Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/June-2005

 

Perhaps these crabs aren't in their natural setting, but it is still an excellently composed picture which shows the crab clearly. Illustrating Blue crab, photo by User:wpopp. - Solipsist 18:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. -- Solipsist 18:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - does the job of showing a crab nicely - Adrian Pingstone 16:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lupin 02:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Rather cluttered. I'd prefer one alone. Superm401 | Talk 21:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per Superm401. I can't tell at a glance where one crab ends and the next begins. —Korath (Talk) 23:52, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Even from the thumbnail, it is quite clear which crab is which, except maybe for the inferior legs, but on the actual picture they are perfectly visible. Besides, this picture has the advantage of looking good both in thumbnail size and in its actual resolution. Phils 10:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may chip in as the author of the photo, I'm of course flattered that the crabs have become featured picture candidates, and keep my fingers crossed. However, it seems that even a featured picture can not fulfill every purpose one might want to put it to use to. My own votes on candidates are guided by my first impression, not by the context the picture may or may not fit. There might be a time when this particular picture becomes useful to show the state of fish markets at the end of the 20th century, when you still could buy live crabs. --wpopp 10:04, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
• Support. I think the colours are really beautiful, and I like that it isn't just one crab. Being vegetarian I hate it though! --Silversmith Hewwo 12:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I have trouble finding which leg beyonds to which crab. --Bernard Helmstetter 12:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too many in one image to get a clear perception of any of them without unraveling them! - Bevo 20:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  An extra day or so is needed to create a consensus This link is Broken 01:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support, I ummed and ahhed about this photo for a while, but I decided that I like it. --Fir0002 10:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, it's easier to see the individual crab in the full-size version, but not in the smaller version. I'd prefer a less cluttered image. --Spangineer (háblame) 01:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

  Not promoted No concensus was reached This link is Broken 02:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

Well for some reason, the previous FPC Dolphin was thought to be in too unnatural a setting. This one is wild, but still having fun in the water. Photographed by NASA's wildlife management at Kennedy Space Center. - Solipsist 08:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Solipsist 08:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Wpopp 09:24, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support What is there to say! Adrian Pingstone 16:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Of course! Sango123 19:04, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Wow, what a great photo. Looks like off a postcard. Was it taken off a ferry? --Fir0002 22:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• support nasa claims that it was the wake of a reseach boat, i imagine that is where the photographer was also. Cavebear42 20:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 11:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support —Korath (Talk) 23:55, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

  Promoted Image:Tursiops truncatus 01.jpg This link is Broken 01:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

OK, so I'm a sucker for a good diagram. A couple of days ago I landed on insect whilst trying to identify a little beast in a photo I took. I was taken with this diagram, which by chance had only been added earlier that day by Polish contributor User:PioM. I was compelled to translate the labels, and a couple of hours later the Commons had sprouted a German translation too. - Solipsist 20:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Solipsist 20:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. When you mentioned it before, I was admiring at it on the Polish wikipedia (only there it was a rather noisy bitmap with inscrutable polish labels). Super support now that it's vector art and multilingualised (so now I don't have to wonder what a gruczoł ślinowy is). It would be nice if Piotr uploaded the Inkscape SVG source (commons won't let you upload it, but as SVG is XML one can just cut'n'paste it into a regular wikipage, protected by a PRE section. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 21:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Um, can't we get this in higher res? =) Support. Spangineer ∞ 18:21, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great diagram --CVaneg 19:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice. WB 06:09, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Superb diagram - Adrian Pingstone 12:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Informative and beautiful. -- Humberto 04:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A perfect illustration --Fir0002 06:20, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Highly informative and high res image. Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support -- Chris 73 Talk 11:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Pollinator 22:38, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Oblivious 14:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an excellent diagram that really adds to the subject. Lisiate 01:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Promoted Image:Robal.png This link is Broken 01:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe this image of the stag on the hilltop should be a featured picture because it is a very striking picture, the sunset in the background frames the stag and makes it stand out. -Is used in Deer page

• Nominate and support, definatly has the wow factor Firedemon 09:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has just 5 edits BrokenSegue 22:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Support, Support! this is an amazing picture. Cyberlettuce 10:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has less than 20 edits more than half are involved with FPC voting. BrokenSegue 13:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nice picture - quite evocative A curate's egg 10:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry put the note on the wrong user. BrokenSegue 17:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Being the owner of this pic, I am flattered it has been put up for possible featured candidate. Electricmoose- Electrifying 10:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, but then I'm not sure I get the joke (nor the relationship between some of the voters here). Strange how those clouds got behind the sun. -- Solipsist 12:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose mostly out of focus

  Oh and I forgot to mention it is probably also a copyright violation. Whilst User:Fir0002's sunset is GFDL, I think that still requires attribution when used in a composite. -- Solipsist 12:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't konw if I can dictate what to do with my photo after it's been released into the GFDL, but that image really is using it badly. I wouldn't have minded if it was a good composite, but it's such a poor, blatantly obvious fake. I think every photographer likes to know what people are using their photos for, but to see mine used in this fashion is quite distressing. It's like seeing your photo after it had been through some pretty heavy "liquifying" in th Photoshop.--Fir0002 22:20, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Res is to low and a it's bit blurry. Also we should check the possible copyvio. BrokenSegue 13:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sun in front of clouds is distracting (and impossible). --Spangineer ∞ 15:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, for all the reasons above plus it's not even attached to an article. --CVaneg 20:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's becuse I removed it. BrokenSegue 22:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Dislike it intensely. --Fir0002 22:20, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - because most of the pic is out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 07:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. obviously artificial. Thue | talk 09:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - quite like it in a folksey sort of way.InTheFullnessOfTime 10:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User has just 36 edits, several of which are on various deletion vote pages. — Chameleon 12:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fake pic! — Chameleon 12:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose — nothing against composites, but it's not a shining example of a composite pic. Pardon the pun. --Ds13 19:37, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
• Oppose WB 00:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose out of focus and not very good composite image anyway Lisiate 01:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Archived. The image contains at least one element that is a copyvio, so the license is not appropriate. -- Solipsist 06:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

Drama, colour, chance and pretty strong composition - stunning. There are some significant compression artifacts, despite the large file size, but I couldn't find a better version (there might be one out there somewhere). Illustrating wildfire the photo is by John McColgan of the USDA. - Solipsist 18:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Solipsist 18:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice. BTW, are those elk two specimens of elk or elk?  ;) — Chameleon 19:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really wouldn't know - I can't tell my elk from my elbow. But according to Jacobolus' link they are apparently cow elk?!? -- Solipsist 20:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that just means they are female. I think they look like red deer. — Chameleon 20:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but a higher resolution picture would be even better. --CVaneg 19:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Look at this page --jacobolus (t) 19:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• support but i'd also like a higher res if we can get it. also, can we site on the photo's page the original location where it was obtained from as to make it easy for people to verify the accuracy of the licence? Cavebear42 19:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although a Hi-res shot would be nice. TomStar81 00:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose WB 06:11, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This photo was actually taken about 20 miles from where I live (I was evacuated at the time, I think). The elk are not elk, but are cow elk, and the resolution you see there is probably the original. Amazingly, the pixelated, blown-up version was printed on a two-page spread in Time magazine at one point, and it has been featured elsewhere as well [1]. I'm certain the pic is PD as a saw an interview with Mr. McColgan, where he commented that he didn't mind that he had taken the photo on the job and that it was therefore public. I'll try and scare up a source. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 09:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (including higher and lower res versions). No doubt an image like this is going to have artefacts. But the composition and color make it striking enough to be featured. Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support -- Chris 73 Talk 11:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great photo, but I think a close up of the deer in the river would have made a better composition. --Fir0002 07:37, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Now that's cool! -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Dramatic! Pollinator 22:34, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, wow. Kaldari 21:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Wonderful shot of the fire. The elk are a bonus. -Hoekenheef 18:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Deerfire.jpg 14 / 1 --Spangineer (háblame) 01:26, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

 

Another one of my Longwood Gardens pictures

• Nominate and support. - →Raul654 23:32, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support nice, clear picture. WB 06:13, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - lovely picture - Adrian Pingstone 12:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I agree with the other voters. Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Nice. :-) Sango123 18:23, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - but would a bit more cropping be a good idea? --Silversmith 23:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice --Fir0002 07:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Regrettably, oppose. This image is not linked to any article, a criterion for FP. Denni☯ 01:16, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • Uh, it is used in Clivia miniata →Raul654 01:23, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops. Support. Denni☯ 01:36, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
• Support. There is something about this image I don't quite like, but I can't put my finger on it. It almost looks a little too perfect, like a Walt Disney drawing. On the other hand there is also something quite captivating about it, and Image:Clivia miniata2.jpg shows the colours are reasonably natural, so support. -- Solipsist 22:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Beautiful pic - Hoekenheef 19:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Clivia miniata1.jpg 10 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) 01:47, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

 

Nice panorama image constructed from three individual photos. Used on the Stanford University article.

