Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/November-2010
| Featured picture tools |
|---|
Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2010 at 22:23:38 (UTC)
- Reason
- A huge, labelled illustration of fowl birds and chickens in particular, high EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Fowl, List of chicken breeds
- FP category for this image
- Birds
- Creator
- L. Prang & Co.
- Support as nominator --Twilightchill t 22:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support this is intense! Excellent scan quality and drawing quality. Purpy Pupple (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Given its age, it has to be considered historic rather than representing the current variety of chicken breeds. I feel that's not given sufficient weight in the articles, and so EV is low. Two main points, then: Chicken varieties can become extinct, and even if not, are usually transformed considerably over the course of 140 years of breeding. Also, the popularity of chicken breeds will change - commercially, only (egg-)layers and broilers remain on any noteworthy scale today. It's therefore important to state very clearly that this image represents a historic situation. And I think it would be good to state which, if any, are extinct, or conversely, if true, state that all are extant. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- In terms of historical value, it is certainly there. I checked out the mentoned breeds and found what we have: Spanish, Houdan, La Flèche, Light and Dark Brahmas, Dominiques, Sultan Fowl, Crèvecœur... Twilightchill t 10:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think the quality is good and with the historic clarification it would have good EV.
However, I cannot support an image which I don't really get. There are over 20 breeds here, and I have absolutely no idea which is which. It needs a good legend (like they have on commons) or a very clear caption (that will be eventually copied to commons). and the legend in use it not quite clear. The numbers by the breeds are pretty washed out, and I think to deserve a FP status; the text in the image should be clearer. Higher res?Nergaal (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think my computer was not loading the full res. Still, when zooming, there are a lot of smudges that become very visible (and I am not sure that they were intended to be in the picture in the first place). I would think some restoration is necessary before becoming FP-worthy. Nergaal (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I added the LargeImage template, which links to tools for easier viewing of such images. I think it would be useful to repeat the text from the image in the image description. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think my computer was not loading the full res. Still, when zooming, there are a lot of smudges that become very visible (and I am not sure that they were intended to be in the picture in the first place). I would think some restoration is necessary before becoming FP-worthy. Nergaal (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, sorry. Seems to be very much a historical illustration for a non-historical article- it's not of the kind of standard that would be expected in modern works on the subject. J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think everything has a historical dimension, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the case of animal breeding. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support A high-quality, very interesting illustration. wackywace 17:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Per J Milburn. Also you can't read the names of them! That's pretty key information for this image... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, all that info is now in the image description. Also, you can read the names when you view the full size image or zoom in using one of the large image viewers. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- True, I didn't notice the legend. But I stand by my oppose, it seems so out of date it's not suitable for a modern encyclopedia. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, all that info is now in the image description. Also, you can read the names when you view the full size image or zoom in using one of the large image viewers. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support with the legend copied to wiki the image is ok. Nergaal (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2010 at 12:03:14 (UTC)
- Reason
- It is a very useful composite of multiple references describing anatomical locations. It's been put on WikiProject Anatomy and on general display for a while for feedback, and errors have been fixed, so the anatomical accuracy may be assumed to be acceptable.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Trunk (anatomy), Abdomen, Chest, Human rib cage, Vertebral column, Liver, Kidney, Pancreas, Superficial anatomy, Gallbladder, McBurney's point, Transpyloric plane, Celiac artery, Oblique fissure, Horizontal fissure of right lung
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
- Creator
- Mikael Häggström
- Support as nominator --Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Question Where can I find more information about SVG "incompatibility with many image viewers outside Wikipedia"? Is it something that affects only this file? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- You can probably find what you want to know at Scalable Vector Graphics#Software and support in applications. There are many applications for svg, but it's not as widely compatible as png. This is not an issue specific for this image, however, so I made a special note for it at Talk:Nomination procedure#Nominate vector or raster version?.Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support SVG Very good EV and technical quality. Since the image page for any SVG file on Wikipedia also has "This image rendered as PNG in other sizes: 200px, 500px, 1000px, 2000px.", people with no SVG compatibility can still view SVG files which are automatically rasterized to PNG in a variety of formats. Therefore in my opinion SVG is superior in every respect. Purpy Pupple (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The edges of the dude are fairly rough. Anything that can be done about that? It's not a big issue, but if it's easy to fix, it would make this look nicer. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- In which way do they look rough? If it's a suboptimal cut of the trunk, I could do a bit of zooming out (or in).Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I realize now it's just that File:Upper body front.png isn't that great. When you get up to 1000px on the SVG, the sides become noticeably jagged (near where it says "L5" and "Anterior", for example). It's not really a big problem, just a minor annoyance since the underlying image isn't SVG. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. I tried to make a bit smoother cut from the transparent background, but I'm not sure if it's apparently better now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I realize now it's just that File:Upper body front.png isn't that great. When you get up to 1000px on the SVG, the sides become noticeably jagged (near where it says "L5" and "Anterior", for example). It's not really a big problem, just a minor annoyance since the underlying image isn't SVG. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- In which way do they look rough? If it's a suboptimal cut of the trunk, I could do a bit of zooming out (or in).Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose All of the T and L lines extend too far to the left. Further, the horizontal alignment of T5, T6, T7, T8, and T9 are too high; T4 is borderline (it's positioned in the joint line). Also, the position of the label "Stomach" is unfortunate, as it sits directly on the T10 line, and might be misinterpreted. Sasata (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! I've updated the svg version, but will wait with updating the png version until any other fixes have been done. I've tried to move those T and L labels a bit closer. When looking closer at the alignment of T5, T6 etc, I concluded that it is the bones that are a bit too low, so I elevated some of them. The vertebrae are pretty hard to see behind the heart, but when looking at the head-part of the ribs, then it should now be seen that they correlate better with the labeled levels of their vertebrae. The stomach label is also moved some. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I find the image really hard to "read" - maybe a simple case of TMI? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2010 at 09:17:33 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- This is simply one of the most impressive wildlife images we have, imo.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Bubble-tip anemone
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Others
- Creator
- Nick Hobgood
- Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support, naturally :) Twilightchill t 10:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful! Nice lighting and good EV. Makes me want to reach out and touch it. – S Masters (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support eyecatching.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support bubbly. Nergaal (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support It might be better if there was a clownfish or two, but excellent nonetheless! Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Does not show whole organism, misleads the viewer into thinking each one of the tentacle shapes is a different organism. A gorgeous image, but something like this is much better. If this were not used as the lead image and were helpful to point out something interesting about the tentacles that would be one thing, but as it is there is minimal EV here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that it may mislead the viewer into thinking each of the tentacles is a different organism, but this can be mostly resolved in the caption. The EV is not bad, since there is much more detail that can be seen than would be possible in a photo of the entire organism. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I concur with PP. Nergaal (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- They're colonial, so delineating one individual from another is not as trivial as one usually expects. The fact that little seems to be known about the tentacles is nothing to do with the photograph, and I think we should give little-known subjects just as much of a chance as those where a lot is already understood. The lighting on the pink specimen that you've put forward strongly suggests an aquarium setting, and the structure of the bulbs seems different from all the examples that were more demonstrably taken in the wild, which makes me concerned that your alternative may not be a good illustration of the species. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that it may mislead the viewer into thinking each of the tentacles is a different organism, but this can be mostly resolved in the caption. The EV is not bad, since there is much more detail that can be seen than would be possible in a photo of the entire organism. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
*Oppose Per PP, if it's technically incorrect then it has no value as a FP. Cat-five - talk 04:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please explain how it's "technically incorrect", because I don't find that reflected in Purpy pupple's comments. I believe the photograph is a faithful representation of the specimen that was before the camera. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- It could still be a faithful representation and misleading. I admit I got the same impression- that each seperate appendage was a separate organism. J Milburn (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- The caption now in the article would seem to clarify that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support I withdraw my opposition. The caption is now a bit wordy but since it has to be to be accurate it would be unfair to criticize the nomination for that. Technically this is a very good shot and with the clarification it has very good EV. Cat-five - talk 00:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- The caption now in the article would seem to clarify that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- It could still be a faithful representation and misleading. I admit I got the same impression- that each seperate appendage was a separate organism. J Milburn (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please explain how it's "technically incorrect", because I don't find that reflected in Purpy pupple's comments. I believe the photograph is a faithful representation of the specimen that was before the camera. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Good. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Avenue (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support nice --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 13:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Entacmaea quadricolor (Bubble tip anemone).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2010 at 23:44:45 (UTC)
- Reason
- No, not a planetary defence system. Sure, it is a bit noisy, but I don't think it matters. A related shot had a five minute exposure at iso 1600 on a 400D. Dropping the ISO would start to create star trails.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Adaptive optics
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Astronomy
- Creator
- ESO/Y. Beletsky
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Eye-catching, nice lighting. Twilightchill t 23:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Wow this looks so awesome! Photo is adequately sharp in the middle, where sharpness matters. The object on the top left corner of the picture is rather annoying; but given that the field of view is 180 degrees, it is probably unavoidable. Purpy Pupple (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I might remove that bit of the caption - I don't think it is right. The photographer's other photo is taken with a sigma 10-20mm (so 102.4 degrees), which is still very wide, but not 180. This hasn't been taken with a circular fisheye. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Wow!!--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support cool. Nergaal (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support per wow. Although the caption should better explain what's going on in the photo. --KFP (contact | edits) 17:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support nice --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 13:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Laser Towards Milky Ways Centre.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Lobatus gigas 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 02 Nov 2010 at 10:23:42 (UTC)
- Reason
- good detail, great photographic quality, just enough people to show it's frequented but not too many to detract from the view
- Articles in which this image appears
- Reichstag, Politics of Germany
- FP category for this image
- Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Matthew Field
- Support as nominator --Maedin\talk 20:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Technically it is a good image, but I am not sure if the shadow helps here. Is it me or the lighting seems to make the building more impressive here? Nergaal (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't personally think so, no, :) They both seem equally impressive, and I don't think the lighting in this one detracts at all. The shadow is not deep and doesn't cover very much of the building. To me, it actually helps emphasise the depth of the portico (which in many photographs has a tendency to look rather shallow and 2-D). Maedin\talk 10:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support. --KFP (contact | edits) 17:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support and agree with Maedin about lighting. Purpy Pupple (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Tack sharp and detailed. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support, as above. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support per others. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Great photo, I've tried to take exactly this photo so many times, and it always look cheap and tacky. How did you did it? With a tilt lens or something??? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know how it was done, you'll have to ask the photographer. I suspect that this was corrected for perspective quite a lot, possibly while still in raw image format. Maedin\talk 22:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support nice --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 13:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Berlin reichstag west panorama 2.jpg --Jujutacular talk 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2010 at 14:07:38 (UTC)
- Reason
- One of the few early images of Stowe. Еlaborate and subtile
- Articles in which this image appears
- Harriet Beecher Stowe
- FP category for this image
- People
- Creator
- Francis Holl
