together, as opposed to combining them into a single file. This demonstrates why a single file is unnecessary. Therefore, I support these images as a set. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer set 1, per Avenue. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support only as a set, not as combined image. Kaldari (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, preferably as a set, but combined is also good.--ragesoss (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jujutacular, with a preference for a crop of the alt as the centre image (set 2) - better DOF and somewhat softer lighting (can be argued both ways, but I prefer the softer version in this case). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support set, with preference to set two. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support set, with preference for set one. The characteristic crinkles in the outer parts of the petals are clearer here. --Avenue (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as set, not combined image. I agree that combining into one file makes it less useful, as a set of 3 images it's much more flexible. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support set Hive001 contact 16:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which set? Makeemlighter (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I perfer the one with this flower, sharper, in the sun.. the other is less sharp and overcast... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I actually think that set 2 has the sharper image. In the original set, the outer fringes of the petals are out of focus. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I still prefer set 1. As I said above, I feel it represents the flower's nature more clearly, even if it is technically a bit out of focus in places. --Avenue (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support set 1. I'm with Avenue on this one. Set 2 may be slightly sharper, but that may just be because it's smaller. NauticaShades 18:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, if you can't defeat them ... join them. I prefer set 2. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support set 2. The set 1 flower looks a bit shriveled IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Most people found more adequate to promote a set instead of a poster. Now, how do you insert a set into a taxbox? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer Taxobox template needs an override parameter, here's an example of it working with a modified version of the template: [12] Alternatively, an image3 set of parameters could be added for a vertical arrangement. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Which Set? Looks like three people support set 1, and three people support set 2. Anyone else want to add their input? NauticaShades 14:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get four vs. four, but yes, we do need additional opinions. FWIW, this is my list (apologies for abbreviated names):
  • Juju 1
  • Papa 2
  • Mostly 2
  • Avenue 1
  • raeky 1
  • Nautica 1
  • Alves 2
  • King 2

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to leave a note on the talk pages of Kaldari, Rageoss, and Hive001, who have already voted on the nom, so they can express their preference. NauticaShades 11:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer set 2.--ragesoss (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Set 2. Looks better. Kaldari (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Set 2 Hive001 contact 11:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Papaver April 2010-8a.jpg, Promoted File:Papaver April 2010-13_crop.jpg, and Promoted File:Papaver April 2010-9.jpg —Maedin\^talk 20:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

shows behaviour, serves well as a portrait, not a zoo pic is a bonus

Articles in which this image appears

sloth, distal phalanges, list of mammals of Panama

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Christian Mehlführer

• Support as nominator --Maedin\^talk 12:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wonderful image. Great detail, and lots of EV on feeding habits. NauticaShades 15:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Love the expression on his face. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, even with the harsh lighting. --Avenue (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hive001 contact 16:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:MC Drei-Finger-Faultier.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 06:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

Intriguing, technically superb image that draws attention to several high profile, general knowledge articles. Simple but strong detail and natural pastels. Critical to understanding concepts related to poppy use (both legal and illegal).

Articles in which this image appears

Opium, Opium poppy, Poppyseed oil, Poppy seed, Latex

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others

Creator

Den Haag

• Support as nominator New name for image wouldn't hurt though.--K10wnsta (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Good close-up, and nice bokeh, but the things (spikes? petals?) at the top are out of focus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The quality is not good.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not fully sharp. Sorry Hive001 contact 16:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 06:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

Didn't get enough time to be fully considered in the first nomination. 31 megapixels of visible spectrum satellite imagery of Africa, via NASA. Similar images of North and South America are already featured.