• Nominate and support. First vote here - 67.161.52.186 04:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - nothing special enough (but a nice pic) - Adrian Pingstone 12:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yet another nice picture that doesn't belong on featured pictures. Deltabeignet 16:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Ditto --Fir0002 06:20, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great symmetry. Superm401 | Talk 21:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think it provides a good illustration anyways. WB 22:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice photo, but a bit boring. ed g2s • talk 10:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice pic, but can't see how it qualifies as FP. Denni☯ 01:13, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
• Support A curate's egg 19:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Not promoted This link is Broken 02:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

The $170,000 S65 AMG is the rarest vehicle currently offered by Mercedes-Benz, and when I heard there was actually one in Greenwich, I went over with my Sony Cybershot digital camera on a clear day in March. I took several photos, and I feel this one turned out the best. I'm often disappointed with the size, focus and quality of the automotive photographs on Wikipedia, and I think this one stands out because it makes (I believe) a good use of angle, color and lighting. It appears on the pages Aufrecht Melcher Grossaspach and Mercedes-Benz S-Class, and I think it really adds to them. - Jagvar 14:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Jagvar 14:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - doesn't cut the mustard. Lupin 14:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - too much from a rear angle, more on the three quarters would be better - Adrian Pingstone 14:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Angle obscures most of the car's sides. Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Reasons stated above, cluttered background. Sango123 18:20, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Can hardly see the car, this photo doesn't make it look special. Bad background. --Silversmith 23:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's a car in a parking lot. Dsmdgold 14:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Low res car park snapshot --Fir0002 07:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • These last two comments are very unfair to the uploader who may never contribute here again. It's not relevant where it was taken. We are just judging whether it's a first class pic of that car. It could well have succeeded with a better angle and in a less used car park - Adrian Pingstone 11:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment. i see what adrian is saying and the comments here can often be more harsh than most would like. however, this is indeed a car in a parking lot and is indeed a low res pic of a parked car. the statements were true and fair though it could be debated if they were nice. we make a habit of only voting pics into fp that are extreamly high res and therefore show an uncommon evel of detail. while i dont want to speak for these 2 indiviguals, i can tell you that it is VERY unlikly that i would ever vote for any picture of any car in any parking lot. cars are just plain uninteresting. maybe the oscar meyer wienie mobile would have a chance buta sedan is a sedan and not that interesting unless you are REALLY into cars. If I was a _HUGE_ pencil fan and took a pic of a rare pencil made from some obscure factory last month, it would still be a picture of a pencil and not interesting to the rest of the world. Cavebear42 16:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I was too telegraphic in my comments, if so I apologize. I'll expand. The angle of the car and the cluttered background combine to make this a ho-hum picture of just another car in parking lot. There is no way to tell that there is anything specially about this car. I certainly think that it is possible to get a good picture of a car, and I'm not a car guy, it's just that thisn't one. I think that any subject can be featured, but where the picture is taken is entirely relevant as to wether or not the picture is a first class picture. Dsmdgold 20:38, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess I'm in the same boat as Dsmdgold, and I didn't mean anything personal to the photographer, and so if any offence was taken I apologize. I agree with Dsmdgold entirely in his above statements. I do think that car photos can easily make FP, Some thing such as this or this or this or even this maybe too high an expectation, but cars can be spectacular subjects IMO.

When I first looked at it, it just appears to be another ordinary car in an ordinary car park. Uninteresting is what I'm getting at. You can't see what a spectactular car it actually is. And altough this photo would be a great asset to its page, if a non wikipedian was browsing through and saw that this photo was a FP, I'm pretty sure his reaction would be "I could take a photo like that in a car park" and would consequently lower is opinion of wiki's FP (IMO). Now I'll apologize in case this comment is taken the wrong way :-) --Fir0002 04:34, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral: I'm not really a car person, but I was wondering if it would be possible to expand a little on the picture's caption; I for one would like to know why the car is rare without reading the article. TomStar81 21:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your honest opinions and your sincerity, and I will continue to submit photos as I become a more experienced photographer. I'm sure a more dramatic angle and a cleaner background would have improved this image. If I ever find an S65 again, I will be sure to try a different photographic approach. Jagvar 00:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the spirit!--Fir0002 04:34, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • If you were wanting to know more about the car, read on, and if not, disregard. Fewer than 500 worldwide will ever be produced. The S65 is the fastest four-door sedan ever built. It is powered by a 6.0-liter V-12. It produces 604 hp and goes from 0-60 mph in just 4 seconds! The particular car pictured is, according to the dealership, the first S65 ever to arrive in the state of Connecticut. Jagvar 00:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow. I'm Impressed. With Statistics like that it is easy to see why you called this car "...the rarest vehicle currently offered by Mercedes-Benz...". While it does not appear that this picture will become featured, I am impressed with your knowlage of the car and its specs. Glad to have you aboard! TomStar81 07:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I rather see a side view of the car rather than its rear-end. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Not promoted This link is Broken 02:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

 

• Nominate and support. - JusticeGuy 19:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, clear and informative, but I'd much prefer to features this image of a live nautilus as a lot of people don't know what they look like. Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Great photo that nicely adds to several articles, but I think additional color contrast between the nautilus shell and its background could make it even better. Sango123 18:26, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose; contrast is weak, and, as nice as it is, is doesn't really exemplify what I think of as FP quality. Deltabeignet 02:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with Deltabeignet, and add that the image is quite noisy. --Fir0002 07:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Fir0002. Junes 07:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, reluctantly, since i took the photo. But the comments above are pretty much valid. unfortunately, the photo was taken without sufficient light. -- Chris 73 Talk 19:32, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking just that, and its often a problem. Bad luck this time! --Fir0002 12:41, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Why not just fix it in Photoshop? --brian0918™ 20:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. --Bernard Helmstetter 12:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the original. --Bernard Helmstetter 23:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I will Support because I keep noticing this picture, and even though it could be better, per reasons given above, I still really like it. I have played with it on Photoshop to see if it could be improved. I don't know if it is possible though. I have put the version I've created here so people can see the difference. I can change the background colour easily if necessary. Perhaps now it looks too fake? The other option of course is to just play with the brighness/contrast, but I didn't find that made much difference when I did it. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changed to Oppose due to Chris taking a new picture in the future. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • I already tried photoshopping when i took the picture, and the first image was the best I could do. The second version by Silversmith is only a slight improvement. Thanks for all the positive comments about my photo. Currently I do not have access to the shell, but I hope to visit the friends place again in a few months, and I will try to take another picture with more light and a better quality. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 07:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

  Not promoted This link is Broken 02:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

• Nominate and support. →Raul654 08:59, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Question: What article is this illustrating? Deltabeignet 19:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Succulent plant →Raul654 19:12, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, then. Excellent illustration of the concept. Deltabeignet 00:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good Illustration -- Chris 73 Talk 11:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Nowhere near sharp enough for FPC - Adrian Pingstone 12:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support Dsmdgold 14:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Though it's not perfectly sharp near the top (out of the depthof field), I think this picture illustrates the concept beautifully, and is a cool photo to boot. -Lommer | ^talk 23:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The relevant area of the photo is sufficiently sharp, and the perspective is very nice.--Eloquence* 04:19, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Support WB 00:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --Silversmith Hewwo
• Support Nowhere near sharp enough? Its focus is razor sharp! perfect.--Deglr6328 09:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Promoted Image:Split Aloe.jpg This link is Broken 02:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

 

Whilst a good pair of photos, I'm not so sure this is illustrating anything that interesting. I quite like the seasonal difference, but at the moment they are featured separately and don't illustrate any articles on the seasons. -- Solipsist 08:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - Solipsist 08:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This nomination was voted 11-0 approval when it was nominated (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_candidates/July-2004#Skyline_Bvd_images) and I believe that it remains worthy of featured picture status. - Bevo 18:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. --Bernard Helmstetter 21:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This photo beautifully illustrates the geographical articles it accompanies. --Andy M. 08:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - not sure what the gripe is! A curate's egg 19:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - The photograph is beautiful. I think it should be kept. --Petrus 03:18, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I also fixed the captions (the hills are green in spring, brown in summer). Gentgeen 05:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep agree with bevo. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 15:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - very nice photos. --MattWright (talk) 01:31, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

  Kept This link is Broken 02:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