- Support as nominator --Twilightchill t 14:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Excellent work of art and craftsmanship with EV as an historic portrait. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support - good likeness, too (as per the later portraits I have seen). --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support. The EV isn't blowing me away, but it's a lovely picture and has a place in the article. J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Question! What is this "image" - painting, drawing, photo, wood cut?!?! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's an engraving. Twilightchill t 20:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, OK then that needs to go in the caption before I think about supporting it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% sure, just know that Holl was an engraver. Maybe someone else can clarify... Twilightchill t 14:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, OK then that needs to go in the caption before I think about supporting it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's an engraving. Twilightchill t 20:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support nice --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 13:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support no wow factor, but nice engraving. Nergaal (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Harriet Beecher Stowe by Francis Holl.JPG --Jujutacular talk 18:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2010 at 02:35:16 (UTC)
- Reason
- high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Smallpox, Infectious disease
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
- Creator
- (provider) CDC/James Hicks
Support . Very powerful image
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support. OMG! Given that the disease is now eradicated, seems highly valuable. Twilightchill t 07:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support - good God. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support - when I first saw this picture I couldn't stop staring at it. Very powerful. I can barely imagine how badly that would itch. --Ephemeronium (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support OMG The poor child! Very high EV. S Masters (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Any thoughts on the ethical/privacy implications of featuring this photo? It seems unlikely that the child would have been asked for consent for this photo, much less consent to be gawked at by 10 million+ people. Just want a bit of thought/discussion put into this. I'm sure legally it's fine. Kaldari (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Worst-case scenario this could go on the no-mainpage-FPs. Even with or without the consent, this might be deemed to graphical for main page. Nergaal (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Probably dead long ago... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.1.1 (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support. A stunning candidate. Horrific, but amazing. I think I agree that this does not belong on the main page; I'll leave that up to Howcheng. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Strong support Per everyone. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd like to support, and I second all the comments above. However there seem to be a lot of dark blue-green spots and short lines/curves scattered over the image that don't seem to belong there. I think it could do with some restoration work, if anyone has the stomach for it. Until that happens, I'm hesitant to call this one of our best images. --Avenue (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- It also seems to me that Econt's June 2009 edit, while it improved the white balance a lot, made the shadows too dark. I've uploaded a version with the levels changed to make the shadows look more natural to me. --Avenue (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Original and Strong Oppose Edit. The edit flattens the image too much, and you have introduced a horrible blue glow around the hair. If you wanted to change the shadows it's a case of dodging and burning for this picture, not a levels adjustment. JFitch (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're right, my edit did suck. I've uploaded a new version over the top of my edit, which I hope is better. I still think the version originally nominated is too dark in parts, and that this obscures some of the detail from the real original (e.g. of the damaged skin on her chin). The skin tones in my latest version are probably too pale and cool, though; I'll have another look at it tomorrow. --Avenue (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- The first edit was really bad; the current edit is much better, but I don't like it more than the original because the eyes appear as holes. Nergaal (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, to me the eyes are one of the places that the original nom is overly dark, and where I thought this edit was better. But I agree it's not as good as the original; her arm is too bright, and I now see that my edits have turned her temple blue. I'll do what I should have from the beginning and mark it as not for voting. --Avenue (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- The more I play with it, the closer I seem to come to the original nom (see e.g. my latest upload), so I'm giving up on the shadows. --Avenue (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- The first edit was really bad; the current edit is much better, but I don't like it more than the original because the eyes appear as holes. Nergaal (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're right, my edit did suck. I've uploaded a new version over the top of my edit, which I hope is better. I still think the version originally nominated is too dark in parts, and that this obscures some of the detail from the real original (e.g. of the damaged skin on her chin). The skin tones in my latest version are probably too pale and cool, though; I'll have another look at it tomorrow. --Avenue (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support - very powerful, but some restoration could make it much cleaner. --Avenue (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Strong support for the original and Oppose for the edit - Terrifying, but very educative. I'm sure that people after seeing this will be happy that they live in a generation that no longer has smallpox. Secret Saturdays (talk to me)what's new? 23:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Child with Smallpox Bangladesh.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2010 at 03:08:54 (UTC)
- Reason
- It is featured on Commons and Turkish wikipedia. It has EV since its the only picture in the article
- Articles in which this image appears
- Lama
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
- Creator
- Hans Bernhard (Schnobby)
- Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose A good photo, but lacking the X factor for me. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. A lovely photo, but this is not adding a great amount to the article. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I don't want to be the pile-on oppose here, but I do have a gripe with this, which is that as long as the individual is not named, it's not possible to verify that he's a lama in the stricter sense (revered older teacher, see article for details on the various definitions), not just in the Western tourist sense. If such an identification can be made, I may very well support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose unnamed personality. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 03:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2010 at 00:12:30 (UTC)
- Reason
- This picture is of great quality and has high EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Spanish–American War, United States presidential election, 1900, American imperialism, History of the United States (1865–1918), Cuba – United States relations
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
- Creator
- Rjensen
- Support as nominator --Secret Saturdays (talk to me)what's new? 00:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The image description page for this is severely lacking. Also, 'creator' refers to the artist, not the uploader. Jujutacular talk 00:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Update Thanks for working to improve the description, but the original source is not Commons unless this was artificially enlarged (Commons: 800px, here: 1061px). You may try discussing with the uploader. Also, I'll have to oppose at this time. If we could get a higher resolution scan and one that isn't cropped so tightly (per JM), I could support. My searches on LOC yielded nothing. Jujutacular talk 03:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with Juju, and the picture is clearly cropped too closely- seems to be missing "A" from "A run on the bank" (in the middle on the left). J Milburn (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I have spoken with Rjensen, but he says that he forgot what book it came from, so I think it'll be best that I withdraw my nomination. Secret Saturdays (talk to me)what's new? 23:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted
- Withdrawn by nominator. —Maedin\talk 08:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2010 at 10:58:20 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good resolution (8 megapixels), nice detail.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Bluespotted ribbontail ray, Taeniura
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Fish
- Creator
- Jens Petersen (photograph), Amada44 (edit)
- Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support Yes it's the best photo in the article, but it's resolution is only moderately better than the others. Detail is about the same. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- And it's the only one that shows the whole animal. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. I appreciate that underwater photography is difficult, but this is not quite there, quality-wise. The composition/tight cropping is also a little uninspiring. J Milburn (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please remember to examine at close to minimum res, e.g. [1]. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate that the picture is fairly large in terms of pixels, but I still don't feel the quality is at the level we have come to expect from featured pictures. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- I really think you should start being specific when you're talking about "quality". Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate that the picture is fairly large in terms of pixels, but I still don't feel the quality is at the level we have come to expect from featured pictures. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please remember to examine at close to minimum res, e.g. [1]. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. As stated above detail is not high enough quality. Also f/3.2 is too shallow for this picture, the entire creature should be in focus. JFitch (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Counter-examples: 1, 2. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fair point, when done that well. In this case it's not done as well and highlighting those two examples just shows the massive difference in quality so I stand by my oppose. JFitch (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Counter-examples: 1, 2. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I don't have a problem with the lack of focus in the back (although in the examples given above, the lack of focus actually helps the image), but I do have a problem with the angle of the shot: because of the movement of the ray, about 10% of the frontal part of the animal is not visible, and somewhat equivalent to having the tail cropped. If the image was a bit lower or higher it would have fine, but this exact frame is in the "blind spot". The animal is interesting, and for sure deserves an FP. But although it is a good image, it is not quite good enough to be featured. Nergaal (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted —Maedin\talk 09:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2010 at 03:16:23 (UTC)
- Reason
- impressive landscape, good quality, good composition, represents the subject well
- Articles in which this image appears
- Jökulsárlón
- Category
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
- Creator
- Ira Goldstein
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Avenue (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Kudos. Twilightchill t 06:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Nice Picture. JFitch (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Beautiful. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Pretty. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Wow! --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 13:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Noodle snacks (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 12:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Such a serene image. Very nice. – S Masters (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Jokulsarlon Panorama.jpg —Maedin\talk 09:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 07 Nov 2010 at 22:00:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- sharp, good quality, decent composition
- Articles in which this image appears
- Common frog (minor: 10th edition of Systema Naturae, Amphibia in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae)
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Amphibians
- Creator
- Richard Bartz
- Support as nominator --Maedin\talk 20:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support In focus, high enough res, high EV. As an aside, you can almost see the photographer in the reflection in the frog's eye. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Adam. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 03:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Well done photo --George Chernilevsky talk 12:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Muhammad(talk) 05:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support As per Adam. – S Masters (talk) 09:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:European Common Frog Rana temporaria.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2010 at 00:00:04 (UTC)
- Reason
- interesting, good quality, complete view
- Articles in which this image appears
- Incahuasi Island, Salar de Uyuni
- FP category for this image
- Places/Panorama
- Creator
- Martin St-Amant
- Support as nominator --Maedin\talk 00:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is it me or the image is heavily pixelated? Nergaal (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think that's just you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see it, either. Maedin\talk 19:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I altered the image display, I hope you don't mind --Muhammad(talk) 18:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not at all, thanks Muhammad. Maedin\talk 19:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support Great quality all-round. Impeccable histogram for an image of this size and dynamic range. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support - interesting image. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support neat. Nergaal (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Only thing I could nitpick would be the duplication of 1 man (with red camera bag on hip, to the right of the white sign). Other than that pretty perfect! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Good quality and EV. S Masters (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support – Good quality. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Salar de Uyuni Décembre 2007 - Panorama 1 edit.jpg --Public Juju Talk 14:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2010 at 10:51:18 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution, detail and EV. Cross section illustrates in an instant its unusual fivefold symmetry, and clearly shows why this fruit is also called starfruit.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Carambola, Oxalidaceae, Averrhoa, Averrhoa carambola and Pentagon
- FP category for this image
- Plants/Fruits
- Creator
- S Masters