Articles in which this image appears

Africa, Natural history of Africa, Geography of Africa

FP category for this image

Views of Earth from space and satellites

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What's with the filename? In any case, we JUST voted on this. Why would you re-nominate it immediately? -- mcshadypl ^TC 18:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous nom was closed as "confusing". If you prefer that we re-open it to allow additional feedback, I guess that's a possibility too. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Avenue (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • because I believe this crop has enough distinct encyclopedic value to be featured independently (as do the other crops mentioned above). --Avenue (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Qyestion I'm probably fighting precedent with this one, but after featuring File:Whole world - land and oceans 12000.jpg, is it acceptable to feature crops of it? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know for sure, but personally I'm leaning against featuring crops of current FPs. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't vote on them as I agree with this sentiment... Gazhiley (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there is something wrong with requesting that the image be from a different source. How many satellites do we really need? Africa I think is just as entitled to being featured on the front page as those other two continents. Mediawiki just doesn't allow embedding cropped views of a larger source image in articles, so we're stuck with featuring them one by one. Btw, Australia, Antarctica, and the Sahara have also been done - see Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Views of Earth from space and satellites. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's kinda the point... In theory we could have a FP of the whole globe, and also then individual FP's of the same cropped picture which to me and apparently a couple of other people is a duplication... Gazhiley (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understood your point, and I'm trying to explain to you that there currently isn't another way of doing it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Doesn't mean that this is therefore the way to do it... Gazhiley (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let's hear the alternative, then. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • You already said there isn't?! Gazhiley (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • How about a featured set, e.g. containing the image for the whole world and a crop for each of the continents? --Avenue (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Should FPs be judged on their EV? The world image clearly doesn't have the same EV in Africa as this image does. That creates a need for a new image, hence the possibility for this new image to be featured--standing on its own value. The Blue Marble image offers the possibility for derivative works to stand on their own legs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.163.110 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I dislike the featured set idea, because those are for when the images support and explain each other (i.e. different zoom levels of the Mandelbrot set, or pages of the U.S. Constitution). I guess the question is, is Africa (or North/South America) a subject distinct from the whole world, such that this image is superior to an image that contains it exactly, and then more? I would hazard that's a yes. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am with PLW on this one. We need FPs of each continent and I so no other way of doing so. --Muhammad(talk) 15:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why need? Gazhiley (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need was probably the wrong word to use. But I believe the individual images also add significantly to the articles they illustrate and hence meet the criteria for FPs. And I wonder why this is being raised now, after some similar images have already been featured. --Muhammad(talk) 16:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why now? Who knows. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. This is an excellent-quality and extremely useful image. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: EV couldn't be better. The fact that it's a crop of a larger image seems irrelevant to me. The larger image couldn't really be used in the article to illustrate Africa or any other continent, and I don't see why we shouldn't be illustrating them if we have the perfect source for it. Maedin\^talk 22:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It isn't really a satellite picture, FWIW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Per the discussion above, I would support the creation of so-called "featured sets." But as for now, support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I know I'm probably on my own here, but frankly I just don't think a crop of an existing FP is feature-worthy. As Gazhiley has pointed out, there is no 'need' for FPs of continents. I'm not completely opposed to a featured set, however. NauticaShades 00:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Africa (satellite image).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

A major catwalk model in her work environment.

Articles in which this image appears

Alek Wek, Cosmetics

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Eduardo Sciammarella

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Low contrast, minimum resolution, and I don't see anything particularly striking about this image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Low contrast? I can't imagine what you could possibly mean, in relation to the nominated photograph. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't speak for King of Hearts but possibly he means there is not enough separation ("contrast") between the subject and background... which I would call a composition/depth of field issue. Certainly the camera seems to have recorded adequate contrast. Fletcher (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant was that the lighting was poor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This picture is not "among Wikipedia's best work". It does not "illustrate the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". It's neither "aesthetically pleasing", "impressive" or "highly informative". If we decide to illustrate the subject Alek Wek or maybe Model I'm sure we can find a better picture.--Desiderius82 (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The disembodied hand and crowd of people in the background make for a cluttered, awkward composition. Fletcher (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; not loving the crowded background, and, for me, the hand stands out more than the subject... J Milburn (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Want to bet PLW adds the image to hand?  ;-) Fletcher (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll take that bet, but I'll also offer you odds on crowd if ur willing?! Gazhiley (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2010 at 17:51:16 (UTC)

 