It's a beautiful picture that shows the fury of the storm, how close the space station really is to earth, and is just one of those once-in-a-lifetime shots. It's used on Hurricane Ivan and tropical cyclone and Disaster. PD since it was taken by NASA. Golbez 18:28, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Golbez 18:28, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I did not realize it has been nominated twice before, but both were more than six months ago. --Golbez 18:33, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support I like the arial view of hurricanes eye. TomStar81 00:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting view. Informative to most people who have never seen such thing. WB 06:11, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Still oppose. Foreground distracts from cyclone, whose scale is not really understandable from the viewpoint. --Chris 73 Talk 11:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • If scale is the issue then all you need to do is some math: Calculate Ivan's size on the date the picture was taken, then get the ISS's orbital distance from earth. Due the math and you should end up with a rough scale. TomStar81 07:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Featured Picture should not require one to "due the math". A Featured Picture's message should be transparent. Denni☯ 20:01, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
      • I'm addressing an issue that can be fixed; it is mathamatically possible to deduce the scale of the image, hence that objection should be null and void. TomStar81 01:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The foreground is part of the picture. Superm401 | Talk 21:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I like the way the sections of the space station almost look like 2 tall buildings, making the hurricane look like a freaky sky out of some movie. (ghost busters comes to mind :p) --Silversmith 23:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Again, like it when I first saw it come up on FPC, and still like it. --Fir0002 07:37, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose until this image can make up its mind whether it is of Hurricane Ivan or the ISS. Denni☯ 01:18, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • It's about both. Without one or the other, the picture isn't worth much. Sum of its parts. There could be a pic of the hurricane from the ISS without the ISS in it, and that might be nice, but with the bits in it, it is a different - not a lesser - picture entirely. --69.228.97.111 18:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC) (Golbez on vacation)[reply]
    • Nonsense. The two subjects have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. This picture is a random juxtaposition, and is jarring, not satisfying. Denni☯ 19:48, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
      • I think they have everything to do with each other: How often have you watched the news and gotten a satelite view of the clouds that denote cold fronts and weather patterns. You can't honestly expect me to believe that weather and space have absolutely nothing to do with each other. TomStar81 01:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I too feel that the scale of a cyclone isn't well conveyed by this image, also agree with Denni. -Lommer | ^talk 23:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I'd probably like it if the camera could have backed off a bit, but this closeup of a part of the ISS that is obscuring what could have been a good photo of Ivan just does not do justice to either object. - Bevo 20:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. - Amazing and unique. If you know the size of the cyclone it gives you an idea of the distance to the space station. If you know the distance to the space station it gives you an idea of the size of the cyclone. Haukurth 15:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The station blocks the cyclone, resulting in a picture that is striking but jumbled. Deltabeignet 03:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — this is striking because (I think) we on planet Earth tend to think of hurricanes as above us, but this is a reminder that some of us actually live above and look down at them. The ISS gives it context and the context is unusual and striking, I think. --Ds13 19:52, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
• Oppose – too cluttered; ISS in foreground, while interesting, hurts this pic. --Spangineer (háblame) 12:08, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - The ISS adds life to the picture, personally. -Hoekenheef 18:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose (as I remember doing once before) — Oska 05:16, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Striking image, nice perspective on our weather systems --tooto 20:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - I like the thumbnail, but looking at the picture full size it doesn't look particularly impressive. Showing more of the world would be nicer. violet/riga (t) 22:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - When I look at the picture, I have the feeling to fall into hurricane's eye! And especially the ISS parts, which are pointed down on earth, are the reason for that --Bricktop 00:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Unless you read the note that says it's from ISS, it might look as if the photo was taken from Earth. WB 01:40, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Quite an eyecatching picture. Anish7 15:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, striking image. Phoenix2 23:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, doesn't convey beauty or destructive nature of Ivan, nor give us any appreciation of space station. Just because it has two overlapping & contrasting subjects does not make it interesting or worthy. 199.221.98.4 18:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) (discounting anonymous vote - Solipsist 21:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) (UTC))

Not promoted 13 / 8 / 0 (less than 60% support) --Spangineer (háblame) 12:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

 

This is a picture I took during my honeymoon, I think out of the 400 or so shots I took this came out particularly well. It's a dolphin flying through the air during a show at the Stanley Park Aquarium in Vancouver, the picture is at the dolphin page. - Tufflaw 02:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Self-nominate and support. Tufflaw 02:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but this pic is nowhere near good enough for FPC. Too blurry - Adrian Pingstone 12:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, overexposed and entirely blurry. Mgm|^(talk) 19:11, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, exactly what Mgm said. --Fir0002 06:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The dolphin appears to be sitting on top of the trees and peeing on the crowd. Denni☯ 01:07, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
  • Well now that's a little unrealistic. Tufflaw 03:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll agree. • Thorpe • 17:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It makes my eyes go all funny. Is there actually a sky in the background? • Thorpe • 17:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Just see the picture ! (by User:Anish7 16:32, 9 Jun 2005 - Solipsist 20:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))
• Oppose, needed a faster shutter speed, fewer people in surroundings, a better angle. 199.221.98.4 19:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) (discounting anonymous vote, comment still useful though - Solipsist 21:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) (UTC))

Not promoted 1 / 6 --Spangineer (háblame) 12:34, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

 

 

 

A pretty good scene I designed in Terragen. Illustrates terragen and an number of other articles pretty well.

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support #2, the first image is too dark on the left. Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Question: were these made with the registered version? If not, they violate the terms of use for Terragen. Fredrik | talk 09:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? And I quote "You are required to register your copy of Terragen if it is for commercial use... If you only intend to use Terragen personally, on a non-profit basis, registration is optional" --Fir0002 09:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • These images are claimed to be licensed under the GFDL, which allows commercial use. Non-commercial-only images are no longer acceptable on Wikipedia and never were for featured pictures. Fredrik | talk 10:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh gee I never thought of that. Good point. I was wondering if I could do the voting somehow, as I would like to test the quality of the images before submitting them to a competition.
• How can this be seen as a "Non-commercial-only image"? Mgm|^(talk) 16:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

How can you delete inappropriate images? --Fir0002 10:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Images for deletion. Superm401 | Talk 21:15, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I guess Image:Arj-Terragen-SunsetOverMountainLake.jpeg is also inappropriately licensed? --Fir0002 11:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Probably, I'm afraid. I suppose you could ask for permission to GFDL these particular images, though. Fredrik | talk 15:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. Reasons above. Superm401 | Talk 21:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)(deleting own original vote)

• • I have been succesfull in asking for permission to release the photos under the GFDL. This should resolve the copyright problems. See the talk page for he's reply. --Fir0002 07:13, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's great news. With that cleared, I'd like to express my support for either image. Terragen is an awesome program. Fredrik | talk 09:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a fact --Fir0002 10:08, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I now support based on the now genuine GFDL status. Superm401 | Talk 03:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be enthusiastic about using it to illustrate articles about real geological pheonomena(i.e. deserts, mountains), however, for the record. Superm401 | Talk 03:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

What put the notion that I'd do that into your head? --Fir0002 07:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Support --Spangineer (háblame) 12:43, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Terragen render.jpg 5 / 0, apparent preference for second image --Spangineer (háblame) 12:43, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

 

Very good illustration of chamomile. Huge improvement (IMO) over the draw illustrations previously illustrating the article

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:17, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't like the amount of background as I found it distracting, so I played with it a little. Do you think this is any better? I will support either version version #3. --Silversmith Hewwo 14:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with you the closer crop does look better. So I uploaded a cropped version at the camera's original size, so its a bit bigger. Have done a little editing, but you may want to do more. --Fir0002 12:36, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

 

• Support both versions, prefer cropped version. Great stuff. Junes 07:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blown-out highlights in petals (in particular in the larger flower) contribute to an overall lack of detail. Alight 20:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well the petals don't actually have any detail in them, they're just white. --Fir0002 12:42, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Support the third version. Sango123 16:11, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - but only version 3 InTheFullnessOfTime 10:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose- Greatly dislike it, is just an ordinary picture Electricmoose- Electrifying 18:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This wouldn't be a biased opinion would it now? --Fir0002 10:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Rather cynical comment Fir A curate's egg 19:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support all, especially the third picture -- like it - Chris 73 Talk 07:46, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Support No. 3 — Good work — Oska 05:04, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support number 3 --Spangineer (háblame) 13:01, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Chamomile@original size.jpg 8 / 2 --Spangineer (háblame) 13:01, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