- Support as nominator --S Masters (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- 3/4 support I think a perfect collage would show both the attached and unattached ends of the fruit. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Slight preference for original or edit 3 (most preferred) - even "floating" without shadows would be okay for me, I think. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The shadows look really unnatural to me. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- The are unnatural. Why we are adding fake shadows to pictures, I don't know... J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- The problem that I have is that I currently can't afford professional lighting equipment. Using natural light indoors, the shadows are very long. When I combine the pictures together, the overlapping pictures would cut off the long shadows. So I have no choice but to try to recreate the shadows. Would it be better to not to have shadows at all? Otherwise, I will have to retake the pictures, but I don't think that I can do it for quite sometime. S Masters (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd suggest you heed the advice on my talk page and make a cardboard light tent. Something like this is all I mean. I wouldn't be surprised if you could scrounge the materials from around the house (baking or tracing paper will do for the windows). The desk lamps wouldn't be very bright compared to a flash though, so you will probably need a tripod. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Noodle snacks, I did follow your suggestions and tried to light it but I had some problems as I do not have directional desk lamps. Anyway, I feel that I have no other choice but to retake new photos, and with the help of a side flash, I have come up with a new version. S Masters (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd suggest you heed the advice on my talk page and make a cardboard light tent. Something like this is all I mean. I wouldn't be surprised if you could scrounge the materials from around the house (baking or tracing paper will do for the windows). The desk lamps wouldn't be very bright compared to a flash though, so you will probably need a tripod. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- The problem that I have is that I currently can't afford professional lighting equipment. Using natural light indoors, the shadows are very long. When I combine the pictures together, the overlapping pictures would cut off the long shadows. So I have no choice but to try to recreate the shadows. Would it be better to not to have shadows at all? Otherwise, I will have to retake the pictures, but I don't think that I can do it for quite sometime. S Masters (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- I just realized something: why all the fruit FPs have only a transversal cut? How about showing a longitudinal one also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 07:40, 28 October 2010
- Do you mean to cut it longways? I guess one of the main reasons for me to present it this way is to illustrate its most interesting feature – it looks like a star when cut. Unfortunately, I only had three fruits and once cut, it starts to discolour, so they have all been eaten. S Masters (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. It is an unusual fruit and I think it might have more EV to have the longitudinal cut also. Nergaal (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, I wanted to show the star, I guess a longitudinal cut will look a bit like a yellow cross section of a rugby ball or American football. The other thing is that I would have to use two fruits, and each fruit will be different from the other in terms their shapes. For example, the fruits that I had were all different sizes. You can see from the re-take that the star shape is different. In any case, I do not have any more fruits left to be able to do this. I will try to do this with the next fruit that I take. Thanks for the suggestion. – S Masters (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. It is an unusual fruit and I think it might have more EV to have the longitudinal cut also. Nergaal (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Can you use the shadows from the second pic and the fruit from the original? As I'm sure you agree, the exposure isn't so crash hot in the second take. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- The new one has considerably lower resolution and blown highlights (drop the exposure a bit). Getting there though. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Changes made to file size, exposure and highlights as per suggestions. Please note that the difference in color between the two fruits is because they are different fruits and one is riper than the other by about a week. Using the original image with the shadows from the second shoot doesn't really work as the shapes are slightly different. – S Masters (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I have done a version using the original picture with the real shadows from the second shoot. – S Masters (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Awesome! Strong support edit 3! :) Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I have done a version using the original picture with the real shadows from the second shoot. – S Masters (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Changes made to file size, exposure and highlights as per suggestions. Please note that the difference in color between the two fruits is because they are different fruits and one is riper than the other by about a week. Using the original image with the shadows from the second shoot doesn't really work as the shapes are slightly different. – S Masters (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support edit 3 Original shadows weren't that bad! Centy – reply • contribs – 02:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support edit 3 Looking good now. Jujutacular talk 15:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Conditional Support Edit 3 The stitching between shadow and white is clearly visible in 3. Someone needs to use the blur tool and hide it. Looking good otherwise. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, stitching fixed. – S Masters (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support edit 3: Looks nice. Shadows are much better natural. Maedin\talk 07:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Carambola Starfruit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2010 at 03:29:45 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality and good EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion San Bruno, California
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
- Creator
- Mbz1
- Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Very illustrative --George Chernilevsky talk 12:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support either, though my preference is for the first of the two. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like disaster images from ground level. I would much rather prefer an aerial view like this one because I understand the damages better. All I see in these two pictures is a bunch of mess, possibly created on a filming set. Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is funny to me--I very nearly opposed the Haiti image on the principle that disaster images should be taken from ground level. There is something almost condescending about the usual aerial ones—I am thinking not only of Haiti but also the many Katrina images from helicopters, planes, and satellites. Support original. Chick Bowen 19:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose alternative - something seriously wrong with the aspect ratio, not sure what to suggest - restitching *might* fix it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose alt as per PLW, neutral on original at this time. J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support original. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment There's some info missing, e.g. who painted the numbers on the cars (and remnant elevations?), and what do they refer to (address of owner, simple sequence, arbitrary)? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I really hope that's not what you're basing your
opposelack of support on! You don't need to explain every detail in every FP! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)- I would like an explanation of the basic elements I'm looking at, yes - that's what we call encyclopaedic value. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I really hope that's not what you're basing your
- Oppose alternative - What's with the strange lens? Its not even fisheye, its squished, then slanted and distorted, then squished once more... --Usyflad10 00:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay I withdraw alternative. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support original. I think it's pretty cool- it's great to have images of this sort. I don't think it belongs in panorama- perhaps history? J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Changed. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose original: I do not find this suitably informative or representative enough of the scale of the event. The view is too narrow and the mess has been mostly cleaned up. A panorama would be more appropriate; this one says so much more, and I would like to see it in the explosion article. Unfortunately, for the sake of a less informative FP, it probably will never fit there. Maedin\talk 17:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I actually tried to put to the article the image you mention. It was repeatedly removed, and I gave up, but you are mistaken about clean up. Clean up was performed much later on. First they removed the cars, and then they removed the ruins. Before that they checked the soil for asbestos, and let the owners in to see, if they could find something valuable.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Devastation in San Bruno.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- +5.5 -2 Makeemlighter (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2010 at 04:44:01 (UTC)
_edit1.jpg)
.jpg)
- Reason
- Good quality, EV. Few sports related images.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Vicente del Bosque, List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers
- Creator
- Steindy
- Support either as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 04:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Good edit.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Edit must specify what changes were made. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Selective noise removal and minor color adjustments. The photographer himself approved of the changes on my wikimedia page --Muhammad(talk) 18:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's nice but you should give FPC reviewers a chance to understand and review your changes, too. Anyway, I updated the image description with the information you supplied. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Selective noise removal and minor color adjustments. The photographer himself approved of the changes on my wikimedia page --Muhammad(talk) 18:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am not sure that a profile portrait is better over a frontal one like in File:Vicente del Bosque - Teamchef Spain (02).jpg. Nergaal (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to add that as an alternative in this nomination --Muhammad(talk) 15:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- That image would need a bit of editing (at least a crop), but I think is a better portrait. Nergaal (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to add that as an alternative in this nomination --Muhammad(talk) 15:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Alt Gives a better impression of his face imo. A bit of noise, but not too bad imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support alt, per Noodle snacks. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Both Yes the Alt gives a better impression of his face, but looking at it on it's own merit I don't think either the lighting or the composition are upto our FP standards. We have set them extremely high for portraits and this is not good enough in comparison. JFitch (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose both The original is more aesthetically pleasing but doesn't give the best view of his facial features; the alternative is exactly the opposite. Diego_pmc Talk 13:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose original, neutral alt for now. Diego pmc says it well. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Could someone crop the alt? Nergaal (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular talk 05:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2010 at 05:06:06 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Asclepias syriaca
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others
- Creator
- Mbz1
- Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Awesome quality and technically sound, but the composition does my head in. I looked at it for minutes and still couldn't figure out what I was looking at, where the stem was, which way was up, etc. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I believe you could not figure this out because it is one strange looking plant. What other composition I could have done to take a close up shot of the seeds?--Mbz1 (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support original --George Chernilevsky talk 07:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support either, prefer edit I get a better sense of what I'm looking at in the edit. Looks very interesting. Public Juju Talk 13:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2010 at 11:54:58 (UTC)
_-_cut-away_and_cross-section_2.jpg)
- Reason
- Good EV: shows a unique feature of this seaweed, the honeycomb-like structure within its blades
- Articles in which this image appears
- Durvillaea antarctica
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms/Protists
- Creator
- Avenue
- Support as nominator --Avenue (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am inclined to oppose this. I have no idea what is shown, or what I am supposed to see in this image. The composition is just... not there. Nergaal (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Weak oppose per Nergaal. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)- Oppose Sorry, but on closer inspection, the focus is pretty off too. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: It's difficult to get an idea of scale with this seaweed image (and the same with another seaweed image of yours that I've seen here). Perhaps this subject could be presented in combined form (similar to this idea), giving a zoom series (so to speak :p). Maedin\talk 21:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2010 at 16:52:56 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality photo, nice composition and colours, high encyclopaedic value
- Articles in which this image appears
- Marsberg, St. Mary church (Helminghausen)
- FP category for this image
- Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Carschten
- Support as nominator --kaʁstn 16:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- High EV? I am not sure if this image has any EV at all, even in the article where is listed. Churches like this are presumably very common in Germany, and there is nothing apparent to make this unusual. Is this the only church in the community? Anyways, the green barrel should still be cropped out somehow. Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support. Good photo, but agree on the average EV. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, absolutely no EV. If there was discussion of this church in the town article, or, even better, an article on this church, then maybe.J Milburn (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)- info: the image has now a suitabled article, see St. Mary church (Helminghausen). Are here always just few votes? --kaʁstn 20:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but this just doesn't quite scream FP to me. Maybe because there are too many distracting elements around the building. S Masters (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose but I am not going to be cynical and AfD the stub. Nergaal (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular talk 17:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2010 at 22:09:06 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV as evident in articles. Properly demonstrates several phenomena of physics using a ubiquitous image. Technically, it is free of defects, has an appropriate resolution (though an animated SVG would be the optimal format), is simply styled and loops at a comprehensible pace.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Prism (optics), Optics, Electromagnetic radiation, Transparency and translucency, Spectroscopy
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Sciences/Others under Animations (or Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Diagrams,_drawings,_and_maps/Diagrams may also be suitable)
- Creator
- Lucas V. Barbosa (Kieff)
- Support as nominator --nakomaru (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Support Hypnotising! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)- Withdraw my support until we clear up if it's physically accurate. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK I trust you ;) Support Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Withdraw my support until we clear up if it's physically accurate. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support surprisingly informative. Nergaal (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Support as above.J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)- Oppose White light isn't split into seven different wavelengths but every colour of the rainbow. Straight lines would better reveal the different angles due to the varying refractive indicies with wavelength. I much prefer something like File:Dispersive Prism Illustration by Spigget.jpg. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- That image is wrong, because inside the prism the light is not diffracted yet (still white). I said that this image is surprisingly informative specifically because the wavelengths are graphically depicted, which GREATLY aids a non-expert understand why is the light actually diffracting that way. I just love that the animation CLEARLY shows that different wavelengths have different speeds inside the medium (which is actually the origin for the prism effect). The animation File:Light dispersion conceptual.gif shows lines, and might be more clear; but I do believe that the nominated animation is just great. Nergaal (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Noodle snacks, if I understand correctly you have two issues regarding its characterization of the phenomena.