Reason

This is an eye-catching image with limited depth of field to illustrate the subject (the opium poppy and it's latex) well. It caught my eye and made me want to read an article that I was just clicking through

Articles in which this image appears

opium, opium poppy

FP category for this image

Plants

Creator

TeunSpaans

• Support as nominator --Mgcsinc (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Interesting subject, it was timed well (with that drip), good angle. But the lighting, contrast, and depth of field is poor. As such it is not among our best works, IMO. Greg L (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn Was already recently nominated and failed: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Scored poppy - Mgcsinc (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

Good quality and EV. Much better composition and quality than any other picture of the species. High resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

Sambar (deer), Rusa (genus), Deer

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 06:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well-composed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Weak oppose Lighting not good enough. --Elekhh (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, what part? --Muhammad(talk) 13:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Patches of light and shadow on the head, make it less appealing at standard article size. --Elekhh (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well you have to understand that this is in the wild. Sometimes we have to work with what we get. And it's not like we get pictures of these very often. Compare with the former taxobox image File:Sambar walk.jpg --Muhammad(talk) 02:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I acknowledge that, and value that is in the wild. --Elekhh (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice. BTW were you able to ID the fly :)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hehe, so you noticed it? I think it's a housefly --Muhammad(talk) 02:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, mainly due to the patchy lighting. The pose also seems a bit awkward compared to other photos we have, e.g. File:Sambardeer2.jpg. --Avenue (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quality of that image is beyond FP standards and resolution is lesser than this picture. I really don't understand the lighting oppose. You supported the image above which has much worse lighting. And how do we know this pose is awkward? Maybe that one is. Maybe they are both normal poses. --Muhammad(talk) 14:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I think the lighting and pose are fine. From the stance and environment, the animal appears to have just scrambled an incline, which they probably do rather a lot. Maedin\^talk 16:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lighting and composition are not good. The location is obvious a kind of zoo, so there should be a place without patchy lighting. File:Sambardeer2.jpg is superior (though it could be a little sharper) and illustrates this species much better. By the way this one here is a youngster Hive001 contact 17:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the zillionth time, this is not a zoo shot. Really does anybody bother to read? It was taken in a national park and the animal just came out from somewhere inside and climbed over the slope. The patchy lighting is because it sun light unevenly diffused through the tree, something you would not see in a zoo. How can an image be superior if it is less sharper, and the composition is messier? This image has the added benefit(s) of showing the natural environment and food the deer eats as well as appearing in articles. If this is a youngster, then there is place for both the images in the articles --Muhammad(talk) 17:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've read the caption. Sometimes there are confined areas in a National Park and I have to admit that I thought the green stuff was hay that somebody put there to attract them (looks like that on first sight). OK, it's in the wild. But this is, in my opinion, no reason to be gentler. Some excellent pictures were made in the wild (for examples see National Geographic). This is not one of them. Sorry Hive001 contact 18:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FPC has always been about encyclopedic value first followed by aesthetics. So the patchy lighting may not be ideal but it does not detract from the image. The patches are not even over exposed that fur details are lost. It is just a tad brighter, a reflection of reality. And I wouldn't encourage comparing a freely available picture with one taken by NG especially considering the number of hours they (can) spend on jobs and the equipment they use. --Muhammad(talk) 18:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good EV and technical quality. The lighting and background are somewhat ordinary, but it is a wildlife shot and the animal is well illustrated. Fletcher (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think better images can be found. The subject can be better isolated. The colors and light are not helping this and the DOF can have a stronger role. Abisharan (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Fletcher. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

While this photograph is not of a high technical standard, its historic nature makes it one of the best public domain photographs of its subject: Douglas MacArthur with his family, in existence, and is the only photo of the MacArthur family on Wikipeda. I think it adds value to the encyclopedia, as the Douglas MacArthur article has no photos of his family, and not a single photo of MacArthur in a civilian context (i.e. as a "family man" rather than a "military man").