	File:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMattUncroppedAdj2.jpg

This is a very good image of one the major pages from one of the great illuminated manuscripts, the Lindisfarne Gospels. I downloaded the image from the British Library online catalog (here). It is used in Lindisfarne Gospels, Book of Kells, and Cotton library. - Dsmdgold 22:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Dsmdgold 22:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Poor contrast/brightness, none to interesting subject IMO --Fir0002 07:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think you may have been misled by the nature of the subject. The book is vegetable pigment painted on aninal skin and is 1300 years old. The uncropped version has color scales for comparison. I think the contrast/brightnessis very good. As for interest, taste varies, but I have known people who traveled thousands of miles and crossed oceans specifically to look at this book. Dsmdgold 12:43, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Really? Wow, that's pretty interesting, and that certainly explains the coloration of the document, but no, I'm sorry but the image doesn't interest me too much. But that's just me so I'll change my vote to Neutral --Fir0002 04:13, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• I had a play with the contrast, saturation and cropped it a little more. Is this better? I didn't want to ruin the age or alter the colours. If you zoom in it does have very good detail. --Silversmith Hewwo 14:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support #3 - We ought to be able to find a medeival manuscript we can support and the Lindisfarne Gospels are a good choice. The version with reference swatches is useful here as it shows that the original is too dark. I've tried another adjusted version (#3), concentrating on getting the balance in the swatches as even as I can. I imagine the vertical 20 step grey scale on the right should be evenly distributed, implying a decrease of ~12 between each step (RGB = 255/255/255 - 242/242/242 ...) This adjusted version is still a little biased towards the dark end as I didn't want to push any corrections too far. We would still need to crop to just show the page to conform to a {PD-Art} tag. -- Solipsist 10:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the adjusted versions I prefer #3. The vellum is too yellow on #2. The cropping on #2 is also too radical. Some text has been lost to the left of the large letter "L", and too much "white space" has been cropped from the bottom. How the image lies on the page is important. I would prefer cropping as close to the edge of the folio as possible. I agree with Solipsist that the image must be cropped for legal reasons. (Cropping is also needed for aesthetic reasons.) Dsmdgold 16:42, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Bernard Helmstetter 18:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My support goes to #3, by the way. --Bernard Helmstetter 16:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support #3 — Oska 05:12, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support number 3, though I would prefer it cropped. James F. (talk) 19:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg +5 / 0 / 1 neutral - Promoted version #3 after cropping and overloading onto the original version. -- Solipsist 20:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

 

 

 

There are a few things I really like about this picture. I like that it's black and white. I love the way the water is there, but the bridge and the railing are reflected in the rain on the pavement. There is a lot to look at, and you can make out luna park quite well which is good. The eye is drawn by the rail from the bottom right to the left, then drawn by the bridge from the top left to the right. I like the way the railing pulls you under the bridge, then stops, and leaves you to gaze across at the buildings from there. This picture is used in the Sydney Harbour Bridge article. --Silversmith 22:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Self nomination and support. --Silversmith 22:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't like the slanting, and I'm not sure if it could do with more contrast, but the content is good. At the moment oppose, but if the slant is corrected I'll probably change that. Joe D (t) 23:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I like it as is, but here's a version (see right) without the slant. (Sorry, Silversmith; I had to crop away a bit of the bottom.) Sango123 01:47, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

*Neutral. Excellent job on fixing the slant Sango, and the photo is quite interesting, but due to its low res I couldn't support. --Fir0002 06:15, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, it does look better. If the only reason this is going to be opposed is for res, then I'll try to get the high res version off my friend who has the original. He sent it to me via e-mail with lots of other pics, and so reduced it. I'll send him an e-mail now to ask. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, that would be a huge improvement --Fir0002 10:21, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Small and too compressed. Quality isn't good enough. ed g2s • talk 10:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Maybe you have to be a fan of bridges, but I find nothing to celebrate in this image. Denni☯ 01:09, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
• Support only a higher res and slant-fixed version. -Lommer | ^talk 23:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Small size, and I don't like the foggy atmosphere. --Bernard Helmstetter 12:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- not the best framing. - Longhair | Talk 02:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - looks good to meInTheFullnessOfTime 10:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yay, finally I have the high res, straight off the camera version. If you zoom in the detail is great. I haven't played with it at all, so if Sango would like to fix the slant, and maybe boost the contrast or something, be my guest. --Silversmith Hewwo 23:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support, should be fine at higher res. Kim Bruning 23:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, good resolution now. --Fir0002 06:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, very moody picture, but not a good illustration for the bridge. Top half is missing -- Chris 73 Talk 07:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)]
• Support. Nought wrong with moodiness. — Chameleon 22:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've corrected the slant on the high resolution version. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I love it. Enochlau 03:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +8 / -5 -- Solipsist 20:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

This image was taken during St. Patrick's Day of this year. I found it quite unusual to see that the Chicago River had been dyed green but at the same time it gave me the sense of amazement; how this river could be transformed from its natural colour to a dark green.

• Oppose. Yes, it's amazing the river has been dyed, but I don't find its surroundings particularly pleasing to look at. Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The main focus is the river and not the surroundings. • Thorpe • 10:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - That's true, but for me, the cluttered surroundings draw attention away from the river. Also, there seems to be a slant in this photo. Sango123 16:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - From the perspective of photography, this image is stunning. I see no reason why this should be opposed. --Oblivious 17:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - From the perspective of image quality, this photo is short of stunning. Unusual subject, good resolution, but badly focused (especially on the full res photo). - that was me earlier in the day (I forget to sign) --Fir0002 07:33, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Out of focus --CVaneg 20:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - pic is sloping - Adrian Pingstone 12:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - an unusual moment well caught. A curate's egg 19:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 03:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I find that the stark green of the river jumps out at you and makes it impossible for me to be distracted by the surroundings. -Lommer | ^talk 22:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, excellent contrast between subject and surroundings. [User:199.221.98.4|199.221.98.4]] 19:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) (discounting anonymous vote - Solipsist 21:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) (UTC))
• Support - I'm afraid I know diddly squat about focus or clutter, but this does work extremely well as a picture, clutter or not. -- Kizor 23:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I took this picture, so I don't know if my vote should count, but I'll add my support anyway. I don't believe that the picture is sloping—the buildings' edges are vertical, but I think it appears so because Michigan Avenue crosses perpendicular to the river, so it is at an angle to us (also the bank of the river is not straight, and Wacker Drive is sloping down from 3 levels down to 2). In any case, the actual scene was quite stunning, and I apologize if I was not able to do it justice in reproduction. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Sloping to left or to right ? I vote for one degree to the right that's not a big deal. Out of focus, are you serious ? The new standard for Wikipedia featured pictures is Leica sharpness ? Ericd 20:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +7 / -5 -- Solipsist 07:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