- First, that the true physics of white visible light is not a composition of merely 7 discrete wavelengths, but a continuous spectrum. This is true (until we begin to talk about quantization). However, I believe that it is not misleading for two reasons: a) the caption explicitly states this, and b) it is also explicitly stated (and implicit) that this is a schematic - a tool used to comprehend the underlying principles. Discretization of the continuous spectrum into several components, be it seven or however many, is the very thing that allows us to meaningfully compare the different speeds, directions and wavelengths. The imagery that everyone knows is simple and beautiful, and is suitable for an introduction picture, but it doesn't teach us about why it is happening, just that it is happening.
- Second, that straight lines would better reveal the angle differences. I agree, but then we wouldn't see the speed change. I believe the discussion moves to comparing the particle version with the wave version by the same author.
- Both the speed and angle differences in the particle version is very obvious, whereas in this version it is obvious but slightly less so.
- It is very clear that the wave version is used more in articles. I believe the particle version was used previously and replaced with the wave version two years ago. The editors seem to think the wave version has higher EV.
- The particle version loses the comparison between wavelengths. In fact, the wavelength is the principle characteristic of light which causes the speed change in different media which causes the angle change which causes dispersion. The wavelengths are more important than the color in this picture.
- The wave version gives a strong impression that the components are -bending- as they change media.
- The wave version illustrates the in-phase and out-of-phase quality of white light. As you stare at the first incident, the wave peaks will converge and diverge. The particle version loses this hypnotizing effect, and its loop time is much quicker as a result.
- As Nergaal states, the illustration that you posted is physically inaccurate because it doesn't show the dispersion happening within the prism. To Aaadddaaammm: I believe this schematic to be physically accurate and correctly representing what it says it is. I don't believe its accuracy was called in to question, just the method it uses to characterize the phenomena. nakomaru (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- That image is wrong, because inside the prism the light is not diffracted yet (still white). I said that this image is surprisingly informative specifically because the wavelengths are graphically depicted, which GREATLY aids a non-expert understand why is the light actually diffracting that way. I just love that the animation CLEARLY shows that different wavelengths have different speeds inside the medium (which is actually the origin for the prism effect). The animation File:Light dispersion conceptual.gif shows lines, and might be more clear; but I do believe that the nominated animation is just great. Nergaal (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- NS: Any further thoughts? Nergaal (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- You can think the white beam is 7 superposed lasers. Grinatyou (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose ack. Noodle snacks. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please understand that the caption has always explained the difference between the reality and the schematic. "The white beam represents many wavelengths of visible light, of which 7 are shown, as they travel through a vacuum with equal speeds c." There is absolutely nothing inaccurate about this schematic that anyone has mentioned. nakomaru (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm no physicist. Consider my support withdrawn until people are happy that this is accurate. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2010 at 23:35:13 (UTC)
- Reason
- This picture is of excellent quality, high EV, and was a featured picture on Turkish Wikipedia.
- Articles in which this image appears
- The dogs of war (phrase), Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), 1876, Ottoman Empire
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War
- Creator
- Punch magazine
- Support as nominator --Secret Saturdays (talk to me)what's new? 23:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Nergaal (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support It is of excellent quality! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support - good to see you didn't let anything slip in the restoration. Else I'd have to cry havoc. :-)
...you can hit me, if you like. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC) - Support Great image, as I said at PPR. Jujutacular talk 15:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Excellent work. – S Masters (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support – Very high quality cartoon. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent representation of the work. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Punch - The Dogs of War.png --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2010 at 09:01:12 (UTC)
- Reason
- This 1080p video is about as high quality as one can expect with the 100mb file limit. I had to prune the bush quite a lot. The call heard at the start is a blackbird call. I figure this adds a lot of EV to it's relevant articles. It is raining quite a bit but probably the only decent overcast day for a few days (sunlight would be very uneven with blown highlights and clipped shadows here). It took about an hour of filming to get this (the parents usually obscured the chicks too much). I just left the camera during that time. Some silvereyes are nesting atm too, but a little too high up to film. The nomination is a bit swift so I have another shot at it if there is some glaring problem.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Bird, Common Blackbird
- FP category for this image
- link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral the quality is really nice indeed. But I am not really sure about the EV: out of the 30+ secs, the 'feeding' part is like 5 secs, and the rest is staring. Also, I don't love the background noise; I don't know how, but I am certain that the sound can be cleaned up. Nergaal (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've edited the audio in attempt to reduce the background noise and bring out the chicks sound. I don't know how to mux it with the ogv stream or supply an edit to the nomination, but it is here if someone finds it useful and is able to do so. There is always some loss in fidelity so I recommend leaving the original up in case a more skilled editor tries. nakomaru (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. It sounds kind of pitch shifted or something though? The noise is mostly the wind, the rain, and the fact that the camera's built in microphone isn't particularly good. I may eventually buy a decent shotgun to record bird calls, but it is all for now. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Update Chicks have either fledged or been eaten, so no re-shoot now. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support IMO meets the requirements. I am a bit concerned about the size though. For such a short clip the size of the file is too large. Is there no way to upload a .mkv file? --Muhammad(talk) 09:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, mkv is just a container. Usually it contains h264 though. The video comes out of the camera as h.264, so something like that would make perfect sense. No wikimedia support though. I just used avidemux to cut the video, then miro video converter, as recommended here. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2010 at 05:34:22 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality, good EV, it is rare chance to have such an appropriate scale
- Articles in which this image appears
- Adansonia digitata
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others
- Creator
- Ferdinand Reus
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Tree is out of focus, and can't see the elephant's face, but I love the composition. Support! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Good composition but I dont think the quality is good enough. Also, the baobabs I have seen usually have lots of fruits hanging from them, this one has none. Baobabs are plenty in Tanzania so I am sure we can get a better image--Muhammad(talk) 10:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- By fruits you mean the orange things? Nergaal (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Greenish orange, yes --Muhammad(talk) 09:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Then there are plenty of them if you look carefully. Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's the thing. The baobabs I have seen, the fruits are easily seen even from a distance. But even if I can overlook the fruits, the quality still isnt there. --Muhammad(talk) 23:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Then there are plenty of them if you look carefully. Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Greenish orange, yes --Muhammad(talk) 09:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- By fruits you mean the orange things? Nergaal (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2010 at 05:28:11 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
- Reason
- Good quality, good EV, pretty plants, remember Avatar's Pandora?
- Articles in which this image appears
- Spirobranchus giganteus, Serpulidae, Fictional universe of Avatar
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others
- Creator
- Nhobgood
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support original Oppose Alt. Great detail and comp in the original, average both in the alt. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support original - I believe the technical term is "GAAAAAH!" --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support original Subjects out of focus on the left side of the alt, unfortunately. nakomaru (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support original The alternative is just too distratcing for me; the original is right on the subject. Secret Saturdays (talk to me)what's new? 03:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support original The original is focused and the alt may be confusing. S Masters (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support original per SMasters --George Chernilevsky talk 07:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support original – The original looks nice and the alt is a bit confusing. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support either--Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Very Weak Oppose - I love the original shot, but could I request a removal of the distracting dark vertical "dust" in the shot at the middle center of the top edge? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Spirobranchus giganteus (Red and white christmas tree worm).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2010 at 05:40:26 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality; good EV; commons FP
- Articles in which this image appears
- Helsinki Cathedral
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Lycaon
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support. Great photo, resolution, colours etc, but the perspective doesn't quite do it for me. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Since the cathedral is on top of a huge flight of stairs, this perspective is how you'll always see it (unless you're a seagull)... Otherwise, the clarity of the megastitch is fantastic. --Janke | Talk 13:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Edit: Support either version. The lighter looks slightly better in small size, original in large size. --Janke | Talk 05:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support, though framing could be better. - Anoldtreeok (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support – Looks nice with high resolution. The shot is also good. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment the picture seems slightly underexposed. Most of the white surfaces on the building appear to be light grey instead of white. To that end, I have created an edit with slightly adjusted exposure. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support edit S Masters (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Edit looks good, but a crop on the bottom might help even more. Nergaal (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support either: but prefer edit. More sky at the top would be ideal. Maedin\talk 20:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Lutheran Cathedral Helsinki edit.jpg --Jujutacular talk 18:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good EV and high quality picture
- Articles in which this image appears
- Chlorine
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
- Creator
- Alchemist-hp
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support since Bromine [2] is a featured picture as well, I don't see why this shouldn't be. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, a good photo but too little of the image (<100x500px) is devoted to the chlorine. Much more of the bromine photo was occupied by the bromine vial. --Avenue (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Chlorine is a gas. It boils around the point where mercury freezes (-34 oC). In order to get a gas as liquid at room temperature, you need to pressurize it to over 8 atmospheres. Due to safety issues, the sample needs to be smaller because the size of the pressurizing container is proportional. If you look at the image, the interior quartz is as thick as the sample itself. Since quartz is neither very cheap, or super easy to melt, I think the present sample, with the quartz at about 1.5 mm thickness is reasonable. Nergaal (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing against the physical size of the sample, just objecting to the small number of pixels allocated to it in this image (and hence the lack of clear detail). --Avenue (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- But it would lose a lot of composition points if you just zoomed in on vial. Plus, with the bromine image (and presumably others Alchemist-hp has taken), this sets a nice standard for images (i.e., they have a running theme, something you rarely see from article to article on Wikipedia). upstateNYer 23:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the original is composed well. The refractions at the sides of the cube add some interest, even if they're not as harmonious as the ones in the bromine picture. I also like having multiple images with a common theme and layout, although I only see one similar picture (the bromine one) at commons:Category:Element samples. For me, though, these factors do not outweigh the image's problems enough for it to be FP quality. Others may have a different view, and I respect that.