Articles in which this image appears

Douglas MacArthur Jean MacArthur

FP category for this image

People

Creator

Noraft

• Support as nominator --ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This was added to the FPC queue on May 14 at 20:08 UTC. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Can not support this without restoration... maybe contact one of our excellent restorers to see if they'd work on it? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who would they be? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first one that comes to my mind is Durova, and she would know plenty more, shes probably the most active restorers. I'd give her a shout see if she can bring this image up to FP quality. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even with restoration, I'm not at all sure that this picture would "significantly add" to its article. The general is only half seen, behind two of his family members that had no historical significance. IMHO, there's nothing historical, significant, or even interesting in the whole picture. --Desiderius82 (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'd say it adds to the article on Jean MacArthur, considering there was no picture of her on Wikipedia until this one was added. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true. But who was Jean McArthur - aside of the general's wife? Desiderius82 (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone with an article in Wikipedia and unless you think that article is risking being deleted, if that image is the only available of her, then that makes it important. 128.100.216.170 (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, awarded by Ronald Reagan, which is something you don't get for simply being someone's spouse. If you don't think the picture should be featured for whatever reason, that's fine, but I'm here to tell you that Jean MacArthur is notable in her own right. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 19:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Point taken. But i don't think we can chose a picture for FP only because it's the only available (here) of someone with an article. Unless that someone is Frederic Chopin or something. There are other criteria that need to be met, right? Desiderius82 (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly are, and most of them are waived for historic photographs. This photograph is special because it is the only known public domain photo of the family in existence. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree this picture probably qualifies as a special case for historic/irreplaceable images, but I don't think any of the regulars here would want to promote it until it's been given some restoration love. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a request in to Durova. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have received a request to restore this image. Normally I would note the technical shortcomings of the current version and inquire whether the nominator could obtain a better copy. This time--and this is no reflection on the nominator in particular--there are other objections. As noted on my user talk page, my wiki time is reduced these days. At the last two FPC related discussions where I participated, aggressive and very pointed attacks were made upon my motives and character yet no one called those attacks inappropriate. At one of those places the attacks were ongoing for days before I was even aware that the discussion existed. My mentions of hospice and a recent death in the family encountered utter silence. Fellow volunteers, it is hardly tenable to say "go ask Durova to work on this" when years of unpaid service is not even returned with basic human courtesy. Durova⁴¹² 17:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that you are considered the restoration expert is a sign of how much your work is considered valuable. WP is always a discussion playground. The key is not to take it personal. Even if they talk about you. After all, Durova is not really Lise, or at least it doesn't have to be. Also as all work in WP, you do it if you feel like doing it, if not is fine, maybe someone else will. Gnemetropos (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit screen at my user talk page has a FAQ.

4) I don't want to learn to restore images, but I want you to restore stuff for me.

Please supply an uncompressed TIFF or PNG file of 10 MB or larger. And offer to do something for me.
5) I thought you restored images in ten minutes with a couple of Photoshop plugins?
False assumption. The fastest good article writers turn out good articles at about the same speed as I restore images. Takes comparable effort. Actually, Juliancolton and Ottava Rima say they're faster.
6) What can I do in return?

I have written seven good articles; how about you improve one of them and we conominate at featured article candidates? Then you answer all the manual of style objections. ;)

This request seeks hours of labor which would not be able to correct the partially hidden face of the image's most famous subject or the soft focus. This is a mundane piece of photojournalism, slightly below average for its type. Nonetheless, the offer stands. Please follow up at my user talk when one of my GAs goes live at FAC. I will do the restoration then. Durova⁴¹² 21:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn Will renominate after I've restored it. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

Featured on Commons, high quality, used in 8 articles in other national Wiki.