This is a self-nomination, but I am very happy with how this came out. Hydrogen bombs can be rather complicated mechanical devices and quite a number of historical events have revolved around their supposed secrets. This is a schematic and stylized explanation of their basic layout, as far as is known in the non-secret domain. I've previous drawn some more comprehensive diagrams (i.e. this sequence) of this but I wanted something which would be very basic, convey the main point (fission fuel above, fusion fuel below), would be very vertical (to better fit on Wikipedia pages and still be visible), and be in more-or-less the same style as the other graphics on the nuclear weapons design page. Currently it is on the page for Edward Teller, the "father of the hydrogen bomb". This is the first time I tried to show pseudo-3D cutaways in any real sense and I'm happy with the results. -- Fastfission 22:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Self-nominate and support. - Fastfission 22:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't really appeal for me. * Thorpe * 17:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide something more constructive? What aspect of it? The drawing style? The content? --Fastfission 22:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TomStar81 01:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd support it, but it provides too much information that can be used by terrrrrists. --brian0918™ 04:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not secret. Terrorists either know already or find out for themselves. Mgm|^(talk) 07:34, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • If terrorists used my diagrams to be a base of their weapons, then the world would be a pretty safe place, I'll say that. It's not only not secret, it doesn't pretend to actually be "accurate", whatever that means in this context (which isn't a whole lot, but that's a long story). Anyway, if I could compile this from public sources (a google search for "teller ulam" will bring up a dozen other variations) then so can terrrrists.--Fastfission 22:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sweet Jebus I was joking :) brian0918™ 19:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Nice diagram! WB 06:45, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Support That is a great diagram —Josh Lee 01:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - very classy diagram - Adrian Pingstone 16:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - we should not have English (or any language) labels in diagrams on Wiki projects (as discussed here, so it seems a bit out of place to feature such an image. Also, we already have a nuclear bomb diagram featured (with English labeling too, incidentally). Also the sideways lettering is awkward anyway. But the diagram is nice. Will Support if changed to numerical labeling. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 09:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Because all languages use the same characters to represent numbers.... --brian0918™ 18:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not on commons, it's on en. English is no problem here. If you want language-agnostic featured pictures, stay on Commons. --Golbez 19:00, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • [cough] rephrase: THIS isn't commons. The pic is on commons, but this is the FPC discussion for en, not commons. --Golbez 00:23, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't this FP just for the ENGLISH Wikipedia? People are welcome to translate it into their own languages; the whole point of creating this image was to make it quick and easy to see what was going on in the arrangement, without a lengthy explanation or additional screen of information. Anyway, I think a few lines in one other FC discussion is hardly enough to start talking about any policy decision being set -- especially when the text itself is designed to be a purposeful part of the image (and is easily removed and translated for those who wish to do it). --Fastfission 02:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You're right, FPC is no place to talk policy. So I still oppose. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 20:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Right side of blue core cut away should be flat blue or linear gradient, not radial gradient. Otherwise it implies that it is not flat and looks confusing. That's my only criticism. Kaldari 21:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, you're probably right about that. It will only take a moment to fix, but at the moment the computer it is on is in a heap on the floor (just moved). --Fastfission 02:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Fastfission, you did it again! :) Neutrality^talk 07:44, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 07:45, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The image is informative and illustrates the article very well, but I don't find it striking or titillating or anything. Perhaps the fact that we already have a nuclear bomb diagram as a featured pic is also swaying my vote. -Lommer | ^talk 22:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Clear and informative. Enochlau 08:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ok, but not great. ed g2s • talk 10:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Teller-Ulam device 3D.png +10 / -5 -- Solipsist 06:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Note, I replaced the PNG version with the more recent SVG version, which looks the same but is in a better format. dbenbenn | talk 04:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I find this image beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, incredible, or in short just brilliant.
This image is used in pencil. The image was created by me, and now released to public domain - Oblivious 14:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Too much unused space. • Thorpe • 17:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's never about the space, its bout the expression --Oblivious 17:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I just don't see what part of it belongs on FP. Deltabeignet 04:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. You are a good artist, keep it up. But I don't think artworks are FP material unless very old and rare. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Silversmith. --Fir0002 22:07, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Aren't you all being a bit mean! Why shouldn't a modern piece of art be a Featured Pic? As for "unused space" the artist positioned the face as he wished, any less space and it wouldn't be set against the darkness. Finally I can easily see what part of it belongs on FP - all of it! - Adrian Pingstone 08:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok then, can you tell me which article this image is on? --Silversmith Hewwo 13:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I can, have a look at Pencil, which it beautifully illustrates - Adrian Pingstone 13:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I think it should be replaced as it is a very poor illustration of pencil, due to it's lack of variation. An illustration of pencil should show a very high quality drawing, with the maximum amount of variation in tone. Another reason why I will oppose. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes the drawing is a good representation of pencil artwork, and it should have a place on the Pencil page, but I can't see the justification of putting it in the "manufacture" category. Sure it's been drawn with a number of the "B" pencils, but a photo of the actual production of pencils would be a much better illustration. As for us "being a bit mean", this is a voting forum, and you have to say no sometimes. How else are you going to say that it doesn't cut it for you. What's the point in voting if you can't say "Oppose" without being called "mean"? We have to make sure that a Featured Picture is really a Featured Picture, and that we don't let standards drop. A "modern piece of art" can mean anything. I think my Dragon Watercolor is pretty good, but I know it doesn't illustrate art. I think (as I said before) that Featured Picture art should be only something by someone well known, old, or rare. I don't mean any offence to you Oblivious in saying that featured art should be only something by someone well known, and I think that your drawing is good (although it is bit low res), but it isn't Featured Picture material (IMO). --Fir0002 10:09, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Woah... people, people calm down. Its simply an oppose or a support. I can handle intense criticism and I perfectly do understand that people here come from different backgrounds, different cultures and with different areas of expertise! Therefore, an oppose doesn’t necessarily have to be a justifiable oppose, neither a support.

However few responses ;)-
Silversmith wrote : I think it should be replaced as it is a very poor illustration of pencil, due to it's lack of variation

• Poor illustration? - Oh well, this is Modern art; meaning a new approach to art where it was no longer important to literally represent a subject (through painting or sculpture)
• Lack of variation? - Would you also say The Scream lacks the variations? I mean from the available wide tones of colors Edvard Munch chose to use just few.

Silversmith also wrote: An illustration of pencil should show a very high quality drawing
high quality drawing? - Not necessarily! It depends on what you intend to draw/illustrate.

Happy voting! --Oblivious 20:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If you look at the article on pencil, you will see a range of pencils. The drawing should be very gradational to illustrate the amount of variation that can be achieved. This drawing lacks that variation. It is also not a drawing that demonstates any a high level of skill or ability with pencil. It would be better placed in a modern art article. The Scream has nothing to do with this, except that this drawing did make me think of it. Inspired were you? --Silversmith Hewwo 22:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, and to show you what I think would be great for the article: One of the greatest draftsmen in history - M. C. Escher. --Silversmith Hewwo 23:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Silversmith, this sentence - it is also not a drawing that demonstrates any skill or ability with pencil - is offensive. It may or may not be true but it remains offensively phrased. Please have more consideration for the artist - Adrian Pingstone 10:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. But as a fellow artist I am more than familliar with the technique of critiquing work. If he wishes to be an artist, then he will hear far worse. I will strike the word "any" though, as that part isn't true. Oblivious has obviously learnt some technical ability which the drawing displays. Of course I wouldn't have said any of the above if he hadn't been so arrogant in his challange. We shouldn't be having this conversation here anyway, and I would be willing to delete everything I have written - except for my vote - if Oblivious would as well. ? --Silversmith Hewwo 10:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see more than few reasons why I should not respond to the thread furthur, when I read Civility. Nope, no need to strike-out or delete anything. Let the community read and witness. I find nothing offensive here. :)- ... Once again, Happy voting... and thanks for the professionally crafted criticism :)- --Oblivious 15:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support - liked it - but was like the Scream A curate's egg 19:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - not especially aesthetically pleasing, and could be much more illustrative of the article. Pictures that only implicitly illustrate something really ought to be quite something special. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 20:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, nice drawing, but not particular featureworthy -- Chris 73 Talk 07:44, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Your crossing out of the words in the nomination text doesn't help your case. Enochlau 08:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +2 / -7 -- Solipsist 06:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

This image, created by NASA, illustrates 7 articles and is informative, striking, beautiful, and impressive. It shows us the exact location of Voyagers 1 and 2 in relation to the heliopause, heliosheath, termination shock, bow shock, and heliosphere, and it's one of the best diagrams I've seen. Sango123 17:22, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Sango123 17:22, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Beatiful image and very informative (shown in 7 article! WOW!) Mgm|^(talk) 17:50, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 01:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But I'd rather that the text was a consistant size--Fir0002 01:39, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, very interesting and aestheticly pleasing. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but perhaps a line could be drawn pointing out the sun, due to the odd scale of the picture. --Golbez 18:58, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Wonderful image of the historic journey being made by this craft. - Hoekenheef 19:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - didn't like it - duuno why though...A curate's egg 19:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 07:43, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- excellent diagram; beautiful. Phoenix2 19:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd consider myself knowledgeable about astronomy, but I had to go do some reading to figure out that the red stuff was the interstellar medium that was blowing away the Sun's heliopause. That could be fixed with some simple labelling and makes the image a lot less accessible. Even if that were fixed, I also partly find the image to be overly stylized -Lommer | ^talk 22:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Thanks for nominating "my" picture (uploaded by me). Though not very realistic, it is very informative and illustrative and is also used on many other wikis (check it with this tool [2]) --Bricktop 00:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Overly stylised, and I agree more labelling would help. Also, the lines connecting the vogager craft to the centre of the galaxy... gives the wrong impression about their flight. Enochlau 08:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What exactly is wrong? And the lines are connecting Voyagers with Earth, not center of the galaxy. Or which lines do you mean? --Bricktop 10:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)po.
    • Oops typo. I meant - they come streaming straight out of the middle, surely there would have been multiple gravitational fly bys etc... the diagram oversimplifies things. Enochlau 13:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • It's only a diagramm ;-), it is not a 3D-simulation of Voyager's flight path. And the main purpose of this diagramm is to show the location of Voagers in respect to termination shock and so on. And Voyagers took a direct route to Jupiter and further to Saturn, in other words they didn't have multiple flybys at inner planets like more modern space probes commons:Image:Voyager Path.jpg. --Bricktop 15:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It may be usefull to label the Sun on the picture. Could someone with graphical skills do it?--Bricktop 11:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Voyager 1 entering heliosheath region.jpg +10 / -3 -- Solipsist

 

 

For a while I've been wanting to put some of my work to the vote but never felt it quite worthy. This one though I think is an interesting, asthetic and unusual subject that does the job of illustrating its topic, and adds to the effect of the Tyneham article, with very minimal technical problems (he says overconfidently). Joe D (t) 03:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC) (P.S., if anybody wants to play around with the levels, the original file is here. The full size version is all rights reserved, but any modified file if in jpg format and reduced in size to 1024px wide maximum can be released cc-by-sa.)[reply]

• Self-nom and support. Joe D (t) 03:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, I just don't like the fence and the signs, they take away from the subject too much. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A nice picture, but not quite striking. Deltabeignet 01:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The horizon is sloping - Adrian Pingstone 08:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you mean the picture's not aligned right, or do you mean you don't like the asymetry? I double checked with the section of sea and the alignment is right. Joe D (t) 11:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Humble apologies, I goofed, the horizon is indeed level (but I'm afraid I still oppose) -
  • Adrian Pingstone 12:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - everyone is being rather harsh - V1 though - two is too light A curate's egg 19:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +2 / -3 -- Solipsist 08:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