- Could a new high resolution close-up of the vial be pasted over the existing photo, to show more detail in that part while retaining the nice overall composition? Massive pixelation would be visible elsewhere at full zoom, but maybe that wouldn't be a problem if the transition between scales was in the featureless parts of the cube. --Avenue (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- But it would lose a lot of composition points if you just zoomed in on vial. Plus, with the bromine image (and presumably others Alchemist-hp has taken), this sets a nice standard for images (i.e., they have a running theme, something you rarely see from article to article on Wikipedia). upstateNYer 23:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing against the physical size of the sample, just objecting to the small number of pixels allocated to it in this image (and hence the lack of clear detail). --Avenue (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Chlorine is a gas. It boils around the point where mercury freezes (-34 oC). In order to get a gas as liquid at room temperature, you need to pressurize it to over 8 atmospheres. Due to safety issues, the sample needs to be smaller because the size of the pressurizing container is proportional. If you look at the image, the interior quartz is as thick as the sample itself. Since quartz is neither very cheap, or super easy to melt, I think the present sample, with the quartz at about 1.5 mm thickness is reasonable. Nergaal (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Some chromatic aberration is also visible around the lettering. --Avenue (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- The crop has the same flaws, and IMO its composition isn't as good as the original. So I don't understand why it is viewed as an improvement. --Avenue (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I withdraw to this nomination. This image is good (QI) but not good enough for a FP. I think I can take a better image (if I had more time). The creator: --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)OK,Support for the crop. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)OK, I try to take in the near future a new and better image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support (strong support) Don’t withdraw (exactly). A closeup of the clear, yellow chlorine won’t illustrate it any better because there is no detail in it the closer you get. However, given that the ampule is so small, I would suggest merely withdrawing and re-nominating one that is cropped as tight as possible on the cube while maintaining a modicum of aesthetic standoff. I just love the angle of this shot and how it captured a refraction of the ampule chamber off the top of the cube. There is no doubt that this is of high technical quality; it could just benefit from a minor tweak to optimize it. Greg L (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Just not interesting enough. Just because it might be the best photo of chlorine we've got, doesn't mean we need to feature it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support regardless of withdraw. Agree to the principles brought up by Greg L. upstateNYer 23:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support One more element to cross of off the "need FP's for" list, I couldn't imagine a better way to capture a dangerous gas like chlorine any other way then something like this... Larger vials are more dangerous.... — raekyt 21:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It sounds from the above like he wanted to reshoot. I'd considering suspending and giving him the opportunity to do so.Fletcher (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
5 S, 2 O, with an apparent preference for the edit Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
[promotion template removed] Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Suspended while waiting for new upload. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- An other crop/cut is uploaded. I can't take a new other version in the near time. Sorry. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Request for more input Both of the available versions now are crops - preferences? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- The crop from Nergaal are too tight for me. I think my crop is a good compromise. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Request for more input Both of the available versions now are crops - preferences? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- My above “support” vote (wherein I suggested that Alchemist crop his original) means I fully support his crop. If the central element of the composition was the acrylic cube, it would be too tight. But the cube is secondary; the ampule within it is the subject matter here. Accordingly, I find this crop, with its minimal space around the cube, is an excellent compromise. Alchemist does fabulous work on his photographs of the elements and makes Wikipedia the beneficiary of all that effort for free. It wasn’t that long ago that the only place you could go for a photograph-based periodic table was to walk into a chemistry lab and look at an Alfa-Aesar poster on the wall. All that contributors like Alchemist require to keep contributing their good work to the project is some appreciation from his peers. I don’t see the point of quibbling over a few millimeters of crop here or there, where the outcome might be a missing element in the periodic table and a valued contributor frustrated with the arteeeests who inhabited FP when his nom landed here. Greg L (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I concur with Greg. Support the author's crop. Nergaal (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support crop as per above. Purpy Pupple (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Alchemist-hp's crop (i.e., the one that overwrote the originally nominated version). upstateNYer 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Chlorine liquid in an ampoule.jpg Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2010 at 19:05:01 (UTC)
- Reason
- An exceptionally striking and illustrative image.
- Articles in which this image appears
- 2010 Haiti earthquake
- FP category for this image
- Natural phenomena/Others
- Creator
- Logan Abassi
- Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Some random kid
in some random placewith some random injury. Also jpg artefacts. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)- That's an unnecessarily inflammatory and, frankly, stupid thing to say. I urge you to retract it. Chick Bowen 04:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please discuss the image, you're free to add your vote with your reasons. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- The image is about a somewhat recent event that had a lot of casualties and got a lot of media coverage. You could've made a case about how you feel the image does or doesn't have value to the article, instead you just sounded flippant and insensitive. --I'ḏ♥One 00:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please discuss the image, you're free to add your vote with your reasons. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's an unnecessarily inflammatory and, frankly, stupid thing to say. I urge you to retract it. Chick Bowen 04:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The sorts of injuries that this patient has presented with are fairly typical of an earthquake - you'd see a fair amount of bruises, abrasions and blunt trauma. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Then doesn't that make the case that it is a good depiction of the typical injuries suffered by those in a notable event, and thus, it is a nice representation of the pain and suffering caused by the notable event. I am very surprised that people are rejecting it on EV grounds. Remember (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think that would be a valid argument, yes. I may still vote on this later if I find I have strong feelings about this one way or the other. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, I do kind of agree with what Aaadddaaammm is saying. It's a nice press-type shot, but it's not uber encyclopedic. J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose – Not exactly the best image. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2010 at 23:33:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- Commons FP at a very handsome resolution, and crystal sharp.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Nemanthus annamensis
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Cnidaria
- Creator
- Nick Hobgood
- Support as co-nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support as co-nominator --Citron (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support The same EV worries as the nomination above. Also is there something strange going on around the edges and tips of the 'tentacles'? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 18:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support, provided this one is properly identified. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support – Nice quality. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support With same conditions as J Milburn. S Masters (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support I am surprised nobody complained about the anemone not being show in its entirety (the 'root' part is somewhat obscured from this angle). Nergaal (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Colonial anemone zebra.jpg --Jujutacular talk 00:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2010 at 23:33:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- Sharp, stunning, Commons FP.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Venus flytrap sea anemone, Sea anemone (gallery)
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Cnidaria
- Creator
- Aquapix and Expedition to the Deep Slope 2007, NOAA-OE (PD-US-gvnt)
- Support as co-nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support as co-nominator A rare topic and a good underwater picture. --Citron (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support. Amazing anemone, only thing I've got me holding back from a proper support, is that Venus flytrap sea anemone is an uberstub, and it's only other use is in a gallery. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- There's a bit online. If I find a spare half hour, I'll try and knock something up. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support nice quality and rare object --George Chernilevsky talk 18:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support very good quality and EV. --TheMandarin (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support – Nice quality and very interesting. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Good EV, quality and is interesting. S Masters (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support although I am now curious how it looks from the opposite side. Nergaal (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - It's an attractive shot, to be sure, but it seems like we're not getting the best viewing angle. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hum... What is the best viewing angle for you? In this picture, you can see the Venus flytrap sea anemone's specificity : her "stem".--Citron (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I envisioned a shot similar to the lead photo for Venus flytrap, if the "stem" part of this anemone is especially important that should be mentioned in the (admittedly very small stub) article. I'll change my vote to weak oppose though... not that it's liable to matter much. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Actinoscyphia aurelia 1.jpg --Jujutacular talk 06:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2010 at 01:26:38 (UTC)
- Reason
- Strong encyclopedic value, being the only animation of a maze being generated in this method.
- Articles in which this image appears
- maze generation, Prim's algorithm
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
- Creator
- Purpy Pupple
- Support as nominator --Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose: First, the image size is unnecessarily large and you can't actually see the animation unless you go to full resolution. Without the animation it's just a black rectangle and I don't think it would be a good candidate to put on the main page. Second, it's an animation of the maze being generated but it doesn't show how the algorithm works or what it's doing to generate the maze. So the EV seems lacking to me. Imo it would be better to have a much smaller maze (5 by 5 say) but somehow show the computations that are going on.--RDBury (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's a big black rectangle. I would have been totally confused if RDBury hadn't mentioned that you have to click on it (twice!) to get the animation to show up. Ozob (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that Wikipedia's current version of ImageMagick sometimes does not make the GIF thumbnails properly. I'm not quite sure how to fix this though... Purpy Pupple (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- You'll need to make a new image, small enough that it doesn't need to be a thumbnail. Other thoughts:
- The walls are very thin. Can you make them thicker so that they show up better?