Articles in which this image appears

Cymatium lotorium

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others

Creator

George Chernilevsky

• Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Doesn't have a huge amount of 'wow' factor, but frankly you can't really get more encyclopedic than this. NauticaShades 14:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What an exageration! Of course there are always better options. You could have a cross section in the picture. Or it can be an animation showing both this and a 3D transparent model of it, plus the cross section and indications of size. :p Abisharan (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your expectations are unreasonably high --Muhammad(talk) 17:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I find this image fine. I even support the nomination. I was just making fun of the exaggeration "you can't really get more encyclopedic than this". I find interesting that in Wikipedia it is common that things are not just good or bad they are extremely good or terribly bad. People can't resists to add really intense adjectives and descriptions and I am curious of what are the mechanisms that make that happen. 128.100.216.170 (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. That was intentionally hyperbolic. Obviously I didn't mean that this could not possibly be more encyclopedic, just that it was pretty flawless in terms of EV. NauticaShades 20:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very nice!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Very technical, loads of EV. Luca (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice Hive001 contact 16:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avenue (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lots of potential for FPs in this area. J Milburn (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Nautica --Muhammad(talk) 17:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very professional looking. Well done! Greg L (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cymatium lotorium 2010 G1.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 17:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

Well-composed image showing the animal in its natural range.

Articles in which this image appears

Plestiodon fasciatus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Thegreenj

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Could do with a de-noise though. Nice find --Muhammad(talk) 11:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- very nice composition as per nom, a bit noisy as per Muhammad. Luca (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice image. Why no EXIF data though? Kaldari (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, pretty interesting. Muhammad, I don't find it noisy, however, and NR would detract from its excellent detail. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Interesting composition. Maybe a little selective blur on the background would help without harming the detail on the animal.Fletcher (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hive001 contact 16:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a nice image. It should be featured. Avs_Dps (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd strike the in its natural range, there is a meshwire fence in the background and the animal is sitting on a sawed of piece of tree trunk. All man-made. --Dschwen 20:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's correct - natural geographic range. For an argument about habitats (different concept), see synanthrope. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Eumecesfasciatus.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 17:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Articles in which this image appears

Nephila pilipes

Creator

Benjamint 23:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 23:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. This is a little on the small side, especially given all the empty space. I don't see any reason to oppose it, however. NauticaShades 00:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Well-executed shot; a bit low on resolution though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Too small, hardly any details can be seen. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - I like it, but the resolution could be higher Hive001 contact 16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose resolution is insufficient for the subject. --Dschwen 19:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: I like it, and I love images of this sort, but I just don't think it's up to the same standard as some others. J Milburn (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

 

Reason

It explains the circuits of the basal ganglia in an anatomically precise and almost artistic manner, facilitating the understanding of Parkinson's disease and other basal ganglia diseases

Articles in which this image appears

• Parkinson's disease
• Basal ganglia disease
• Striatum
• Substantia nigra
• Basal ganglia
• Globus pallidus
• Subthalamic nucleus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

User:Mikael Häggström, based on images by Andrew Gillies/User:Anaru and Life Science Databases

• Support as nominator - either .png or .svg --Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm a little hesitant about the imported raster; if no technical problems are found with the SVG, then that is where my vote lies; otherwise the PNG is also pretty good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• That raster picture of the brain is only used to show a location. It can perfectly be replaced by a silhouette. The spongy shape of the brain will be still recognizable by all. Abisharan (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

• Or it can be replaced by an equivalent vector image, as demonstrated. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. These sort of drawings take a lot of time to make. For that reason alone, I would support FP status just to encourage the creation of more of this kind of fine work. Greg L (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this picture not promoted? Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the quorum of five votes needs to be met for a picture to be promoted. NauticaShades 20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'm thinking of making a new nomination after making some improvements to the picture. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

Reason

The near 200-year-old museum image is of high EV and cultural importance, illustrating an artistic facet of Krishna worship. It is of satisfactory clarity and resolution and is used in a few wikipedia articles globally.