The top right image failed to gain consensus on FPC a while back. This new image helps to clear up some of the issues people had, by comparing the standard image with other maps; the result is informative, thought-provoking, and just a tad striking. (I would prefer if people unfamiliar with the meaning of the top left image didn't vote, considering the image's target audience, but it's entirely your choice.) Credits are complex, so I recommend you see the image's page. Illustrates Red state vs. blue state divide. - Deltabeignet 01:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Deltabeignet 01:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It's not used in any article and although I supported it the first time around I think we need to wait more time between nominations. Also, there is too much white space for my liking. BrokenSegue 02:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may have been a little too soon (although I maintain it is NOT my fault that it was removed from Red state vs. blue state divide.) On the other question, what would you prefer I do with the white space? Deltabeignet 18:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • • Personally I liked the original from before without the group. In the past (I think) we have promoted a group of pictures supporting one another (the smoke trails). Instead of a group picture (which ended up lowering the final resolution. Promoting two together would be nice. Perhaps if we explained the meaning of the original to the brits and aussies they'd be more likely to support it. This link is Broken 19:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • • FYI, the image was reuploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, compressed, and the file extention was lower cased by me. The new location of the image is at Image:United_States_2004_election_maps.png. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 02:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Combining all three maps provides an interesting outlook on the results. Circeus 18:00, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment unless this is added to an article it can't be promoted This link is Broken 06:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've re-added it to Red state vs. blue state divide. Deltabeignet 02:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even if this image was used in an article or not listed for deletion, I find it just plain boring. -Lommer | ^talk 22:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment this picture is currently listed at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#May_24, listed by the original uploader (and the guy who is supporting this nomination). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +3 / -3 -- Solipsist 07:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yet another one from my trip to Longwood Gardens →Raul654 08:46, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

 

• Self-Nomination and support. - →Raul654 08:46, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - the composition is not great. It's interesting, but doesn't really grab me, I'm afraid. Lupin 01:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - a good pic that illustates the subject well. Nevertheless, as Lupin said, it doesn't grab me so, sorry, I have to oppose - Adrian Pingstone 07:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I find it interesting and attention grabbing. I was like "what's that?" --Silversmith Hewwo 09:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I Like it A curate's egg 19:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Makes go "what the?" even though I can tell it's a cactus. Circeus 18:02, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Circeus + Brookie. -Lommer | ^talk 22:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poor composition. Enochlau 04:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 14:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Cleistocactus strausii2.jpg +6 / -3 -- Solipsist 07:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

First this is a beautiful image, however this image has a cc-by-nd-nc licence. This is a "non-free" licence. Our current policy doesn't allow this type of restriction on images, and this will eventually have to be removed. I've contacted the uploader (User:Tannin) to ask for a relicencing, but received a polite but unambiguous "no". Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delist and delete. It's too small anyways. Someone should go through and tag all of Tannin's files for deletion. Maybe he will flinch and change to GFDL (which isn't very friendly to comercial users). This link is Broken 17:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delist - Bevo 03:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delist Junes 14:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• As an inlegible picture this can be delisted immediately. ed g2s • talk 19:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delisted This link is Broken 22:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

This my own picture initially generated with a fractal generator and then enhaced in Paintshop. It's weird but quite engaging!

• Self nomination and SUPPORT A curate's egg 15:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - fair use images are not candidates for FP. Also, I think the image is a little too odd to be illustrative of CG. --CVaneg 15:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - only public domain or GFDL images are eligible for Featured status. Kaldari 15:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the copyright status - this should be GFDL like all my piuctures - have changed it over. A curate's egg 17:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - the image is just not very striking. I makes a person kind of go, "Wtf?" instead of making them think, "Wow, that's interesting!" or "Man, That is a beautiful picture!" -Hoekenheef 18:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice pic, just not very special -- Chris 73 Talk 07:38, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry, but the pic looses almost all its interest when cropped, becoming way too blurry Oppose. Circeus 18:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The photoshopped effects are quite distracting, and thoroughly detracts from the natural beauty of a fractal. Enochlau 08:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted 1 / 5 / 0 (16.7%) - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

Striking, attractive, and does an excellent job of illustrating Blackberry. I mean, does this leave a shred of doubt in your mind as to what a blackberry is? - Deltabeignet 18:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Deltabeignet 18:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great colour. Yummy. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support A curate's egg 19:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support and eat — Chameleon 20:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - to get my vote I'd want at least one whole blackberry, not three quarters of one and a quarter of another - Adrian Pingstone 20:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agree with Arpingstone, plus the extremely unsharp foreground is distracting -- Chris 73 Talk 07:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agree with Adrian, the main object is cut off, also this is a far from typical blackberry. 5cm long! That aint a blackberry in my book, that's a small lumpy banana.Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not supposed to a "typical blackberry": it's specifically told it is a cultivar. Circeus 18:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree we should see a whole one. Maybe even regular blackberries too for comparison. Circeus 18:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Photography is nice, but the subject is partial. --Oblivious 21:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, beautiful. Phoenix2 19:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with comments about sharp foreground. Enochlau 08:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Fir0002 23:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice color, but the composition is distracting. I'd crop off the foreground berry. Alight 20:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted 6 / 6 / 0 (50.0%)- Mailer Diablo 16:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A good example of the subject ambigram is this image itself, with bonus animation to good effect. - Bevo 19:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

• Nominate and support. - Bevo 19:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, Interesting Electricmoose- Electrifying 19:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, this animation seems a bit obnoxious and rather uninteresting. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:59, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not particularly interesting. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, the font is too difficult to read. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You do know what an ambigram is..... right? --brian0918™ 18:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, no need to be sarky. I just found when I tried to confirm that each letter was there, it was difficult due to the font and the fact that it moves too frequently. I also have the pic of the day on my userpage, and would find such a frequently moving image highly annoying. --Silversmith Hewwo 19:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it probably would work better if it sat there for a while before rotating. --brian0918™ 03:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I've slowed it down from 2 to 4 seconds. Still too fast? Splarka 04:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I think that speed is much better. Changing to Neutral. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - beautifully drawn and very interesting (the same idea works if you handwrite "chump" in a certain way) - Adrian Pingstone 12:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, clearly shows what an ambigram is. Animation is a nice plus. Mgm|^(talk) 16:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. In fact, I have a bias against animated pictures in general. I find it annoying to have something move when I did not ask it. Also, but perhaps I'm asking too much, an antialiased image would be better. --Bernard Helmstetter 18:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I created it (and the larger version) in 2 colors to keep the file size down. I believe wikipedia antialiases it when you resize it, so one could use the larger one shrunk to the size of the smaller one and get an antialiasing: [[Image:Ambigram_rotating_big.gif|180px]]. However, I agree that animated gifs are obnoxious in improper contexts. Splarka 19:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral Demonstrates concept well, but the font combined with the animation actually makes it more dificult to read. --CVaneg 19:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I see your point about the animation obscuring the illustration, without a static reference to freely study. Perhaps there needs to be two pictures in place in the article ambigram. One static, the other the same image, but animated. - Bevo 20:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Author here. I've seen ambigrams of the word 'ambigram' online before, but none were free-use, so I slapped this one together in a few hours for the article. Sidenote: I originally had a {{pd}} tag on it but at one point the tag said "you can't release things to the public domain, change to {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}" so I did, but now I see the policy has changed again, so I changed it back to public domain. The neutral vote is because I am not sure if it is feature quality. I'll let others decide. Splarka 19:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The policy never changed. It was just someone who didn't agree with the PD terms. Mgm|^(talk) 23:42, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ahh k, thanks. Splarka 04:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -gave me a headache! A curate's egg 19:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support: Very illustrative -- Chris 73 Talk 07:38, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Love it. Striking. Support it. Circeus 18:02, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - this forum is for pictures not animations. -- Oska 04:49, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Umm...you know we also promote animations. Like this or this. This link is Broken 06:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - while not especially pretty, the image is striking and illustrates the subject magnificently. -Lommer | ^talk 22:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, interesting illustration. Phoenix2 23:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yuk. Enochlau 08:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, it's difficult to imagine an animation better illustrating its topic. 01101001 06:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Animations need to be very good to get past just "annoying". ed g2s • talk 10:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +9/-7, 3 Neutral— Sverdrup 03:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