- The animation shows many many steps happening at once. Can you show the steps one at a time? (I realize that that would be ridiculous on a 90×90 grid, but if it's 4×4 then you have only 16 steps to show.)
- It's not clear how the algorithm works from the picture alone. How about something like this: Since this is a graph algorithm, in the background of the picture, show the graph that the algorithm is working off of. Use a dark color, say dark blue. At the first step, highlight a random dot for your starting position, say in light red. Next frame: Highlight all of its neighbors in light blue. Next frame: Highlight the neighbor you've chosen to extend the maze to (and the edge connecting it to the first dot) in light red. Next frame: Highlight all the potential places the maze can be extended to in light blue. Next frame: Highlight the neighbor you've chosen to extend the maze to (and the edge connecting it to the maze) in light red. Repeat until the maze is done. I think it would be clearer to work with just the graph until the very end. After the last step, pause, then display the maze underneath the graph, pause, and then display the maze alone. Pause, and repeat.
- It seems that Wikipedia's current version of ImageMagick sometimes does not make the GIF thumbnails properly. I'm not quite sure how to fix this though... Purpy Pupple (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Withdraw nomination -- thank you for your valuable feedback. I appreciate it. However, I have realized that in order for the picture to have sufficient encyclopedic value, it must be radically changed and I simply don't have time this year to do it. Nevertheless, whoever wants the source code for my maze generation algorithm so as to create a new and better version, feel free to leave a note on my talk page or something. Purpy Pupple (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2010 at 13:15:47 (UTC)
- Reason
- complements the image of the single rambutan in the article
- Articles in which this image appears
- Rambutan, Nephelium
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 13:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Info Existing FP and previous nom. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support – The image is high-quality and looks nice, but the sticks of the fruit somewhat detract from the fruit itself. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The twigs on the top right need some cleaning up. Some bits look like they are just floating. S Masters (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please put up an edit? --Muhammad(talk) 14:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have uploaded an edit with the "floating" twigs removed, as per request. S Masters (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose The old FP is better. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose does not add anything to the previous FP. Nergaal (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2010 at 02:41:52 (UTC)
- Reason
- This photograph has a great overall exposure with different photographic elements being able to merge seamlessly into each other.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Macro Photography | Moss | Canon EF 100mm lens
- FP category for this image
- Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
- Creator
- AmericanXplorer13 (talk)
- Support as nominator --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's not really showing anything. It was quickly removed from fungus (where is the fungus? Is the large out-of-focus thing in the forground a piece of fungus?) and it doesn't seem to be adding anything in particular to moss (what is the species of moss this is illustrating?). The other usage is a gallery. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I realize that I can't just assume that since a photo has moss in it, it should automatically go under the fungi page. I realized after adding the photograph that I didn't know what species of fungi this was, and that it would be better off going under a Macro Photography page, seeing that it's a very good example of that photographic technique. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Mosses and plants, not fungi. J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a lousy photo of a mundane subject. I see no EV at all. And yes, mosses are not funguses.Shroomydan (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Limited practical use. upstateNYer 06:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose There is no real focal point; it just seems like a load of potentially good elements blended into one photograph so it shows almost nothing at all. wackywace 12:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment To be fair, this is a strangely beautiful photo. I just don't see a place for it in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shroomydan (talk • contribs) 06:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose It has interesting lighting and is somewhat pretty in an abstract manner, but the encyclopedic value is absolutely lacking and the image fails to properly show anything that may possibly of interest. It is not a good example of a macro photo either, since a macro photo is intended to portray small things, which are close to the camera, nicely (which this photo fails to do). Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Withdrawal of Nomination After the criticism received for this image, I hereby withdraw my nomination. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted
- Withdrawn. —Maedin\talk 18:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2010 at 22:15:31 (UTC)
- Reason
- This photograph shows great detail in the morkie while giving the image a high quality contrast between different colors.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Morkie
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Mammals
- Creator
- AmericanXplorer13
- Support as nominator --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose the eyes look as black holes.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment the dog's eyes are a very dark brown, looking like black from various angles. -- AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Distracting background, only part of the subject is visible, and the animal's coat looks blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shroomydan (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Some fill flash (say 1-2 stops down on the flash exposure compensation) would have fixed the lighting problems. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose For a picture like this, I would want to see the entire animal, not part of it. S Masters (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Not only is the animal cut off, it is cut off at very awkward places. In addition, a combination of distracting background and inferior lighting makes this picture not deserve FP status. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose: Well, it's just a half dog.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose and WP:SNOW. Poor lighting, no size reference, bad framing, odd background. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Withdrawal of Nomination After the criticism received for this image, I hereby withdraw my nomination. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted
- Withdrawn. —Maedin\talk 18:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2010 at 22:04:57 (UTC)
- Reason
- good quality, accurate depiction of the Siege of Antioch
- Articles in which this image appears
- Siege of Antioch, Robert Curthose
- FP category for this image
- History/Others
- Creator
- World Imaging
- Support as nominator --—MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose: unfortunately. A scan of a print with the halftoning visible, and this seems to be also damaged—see the horizontal parallel lines across the sky and castle. I presume this is not part of the original painting? I couldn't find another version on the internet to compare (but it was only a quick search). Maedin\talk 13:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2010 at 00:25:12 (UTC)
- Reason
- Compelling depiction of the Iron Ore Line in Sweden and of a Iore locomotive in action
- Articles in which this image appears
- Iron Ore Line, Iore, Malmtrafik
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others
- Creator
- User:Kabelleger
- Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support – High quality image that depicts the train well. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Stunning. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support wackywace 17:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Woooh! Wooooh! Nergaal (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Wow! --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 02:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Expiry Date (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful image. It's interesting that they use electric locomotives there, in contrast to North America wherein almost all freight trains are diesel-electric. Purpy Pupple (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:IORE beim Torneträsk.jpg --Jujutacular talk 01:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2010 at 14:51:22 (UTC)
- Reason
- Almost all pictures of purple mangosteens on Wikipedia are of a poor quality, so I thought I'd take one that is. High resolution, detail and EV of an unusual fruit.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Purple Mangosteen, Garcinia, Clusiaceae, Aril
- FP category for this image
- Plants/Fruits
- Creator
- S Masters
- Support as nominator --S Masters (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
OpposeComplete fruit is not in focus, a focus stack is expected of such a shot. Also, I would prefer the picture taken from slightly higher viewpoint to show the top of the fruit as well. Fruit also looks overripe --Muhammad(talk) 16:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have used the software suggested by Noodle snacks. The fruit was just ripe to me, not overripe – well, it didn't taste overripe. Unfortunately, I do not have any more fruits left and I was told that they are not in season. So, I can't take any more shots showing more of the top as suggested. If it is not good enough, then I will have to wait until I can get another fresh supply, but I don't know how long that will be. S Masters (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding the stacked version, if compared to the original at same sizes(v2 is much lower res than original), the original seems sharper to me. --Muhammad(talk) 06:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- The res is the same. The canvas size is slightly smaller as I made it around the same size as the FP Image:Sugar apple with cross section.jpg, for consistency. S Masters (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- The aspect ratio may be the same but the canvas size refers to the resolution. V2 is much better done so I will not oppose but I am still not completely satisfied with the angle and ripeness. If in the future you happen to get less ripened ones please consider a re-shoot. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 13:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- The res is the same. The canvas size is slightly smaller as I made it around the same size as the FP Image:Sugar apple with cross section.jpg, for consistency. S Masters (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding the stacked version, if compared to the original at same sizes(v2 is much lower res than original), the original seems sharper to me. --Muhammad(talk) 06:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Just thought I'd add that CombineZP is free software that can do the stack for you. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip. Nice software. S Masters (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, while we're on the subject of asking favours, I'd like to see a scale included. This, for me, distinguishes some of our best images from those that are "just okay". Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Edit2 well done --George Chernilevsky talk 12:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support edit 2 well done. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support edit 2 with many thanks for the scale. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support edit 2 - As above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support I nom'd in on the Commons before seeing this... :P –hoverFly | chat? 14:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Edit 2-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Mangosteen scale v2.jpg --Jujutacular talk 22:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2010 at 17:16:26 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality and EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Mallard
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Mbz1
- Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Nice photo, best picture of mallard ducklings IMO --George Chernilevsky talk 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. This is very much replaceable, so I think I'd want something a little more eye-catching- the composition is not the most exciting. J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- The so called current FP of the duckings has no one in the focus. It is much harder to take an image of a family with each and every bird sharp and in focus than to take an image of a single bird.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- In the interest of full information: you did use an automatic camera mode, so claiming great artistry is perhaps a little far-fetched imo. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Where did I claim "great artistry"? It is a simple, good quality encyclopedic image of the birds. It has even greater EV because the ducklings are very young, and all are still around. A few days later only 3 were left. All others were eaten by seagulls and turtles. BTW could you please remind me what were the settings for the current FP? And what image is best to be used in Mallard?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed that the current one is pretty poor, but that's not a reason to support promoting yours. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Where did I claim "great artistry"? It is a simple, good quality encyclopedic image of the birds. It has even greater EV because the ducklings are very young, and all are still around. A few days later only 3 were left. All others were eaten by seagulls and turtles. BTW could you please remind me what were the settings for the current FP? And what image is best to be used in Mallard?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Support original, other Oppose-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Milburn. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2010 at 01:00:30 (UTC)
- Reason
- Clear, high quality, good EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Large Red Damselfly
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
- Creator
- Hans Hillewaert
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support But maybe a tighter cropping could be in order? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support. It feels a little lacking, somehow- perhaps that's the reason for the few comments. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose: It seems the focus just missed the body? Have compared it to our most recent Odonata promotions and it's slightly deficient in quality, clarity, composition, lighting . . . not a lot, but enough to withhold support. Maedin\talk 12:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support I uploaded an alternate version with a more focused crop. The colors and detail are simply amazing. I would love to see this featured. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose crop: Far too tight. Support original. Lycaon (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Focus as per Maedin.Shroomydan (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2010 at 22:15:16 (UTC)
- Reason
- These trees are a spectacular sight, and this one offers good resolution and other photographic qualities. Very good at 1200 [3], still mighty good at 1600 [4] and drops off a bit at full size. It would be only the second tree we'd have in featured picture form at this point in time.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Adansonia grandidieri, Adansonia