Articles in which this image appears

Krishna, Themes in Avatar, Krishnaism

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

unknown

• Support as nominator --Cinosaur (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question regarding EV: Is there a better use for it than Themes in Avatar? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good point. Added the image to Krishna. Cinosaur (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.Gaura79 (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not convinced by this. Apart from the unfortunate museum notes and other annotations at the bottom, the company style is unappealing and cartoon-ish. Is that really supposed to be a flute? This image seems to do a better job of illustrating the Krishna incarnation of Vishnu. Please correct me if I'm missing something. Maedin\^talk 20:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment. The notes at the bottom are, of course, misplaced, but not uncommon for otherwise valuable pieces of art in general, and may be seen as adding to the image's authenticity. The image's simplistic appearance is arguably a feature, not a flaw — look, for instance, at traditional Oriyan Pattachitra painting some find even more grotesque. Yes, it is actually a flute. And as far as comparing the EV of the image in question with the one you referenced, the former gives a clearer overall idea of how Krishna is depicted and, in particular, displays his trademark tilak on the forehead much more distinctly, which was a significant advantage for the illustrative purposes in Themes in Avatar. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is hardly the best illustration of Krishna. Just because it's old, doesn't mean we should respect it as having sky-high EV. It's not even particularly artistically impressive. J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for reasons in nomination and I find it impressive. gren グレン 17:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This not the best representation of Krishna. The popular iconography of Krishna represents him playing a flute. Also the the paint spreads out from the boundary at end of the left foot and near the left anklet. Not the best artist. The writing is not distracting. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 

 

Reason

Great picture of the genre-spanning artist and activist performing.

Articles in which this image appears

M.I.A. (artist), Outside Lands Music and Arts Festival, Music festival, List of festivals in the United States, Sunglasses

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Flickr user moses_namkung / Moses

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. Dynamic, captivating, I like it! The quality isn't bad, either. May I request some form of noise removal? Thanks. NauticaShades 14:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Noisy, with chromatic aberration, doesn't show the subject properly. Luca (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noise is subject to the downsampling argument - if downsampled to minimum requirements, the noise will be negligible. Besides that, it should be fairly easy to fix. As for the CA, I'm not sure there's any. I think those lights might actually be purple because there are properly white lights right next to them without the same phenomenon, if that's the place you're thinking of. Otherwise, if you can point out where the CA is, something might be done about it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - Noise reduction. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. The image does not appear to be very sharp. With NR necessarily comes a loss of detail. At just 95 mm, a slower speed (as opposed to 1/320) should have been chosen, allowing a lower ISO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the lack of sharpness excusable, given the size of the image? NauticaShades 00:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lack of sharpness is noticeable even at low resolutions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's the 1000px resized version: [13]. Central subject is perfectly in focus. If you just want to suggest a different image from the same set, there are plenty of alternatives. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The encyclopedic value of this is as a lead illustration. For a living person (especially a high-profile entertainer), we'd expect a shot that shows her face more clearly. I'm sympathetic to the artistic intent here, but it isn't enough to overcome that problem. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added to Outside Lands Music and Arts Festival, Music festival, List of festivals in the United States where it has EV that is not restricted to the living person. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does this picture demonstrate those articles though? This could have been taken on any stage at any venue in any country... I oppose the picture per Mostlyharmless but also request that it is removed from the articles you have added this to... I for one don't look at that picture and immediately think "ooo music fesival" - I think "ooo artist on a stage"... To demonstrate those articles I would expect a picture of the venue to be used not a random artist in a picture taken at an angle that could be on any stage... Gazhiley (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • • EH? What you talking about "WP:BB"? I wouldn't have the first clue about editing articles - I struggle with talk pages! I was just annoyed that you have crowcared this into random articles that there's very little reason for it to be in and think you should reverse that... But it's just my opinion lets see if anyone else agrees... And please stop being so patronising - I wasn't trying to be funny... it appears your response was removed, so this response no longer is applicable Gazhiley (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Although I can tell some of you disagree, I'd argue that this image does depict the subject well. Rather than a standard portrait, this photograph shows M.I.A. in action, which in my opinion is far more valuable than a studio portrait. With this image, we get a sense of M.I.A.'s concerts, her style, etc. Is that not more important than making sure to have all her face clearly visible? NauticaShades 14:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The angle and sunglasses don't afford a very good view of her, IMO. And sharpness isn't great. Fletcher (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added to sunglasses. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sunglasses is already well illustrated - don't see what this adds to it. Fletcher (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]