Some delicious looking toilet paper. It illustrates toilet paper very well. Looks nice, very detailed piece of studio photography. Used in the toilet paper article. - TheCoffee 15:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - TheCoffee 15:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, I know, white is neutral, but I'd prefer a darker background to bring out the paper more. Mgm|^(talk) 20:11, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Visible noise, See the full resolution image --Oblivious 21:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose April 1 was weeks ago. Denni☯ 03:04, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• Oppose. People (I hope) see toilet paper all the time. For a pic of toilet paper to be FP worthy it would have to be amazing! --Silversmith Hewwo 09:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Rubbish, ordinary. Electricmoose- Electrifying 20:51, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - just a toilet roll, even though the photographer has done a good job - Adrian Pingstone 21:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Composition is good, but there is not enough contrast, and the right side has a strong whiteout. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:58, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - call me crazy, but I think this is a great photograph. Kaldari 16:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not every high resoltion image has the potential to be a featured picture. Plus the image is pointless really. Anish7 15:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Can't see any noise... and yeh it's of an ordinary subject matter, but i must say, it gives the toilet paper angelic glow. Enochlau 08:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Pray tell, how exactly do you make a photograph of a toilet paper roll 'exciting'? That said, this is definitely a well-executed effort. I like the soft effect: really embodies the essential nature of toilet paper. Jogloran 03:55, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, sounds crazy supporting a photo of toilet paper to become on of Wikipedia's Featured Pictures, but I like this photo. --Fir0002 05:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support There's nothing wrong with the photo, and I like the quirky nature of the nomination Tiefighter 08:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very nice shot, certainly clearly illustrates the concept of "toilet paper" and at the same time provides a striking image. The white-on-white effect does not in any way detract from its illustrative purposes. Alight 20:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- nice image. - Longhair | Talk 01:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +8/-8 — Sverdrup 03:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

This is a renomination (previous nom). Last time I nominated it, there were complaints about an overly large whitespace in the middle left part of the picture, and others said that it was incompete. Rama I have remedied this, by added the last part of the picture -- an actin filament. →Raul654 06:08, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Illustrative and useful picture -- Chris 73 Talk 11:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral - Definitely illustrative, but I think the body builder picture is a bit distracting and out of place, (possibly replace with a simple figure drawing?) --CVaneg 20:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral - Yeah, I really don't like the body builder pic. Otherwise cool. --Silversmith Hewwo 08:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Body-builder is distracting. There's also a lot of noise that can be magic-wanded away. If changed, assume I support. --brian0918™ 02:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Body builder doesn't help at all. Would've been better as a clean PNG.
• Oppose. Bodybuilder ruins it. Diagram is good, but not amazing. --Fir0002 05:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - like it A curate's egg 07:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted This link is Broken 01:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

A photo of Buzz Aldrin taken during the first moon landing surely deserves to be a featured photo, especially one of such high quality and resolution.

• Nominate and support. - Anish7 01:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. High res, interesting subject, and no doubt useful in illustrating a number of articles. Mgm|^(talk) 19:52, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I was thinking of nominating this picture, but it looks like you beat me to it. :-) Sango123 19:58, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Great pic, an important historical event also. Electricmoose- Electrifying 20:50, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support - like [s]he said, it deserves to be featured. --Oblivious 11:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 11:55, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - definitely deserves to be featured. Kaldari 16:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, proves that the landings were faked! This link is Broken 21:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "Proves that the landings were faked"? How have you determined that? Sango123 22:15, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Read Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations#Issues_of_photographs This link is Broken
      • I've read the arguments and counter-arguments with a neutral point of view, but I believe the landings were absolutely real and not hoaxes (see also this site). However, I respect your opinion, and the important thing is that this is an excellent picture, however we chose to interpret it. Sango123 14:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • The fact you seem to have missed is that....I was joking. This link is Broken 04:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Yep, I missed that... several times over; you seemed to be quite serious. :-) Sango123 23:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --YUL89YYZ 16:24, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, nice picture. Phoenix2 23:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely worthy. Enochlau 08:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely worthy. Neutrality^talk 02:59, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Is there an echo in the building? Support. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
•   Support. ECHO echo echo echo :-) --Fir0002 04:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Longhair | Talk 02:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support --TomStar81 01:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'd   Support if Aldrin wasn't such a coward, liar, and THIEF for faking the landings...... :) Bart (I got my ass beat by a 70 year old) Sibrel™ 15:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Aldrin_Apollo_11.JPG

 

This image takes a couple seconds to appreciate, but it really jumped out at me when I saw it on Camouflage. Make sure you look at the full-size image too — how many Ibexes can you see? Image taken by Sputnikcccp and released under the GFDL. -Lommer | ^talk 23:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. -Lommer | ^talk 23:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• What hi-res version? Oppose. ed g2s • talk 23:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, by hi-res version I mean the full-size image, I'll change the nomination speach. -Lommer | ^talk 04:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's far too small, grainy and out of focus. ed g2s • talk 08:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Impressive. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I know it's a picture I took, so I don't know if this nomination counts, but I have to say it is a very good picture. It illustrates Ibexes and Camouflage well. — Sputnik (Talk) 21:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Is there any chance of a higher res pic? --Silversmith Hewwo 08:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, though could used higher res. Circeus 10:52, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know if the picture can be altered to create a higher res image. If someone with more photo-altering knowledge would like to try, go right ahead. And in my defence, Ed g2s, yes, it's slightly grainy and out of focus, but I think that adds to the effect of camouflage. Sputnik
    • Generally speaking increasing the size will not create a better image, and as it stands the image is far too small for FP. ed g2s • talk 19:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The colour is horrible - you can hardly see the features of the ibexes, which look rather like the rocks. Enochlau 08:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That's the point of the picture! The ibexes blend in, they look like the rocks. If you can't find them, neither could a predator. That's what camouflage is for! Sputnik
    • oh gosh I'm so stupid... in any case, still an oppose because the image quality is not too good - compare it with the clarity of the second picture on the camouflage page. Enochlau 13:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Small and out of focus. --Bernard Helmstetter 20:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though I like hunting for ibexes, the resolution is prohibitive.Deltabeignet 21:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
•   Oppose, suffers from compression/lack of clarity. --Fir0002 04:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, Bad compositon, color and overall lacking in sharpness. Alight 20:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although it illustrates the article well, it's not particularly aesthetically pleasing. Dzof 11:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted This link is Broken 18:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Medal of Honor Flag with Gold Fringe.svg

 

I just thought this picture was striking, improves the articles, and so on. Although it's kinda confusing where's sky, where's not, it's a nice picture. Taken by ReneS (Rene Schwietzke) used in Massachusetts Institute of Technology article. - WB 05:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - WB 05:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't find it striking; the repetitiveness in the windows gives it a rather ordinary look. also, its artificiality is a little too apparent. Enochlau 03:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too repetitive like Enochlau said. There isn't much to see except squares of windows. • Thorpe • 11:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Boring. -Lommer | ^talk 19:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
•   Oppose. ditto. Is this a picture or a computer generated image? --Fir0002 04:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know for a fact, but I assume it's the side of the building. you can see curtains in some of the windows. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose -- This is featured pictures, not puzzles. -- Longhair | Talk 02:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's great. I love the geometry and the colours. It reminds me of a Mondrian. (oops, I forgot to sign). --Silversmith Hewwo 10:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's great too. Ericd 21:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I like that sort of symmetry and grid effect. Looks really clean. --Bash 08:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I like the style of the photograph, although the rotated alignment seems a little perverse. However, we already have one FP of a post modern building on the MIT campus. Also the Simmons Hall isn't much discussed in the text, so I'm not sure it does add that much to the article. -- Solipsist 18:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't know if this is a computer drawing or photograph, either way round it's very boring - Adrian Pingstone 18:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a real picture. See this picture.-- WB 11:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
•   Oppose - orientation is confusing. which way is up? Kaldari 22:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The sky must be up, no? -- WB 11:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

In this case I don't think the sky is up. I think the pic is just taken high up the building, where you can see the sky to the side (Note the curtains). But I could be wrong. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, I guess the point of the rotated frame of reference is to get you to concentrate on the pattern and symmetries of the facade - which it succeeds in doing. If you stare straight up in New York, you can get this sort of sideways verticle view point almost anywhere. But sometimes going for the artistic effect, obscures the subject a little too much. -- Solipsist 14:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looking at this picture from a diferrent point of view, it is viewing up (the sky). If you see my above comment to Arpingstone, the building isn't that high up anyway. -- WB 23:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, boring. Phoenix2 01:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted 4 / 9 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) 14:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