- FP category for this image
- Plants/Others
- Creator
- Bernard Gagnon
- Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support it was on my to-nominate list. Nergaal (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 02:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 06:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Size reference? How tall is this tree? Spikebrennan (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Literature says up to 25m, which this one has probably reached, or near enough. Alt with a person for reference. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support - the word "Wooooooow" comes to mind. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose This really needs some kind of size reference - the amazing this is that it's huge, and I'm not getting that from this photo. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support That's one hellava tall tree. wackywace 11:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
ConditionalSupport - If someone can confirm that there is no need for "tilt" correction (the water looks slightly slanted to me). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)- According to the file history, Bernard corrected for tilt present in an earlier version. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good enough for me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- According to the file history, Bernard corrected for tilt present in an earlier version. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. S Masters (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Adansonia grandidieri04.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2010 at 01:22:29 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality of an unusual animal, decent EV (will have higher EV once the species article will be created)
- Articles in which this image appears
- Bothidae, Scaldfish
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
- Creator
- Hans Hillewaert
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not really wild about the EV of an image tacked on to a list of species and genera in a family article. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but I think it would be disingenuous to create a 2-sentence stub for putting the image in. Nergaal (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've created a stub with the image. Nergaal (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but I think it would be disingenuous to create a 2-sentence stub for putting the image in. Nergaal (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
WeaksupportWeak EV, but acool image. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)- Support Although the species is relatively obscure (thus no wikipedia article for it), that does not in any way diminish the encyclopedic value. It might be a good idea to create a stub for it, however, even if only to encourage other people to expand it. Besides, the transparent fish is nice for studying the internal anatomy of it. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've created the stub. Nergaal (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support. I actually think this would make a good set with the adult image- there's certainly room for them both in the article. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support: Looks good, and pleased with its new home in Scaldfish. I cleaned up a bit (cut-out remnants?) around the tip of the fin ray. Maedin\talk 17:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Arnoglossus laterna larva.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2010 at 20:55:27 (UTC)
- Reason
- Picture of the day on commonswiki. So imho outstanding photo of that subject with high encylcopedic value.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Nymphaea alba
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
- Creator
- DerHexer
- Support as nominator --—DerHexer (Talk) 20:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose The flower is dirty, and it has damaged petals. It should be possible to find a nicer specimen.Shroomydan (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Shroomydan. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I uploaded from Flickr an Alt (which I also retouched), although I neither support nor oppose. It also looks quite different, for some reason, although the author of the image claims that it is indeed Nymphaea alba. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Shroomydan. This species is common enough in many botanical gardens etc to want near perfection. Photographically well executed though. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per NS. Not sure about the alt- perhaps start a different nomination? It's a whole new photo in a different place... J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Request withdrawn —DerHexer (Talk) 18:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted —Maedin\talk 13:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2010 at 15:23:31 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality, great EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Great white shark
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others
- Creator
- Mbz1
- Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment How does this description go with the picture, what is the picture of, a whale carcass? — raekyt 16:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I added more info to the caption, but I would like to stress out that this image is about the bites of great white sharks and not about the carcass of the whale.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- support too much detail when viewed as full size - ewww! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support. Interesting subject, but the composition is weak IMO: the subject is cut off on both sides. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I of course have a few images, where the subject is not cut off, but those might be too big to be used in the article. Anyway I added one as alternative.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Rare photo. Some bite marks is good visible --George Chernilevsky talk 09:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose topic not proven. Lycaon (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Info The nominated image has been used in Great White Shark since September 22 (almost 2 months) and nobody ever removed it from the article because it is a unique image of rare subject and not only on Wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong support either Rare subject, good composition due to aperson for the scale of bites.--Broccoli (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose the image is not, in my opinion, "eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article". The graffiti on the carcass is distracting and unexplained in the caption. There are also minor composition issues, such as the distracting waves in the top edge. However, in the linked article, it was mentioned that this may possibly be the first discovered hybrid between two species that were never known to interbreed; if this is found to be true, then this image would get a giant EV boost that may make me change my mind. Purpy Pupple (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Info I googled for "great white sharks bites" and did not find anything even remotely as good as the nominated image.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support I learnt something new and that is enough for me --Muhammad(talk) 09:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose The graffiti is a deal breaker for me.--RDBury (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Next time I will wash it before taking picture.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose the specimen has high scientific value, and the photo is well executed. But come on, it's a rotting whale carcass! The first thing I noticed was the girl's butt, then I saw unintelligible writing in white spray paint, then I saw waves. Finally my eye was forced to settle on the half-eaten corpse. There is not a girl pretty enough, nor a photographer skilled enough to land a half-eaten whale carcass on the front page. Shroomydan (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I really wonder, if such reviews should be taken into account.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose humans in something like this are too distracting. Nergaal (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I took many (most) images with no "humans", but how are you going to see the scale?--Mbz1 (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Those oppose reasons are so depressing that I'd better withdraw--Mbz1 (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't withdraw! I am surprised that users who hardly ever comment on any nomination suddenly pop up to oppose this one. Don't give them the satisfaction Mbz, let us see the images without the humans --Muhammad(talk) 08:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Muhammad, but actually it is me, who got satisfaction. lycaon has proved that I have been right about him all along (I was upset he left Commons, but now I see Commons has not lost much.), and three other opposes made me laugh. I really do not care much, if an image gets FP status, or it does not. I nominate images for FP mostly to share them, and so I did.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Mbz, it's a little upsetting that you feel the need to make snide comments about the majority of oppose votes. It really undermines the process if you create an atmosphere where people do not want to oppose. The graffiti comment was not a challenge to your ability, it was a note that the subject is not a perfect specimen, similar to when we will oppose based on flowers being dirty. Shroomydan's objection is comparable to the kind of objections Greg made frequently a little while ago about subjects being unsuitable, as well as compositional problems. Nergaal is, again, talking about compositional problems, among other things. These are all perfectly valid oppose rationales; I appreciate that they may sound harsh, but if you don't want your work reviewed this closely, then don't submit it to FPC. J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- They are not harsh at all, and practically none of them was about my skills as a photographer. So I did not take personally the latest three opposes at all. As I said those opposes were depressing and rather ignorant. For example "no humans" oppose. How in the world one is going to see the scale of the bites with "no humans", and besides, if I am to upload an image with no "humans" (I have many good ones of those), I am sure Nergaal will oppose it because there's no humans :). Gratify, well it is not very nice to see it, but there's nothing I could have done with it, and oppose an absolutely unique image (as I said I could not find anything similar on the whole net) because of gratify... Oh well... Do you really believe that the reason: "There is not a girl pretty enough, nor a photographer skilled enough to land a half-eaten whale carcass on the front page" is a valid oppose reason for unique, encyclopedic image? Do you really? (rhetorical questions, I know you do). I assure you I am not interested in your advices. Please keep them to yourself. I will decide myself, when, and if I want to nominate an image. Please have a nice day, and please notice the nomination is withdrawn, do not post here again. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It was not my intention to offend. I could have phrased my opposition more delicately. My point is that the subject is unsuitable for featured picture and there is no possible way to photograph it such that it could be made suitable. The colorful language which you quoted conveys the same message a bit more bluntly. Note that I never said it was a bad photo or that it lacked EV.Shroomydan (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I assure you I was not offended by your review at all. I was rather upset, but not for my image and not for myself, but for Wikipedia. And now please the nomination is withdrawn. If you'd like to say something to me, please post it to my talk page. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator. 01:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2010 at 20:18:41 (UTC)
- Reason
- Interesting examples of sea anemones
- Articles in which this image appears
- sea anemone
- FP category for this image
- Category:Actiniaria
- Creator
- created by Merculiano and restored by User:Citron
- Support as nominator --Citron (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Lots of EV and easy on the eyes. Shroomydan (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support I think it's a nice illustration of the diversity, and it's useful to draw attention to the harmful marine aquarium species trade. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Nicely showcases many different kinds of anemones. Since it is from 1893 and there must surely have been progress in the study of anemones, it is also arguable that this picture has historical value. Purpy Pupple (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 10:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support: nice-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Actiniaria.jpg --Jujutacular talk 06:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2010 at 21:04:38 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- This image is very crisp when it comes to showing the details of the face of the Green Iguana.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Green Iguana
- FP category for this image
- Reptiles
- Creator
- AmericanXplorer13 (talk)
- Support as nominator --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The image was placed in the article minutes before this nomination, and the article is already quite illustrated. I request that you discuss it with Mike Searson (talk · contribs), primary author of the article. Jujutacular talk 21:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose the original, but I am going to nominate an alt (better quality, more EV). Nergaal (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment As long as you're adding an alternate, let me upload a better one I found. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support the original. It really captures the character of the animal and perfectly illustrates the range of colors found in the species.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose first three by AmericanXplorer13 for their current inclusion. Even overlooking the fact that none of these show the whole animal, commons:Category:Iguana iguana just contains so many images that are as good or better - File:PortraitOfAnIguana.jpg has a rather divine composition for a head shot, and File:St Thomas Marriott Iguana 4.jpg is a promising study for a whole-body image. Makes me believe that a much better image is possible. Weak oppose Nergaal's proposed candidate for the same reason, although recognising its high technical value - very sharp, good resolution, DoF perhaps a bit more suitable to an encyclopaedic use, but it works well particularly at larger sizes. As for the AmericanXplorer13 images, they might be useful in an article on the reptilian cornea, because the focus plane targets it, but then again, we may have higher resolution images focusing on the cornea specifically. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why is the alt by Nergaal taking up so much space? --Muhammad(talk) 13:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- [5] Not sure what the objective was there. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- The damselfly below has a similar change --Muhammad(talk) 18:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- [5] Not sure what the objective was there. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support: Alternative 1 & 2 by AmericanXplorer13, other are doody :)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Alt 2 Nose, eye, and ear are shown in fine detail. The thumbnail is striking.Shroomydan (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2010 at 22:31:56 (UTC)
_entire_colony.jpg)
- Reason
- Another one that needs little introduction: a Commons FP already, I finally clobbered together an article for it, so it's fair game now. Note that the framing has already been discussed at Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Colpophyllia natans