The beauty of the Hindu goddess speaks for itself. User:DaGizza

• Oppose the resolution is too low. This link is Broken 04:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Far too small. ed g2s • talk 10:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unknown copyright status. Ericd 20:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, no copyright info. Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
•   Oppose, So low res that it hardly worth having it on wiki at all. Leaves a person frustrated, like the donkey and the carrot, a treasure chest without a key, a thumbnail you can't expand. --Fir0002 04:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very small. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, too small. Phoenix2 19:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose unless a larger version is acquired (I'm looking for one right now, with little luck). As an artwork, this scale is inexcusable. When I see a photo thumbnail on Wikipedia, *especially* of an artwork, I fully expect to click through to an UBER HI-RES version. If you look at this version of the picture I just found, it seems that our copy has been somehow modified from the original, much like the "enhanced" Last Suppers floating around the web; if we're going to proudly show off an artwork we need to have The Real Thing(TM) and not some rebuilt interpretation. In closing, if this was screen-filling I would say it was beautiful and fully support it as a featured picture, but the way it is it's worthless to us.--ooops, formatting! I found and added the source of the image, not that that helps much... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted 1 / 8 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) 14:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Image deleted from WikiCommons, no license. Thuresson 18:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this image to use in the Caulfield Grammar article's uniform section as an example of a school blazer awards pocket. It is a high-res, bright and interesting image. Harro5 09:29, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Harro5 09:29, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fairly boring. ed g2s • talk 19:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, I admire the attempts of bringing such a disputed thing as a school article to FA status, but this image is not interesting or striking enough for featured status; informativeness is limited. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:10, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Get Real Anish7 05:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not interesting. Enochlau 03:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. -Lommer | ^talk 19:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- not interesting. - Longhair | Talk 08:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. For reasons stated. Chicago god 18:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted 1 / 7 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) 14:10, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

 

The picture speaks for itself. Shows the M1 Abrams fitted with the Tank Urban Survival Kit

• Nominate and support. Anish7 04:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. ed g2s • talk 08:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It certainly illustrates tanks, yes, but is it particularly striking, impressive, beautiful, fascinating, or brilliant? I don't think so. It's just some pictures of tanks and their parts. Sputnik 13:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The often quoted "striking, impressive, beautiful, fascinating, or brilliant" is just a guideline, and anyway, it does add significantly to it's article so I would say it is fascinating. ed g2s • talk 19:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not a very interesting image. Junes 22:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
•   Support. Adds significantly, and this isn't Commons FPC, so "adds significantly" should outweigh any of the catch-words commonly cited. --brian0918™ 02:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Illustrative and very well done. --CVaneg 04:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. "Adds significantly" has always trumped æsthetic concerns, obviously. James F. (talk) 21:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agreed with Sputnik. Enochlau 08:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree it adds significantly to the article in question. But at a resolution images are commonly used the text and smaller images just aren't clear enough to view comfortably. Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed in article. Now readable. --brian0918™ 05:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sure it adds to the article, but it would still be a fine article without it. Also, I find the layout and quality of the picture to be poor given its objective of illustrating the TUSK system. What decided my vote though was the spelling mistake: "reactive armore". -Lommer | ^talk 03:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
•   Support A nice composite - clean and does the job. --Fir0002 04:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bland and dry, like bad toast. Chicago god 18:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, very poor layout. - Mailer Diablo 16:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Adds signifigantly, and is clear and concise. TomStar81 01:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing special at all. Bland, straightforward, uninteresting. Dzof 11:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
•   Oppose - Bad and boring. Darwinek 14:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
•   Oppose - boring and not especially good layout. Kaldari 22:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted 7 / 10 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) 14:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think it illustrates Vancouver, Lions' Gate Bridge, and Stanley Park well along with the glimpse of a ship that often travel here. Although it might not be the most high-resolution picture available, as long as it is used in an appropriate size, it looks fine. Picture was taken by WB (me) and it is currently used in Vancouver and Lions' Gate Bridge article. - WB 00:56, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Self-nominate and support. - WB 00:56, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Mgm|^(talk) 19:53, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Grainy and not very exciting. Junes 22:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If we use it as a smaller image, it would not be grainy. WB 23:28, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Might look better with some auto-leveling and/or auto-coloring. Graininess isn't really a problem, but some of the sections look out of focus. --brian0918™ 02:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Can anyone actually do that? I'm not so good with editting pictures... so yeah. thanks. WB 00:00, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It contains too much that doesn't belong, and while nice, it's not exactly striking. Deltabeignet 02:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not striking. Enochlau 08:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. When image is viewed I see it isn't clear. Sort of blurred. Definetely a no. • Thorpe • 11:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As I stated above, as long as we use it as a small image, it's not so blurry. Obviously we are not going to use the full sized image on any articles. WB 18:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
•   Oppose. A panorama is useless in a small view - and the full view can hardly be called large either. Blurriness (details such as the supporting lines) cannont be seen in the image. --Fir0002 04:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
•   Support. I think the picture has a lot of weight. Plus I just like this bridge. Zhatt 22:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Lions' Gate bridge is a very nice bridge and it is easy to take a nice photo of it. This is not a nice photo of it. The cables of the bridge are not visible even at full size and you can't tell what colour the bridge is. -- Webgeer 16:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted 3 / 6 / 1 --Spangineer (háblame) 14:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

 

Excellent lead image in a featured article. It is striking and impressive, adding significantly to welding. This image effectively illustrates gas metal arc welding.

• Nominate and support. Sango123 16:25, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but note that when I first found this picture, I thought it was shielded metal arc welding (hence the "SMAW" in the title), but after looking at it more, I'm pretty sure that it's gas metal arc welding. --Spangineer (háblame) 01:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks - fixed caption and nomination. Sango123 02:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
•   Support That's awesome. --Fir0002 05:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Of course! Junes 16:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Fabulous. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Another image I had been thinking of nominating. -- Solipsist 18:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - TomStar81 01:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Excellent image. - Longhair | Talk 15:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
•   Support --brian0918™ 15:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 23:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - if you view the hi-res version, you see a refelction of a sign or something on the face shield saying "satellite". Wouldn't that normally be a mirror image? Something's not right - Ian ≡ talk 07:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's inside the mask – it's the mechanism that automatically darkens the face shield when the welding arc is struck. Take a look at this vendor site to see the little box a bit more clearly. Optrel Satellite is the brand name/manufacturer of the mask. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• • Promoted Image:GMAW.welding.af.ncs.jpg This link is Broken 02:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 

Mouse had no image explaining the basic function. I pulled some patent images but this one adds color and motion. The photo is original as well. - jk 03:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) (changing start date of nomination -- Solipsist 21:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))

• Nominate and support. First vote here - jk 17:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This one seemed to disappear from FPC. ed g2s • talk 11:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Let's give this one another two weeks. Today is the first time I've seen it in the nominations page. - Bevo 03:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - very nicely done. I think the big red arrow could use a little work though. —Josh Lee 22:33, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support. Nice to see the inside of a mouse without having to destroy the one I use. It's very informative and the image is nicely done. Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, fantastic diagram. the wub (talk) 14:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- llywrch 23:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
•   Support, but I think it would have been better if the original image of the mouse was of higher quality (this one is a bit dark). But the illustrative parts are great. --Fir0002 04:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Resolution could have been bigger though. Junes 16:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't like the blurry mouse. It's all a bit dull. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, but I agree with.Fir0002 --CVaneg 18:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The mouse is dull and low res. Illustration could do without the red arrow I think. Chicago god 18:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Come on! How high a resolution do you need? You can't make it any bigger than the original mouse image. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is an image I might have nominated myself. I quite like the fact that the photographic part is blurred as it gives visual weight to the illustrated cut away portion. -- Solipsist 18:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The blurry mouse is actually good - focuses attention on the bits that make the mouse work. Enochlau 07:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- TomStar81 00:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Average, would support if it was animated to show how wheels move when the mouse moves horizontally and vertically. -- Dzof 11:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
•   Support --brian0918™ 13:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, very illustrative. We need more diagrams in our library. This link is Broken 03:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Mouse-mechanism-cutaway.png +14 / -3 -- Solipsist 30 June 2005 21:22 (UTC)

 

The picture shows exactly why many consider the Cathedral of San Pardo one of the finest examples of early Gothic architecture in Italy, or even Europe. It also shows another side of the Cathedral. Generally, photographers focus on the 13-pane rose-window, thought to be the only one in the world. The other architectural details such as the fine carving and statuary tend to be overshadowed. Although the image only depicts a small part of the building, one must keep in mind that the subject isn't really the cathedral, but rather its constituent parts. The image is used in the article Larino. It would obviously be better suited for an article about the cathedral, but currently, that is part of the main entry for Larino. I don't know who took the picture. I found it on the Italian Wiki. - Larineso 16:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support - Larineso 16:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good but not exceptional. Junes 16:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with Junes. Sango123 17:35, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Such pictures are a bit of a dime a dozen in Europe. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Silversmith. Chicago god 18:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • But they seem to be missing in Featured pictures65.94.225.171 01:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I've seen one that is of a gargoyle on Notre Dame. There'll be more I'm sure. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Support if a higher resolution image can be obtained Anish7 06:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Support Larineso states that it shows exactly why the cathedral is an example of fine architecture. From the point of view of someone interested in the architecture of this building this picture would prove quite useful. Jaberwocky6669 June 28, 2005 23:01 (UTC)

Here we go again lol I withdrew my vote because I misunderstood the point Jaberwocky6669 June 28, 2005 23:29 (UTC)

Not promoted +1 / -4 / 1 neutral -- Solipsist 30 June 2005 21:39 (UTC)