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Cnidaria
- Creator
- Nick Hobgood
- Support as co-nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support as co-nominator --Citron (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Support The image is very nice and detailed especially around the bulk of the coral, but the photo is blurry around the edges (probably because of the water, I know you can't change that) and the photo does not have a great EV. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support, quality and EV are good, so far as I can see. As long as we are sure these colours are natural, I'm good. J Milburn (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The colors do look a little bit fantastic, but never having observed the coral in person i would not know. The colors look a little too good to be true, but that might be due to lighting. Shroomydan (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Are the colors in the image fake? Nergaal (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say they are not fake, since many undersea cnidarians are known to have vivid colors and even iridescence. Purpy Pupple (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've reverted to the original and will do a more conservative shadow lift later today. Citron knows about the situation, and Nhobgood seems offline atm. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I made only a small edit, let me know if you want something more radical - the colours are in agreement with other photographs of the species, e.g. [6] and [7]. The green really can be quite striking - [8] keeps its "nuclear" quality even after white balance correction, just as Purpy pupple said. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- How about the large amount of purple around the coral? Is that natural? Nergaal (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I made only a small edit, let me know if you want something more radical - the colours are in agreement with other photographs of the species, e.g. [6] and [7]. The green really can be quite striking - [8] keeps its "nuclear" quality even after white balance correction, just as Purpy pupple said. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've reverted to the original and will do a more conservative shadow lift later today. Citron knows about the situation, and Nhobgood seems offline atm. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say they are not fake, since many undersea cnidarians are known to have vivid colors and even iridescence. Purpy Pupple (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support: Approve of the more conservative editing. Excellent EV, perfect in the article. And who couldn't love boulder-sized brains? :) Maedin\talk 07:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: I would really support this, but all the google searches on this species does not suggest that the colors should be this bright. Is this image actually realistic? Nergaal (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've done a google image search for Colpophyllia natans and while yes, there is a lot of variation in the colour of individual colonies, there are several images showing a similar neon green in the valleys (about five so far, after a quick count). Not sure how you've been performing your search? Maedin\talk 00:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support assuming that the artificial-looking colors are actually natural. Nergaal (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support: Good EV and colours.--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Colpophyllia natans (Boulder Brain Coral) entire colony.jpg --Jujutacular talk 17:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 06:19:48 (UTC)
- Reason
- Alright, I know this might be a long shot. After living with this as a photo used in United States for a long time, I decided to go searching for something 'better' (terms are used relatively here; I'm not trying to offend anyone). One Flickr user was nice enough to allow me to use the nominated image. Admittedly the crop just makes the requirement (unnecessary and distracting foreground buildings were removed so as to better use the image in the article), and I realize the quality is not that of a typical FP. However, if you'll note the surprising scarcity of a 'good', free photo of this event, you'll note the historic significance of this photo. I also was able to upload this, however the action in the nominated image brings about much more emotion, stirring those memories that I know you all have from when this occurred. I can understand if you want to oppose on technical grounds, but before doing so, erase from your mind all those photos you've seen before because they won't be free for decades. This seems to be one of the best that had potential to be released, and it was made freely available. Pass or not pass, kudos to Flickr user themachinestops.
- Articles in which this image appears
- United States, September 11 attacks, United Airlines Flight 175, New York City (just added), List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United States (it will also be in New York once I finish rewriting it)
- FP category for this image
- American history
- Creator
- Flickr user themachinestops
- Support as nominator --upstateNYer 06:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support I agree with what you stated above. This image is also a high quality replacement for what is currently on the page. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is it possible to blur the bront building to make it less distracting? Nergaal (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think creating a set with this image is better. Also, this image is even more impressive and somebody should try to update&nom it. Nergaal (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm going to have to oppose, I think. Yes, this is the best we have, but we do not promote things purely because they are the best we have. This is the perfect candidate for what valued pictures should be, but, sadly, being a VP is meaningless. J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Even though it is a great improvement of the aforementioned older version, the picture size and quality is still inadequate for FP standards.Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per Purpy Pupple and J Milburn. It's the best we have, but not good enough for FP. P. S. Burton (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose: Doesn't convince me, sorry.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular talk 17:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 10:17:00 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- Compelling composition. Technical aspects okay. Promoted at Commons earlier this year.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Wisent, Bison
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Mammals
- Creator
- Michael Gäbler
- Support as nominator. —Maedin\talk 13:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support. J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support. A perfect complement to File:Wild Boar Habbitat 3.jpg. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support but I would prefer a crop w/o 10% of the right side. Nergaal (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Would have preferred some space on the left but still good --Muhammad(talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 09:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too tightly cropped below and left IMO. --Avenue (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Bison bonasus (Linnaeus 1758).jpg --Jujutacular talk 17:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 18:01:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- 100 megapixel image by notable artist, illustrating an article where no good photo is currently available. The plant is also identified, as Cordia sebestena, the Geiger Tree.
- Articles in which this image appears
- White-crowned Pigeon
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Birds
- Creator
- John James Audubon
- Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support anything by Audobon - especially at this quality. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support: Enormous resolution and detail from Audobon, illustrates bird and plant well. Would prefer to see this cropped slightly tighter, but not fussed enough to create another version. Maedin\talk 13:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose In such articles about species, a photograph like File:White Crowned Pigeon 002.jpg (A better photograph is not impossible to create) has much more encyclopaedic value than an artist's impression painting. IMO, the colours in the painting and photo look very different.--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- The photograph you refer to is of a juvenile (described in the article), which explains why its colours are different from the adults in the print. I've updated the article to reflect that. The watercolour has enormous EV: male and female, superbly detailed, identified tree, notable artist. We only have poor photos of juveniles from Louisville Zoo, and as the birds are skittish and near threatened, there's little hope we'll ever have anything that even approaches the print in terms of EV. Maedin\talk 09:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Despite the explanation, my vote remains unchanged. It is not impossible to photograph an adult white pigeon [9]. There are quite a few on flickr [10]. A flickr photographer may be conceived to release a photo in a selectable license. An artist impression is no ever close to a photograph in EV. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support great quality, but I am not that keen on artist impressions. Nergaal (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support impressive resolution, and good EV IMO, but could do with some cleaning up. The hair (?) on the neck of the female is one example. --Avenue (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular talk 19:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- 4 of 5 necessary supports. Jujutacular talk 19:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2010 at 22:36:02 (UTC)
- Reason
- Encyclopaedic composition taken in the wild. Plenty of resolution and detail.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Blackback butterflyfish, Chaetodon
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Fish
- Creator
- Leonard Low, edit by Papa Lima Whiskey
- Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support. Not quite perfect, but the composition is nice and the EV solid. J Milburn (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Why not! --Citron (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support edit:
Minor weaknesses in the background, butOverall good. Ditto nominator and Milburn. Maedin\talk 20:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Edit is a great improvement, addresses the background perfectly. Updated my above vote. Maedin\talk 13:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Per Citron. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support I am easily impressed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Which one? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Original Shroomydan (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support edit - white balance preferable. Jujutacular talk 04:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support either, unhelpfully. J Milburn (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Edit looks better without the cyan. Nergaal (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't vote earlier, but I'd go for the edit. --Avenue (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't vote earlier either, but I'd go for the edit. — Jeff G. ツ 19:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Chaetodon melannotus edit4.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 02:03:59 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good image quality; we currently don't have a featured picture for that unique building; has excellent encyclopedic value showcasing the building and the intricate patterns carved on it, as well as the pool.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Bahá'í House of Worship (Wilmette, Illinois)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- User:Purpy Pupple
- Support as nominator --Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note -- I am aware of the slight halo around the dome. This was a tonemapped HDR image from three exposures ±2ev, since the building, the sky, and the pool are in very different lighting conditions and only doing so will properly expose the entire image. Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support This is a beautiful image and I would love to see it featured! The only thing I'm concerned about (and I know this is a problem with making HDRs) is the ghosting. If you could upload the three images used in making the HDR, I could try fixing that for you. Other than that, FEATURE!!! --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose This would be fantastic image for a graphic novel, but not for an encyclopedia. The lines in the sky are impossibly dramatic, and on close inspection they appear to be fake. Detail is lacking in the background and appears to have been blurred. Something also looks funny about the group of people on the right and their shadows on the stairs- are there three people with shadows of four people?Shroomydan (talk) 05:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose this is an incredibly fake image. Just look at the front door and you will see something funky happening. PFs should not be about CGIs. Nergaal (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I have uploaded the original picture for comparison. Note that the sky is completely original and not fake. There has been no intentional blurring, although the +2ev frame suffers from a slight amount of camera shake and/or misfocusing. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- You moved the people around. It's fake.Shroomydan (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Resolved I have addressed your concerns in the Alt, which is entirely unedited after tonemapping. I have also changed the tonemapping parameters to mitigate the dramatic sky and reduce halation. Notice the people in the doorway. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose This is too artificial-looking. Just look at the coming from the left side of the fountain. Why not simply take a regular picture of this rather than try to alter it digitally with this much effort? -- mcshadypl T C 07:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- You will notice in the "Even More Original" picture that in the regular picture, it is impossible to expose both the building and the pool correctly at the same time.Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- This image suggests that it is just a matter of taking the photograph at the right time of day. I'd suggest blending two exposures in photoshop over HDR. A polarising filter might also be helpful. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- You will notice in the "Even More Original" picture that in the regular picture, it is impossible to expose both the building and the pool correctly at the same time.Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I added an alternate photo based on the three exposures provided. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support: Alternative Pic by AmericanXplorer13, other pics look more like a painting for me.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Still oppose all. Even the last one looks like a CGI. Nergaal (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support any of them, apart from the shit ones. I know this won't make a difference, but I just wanna say that they all really show the building in a really clear and illustrative way. They look nice, they're interesting, and the illustrate the topic. I say "yes, yes, yes!" Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose All fake images and we have one VP too --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 04:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can you kindly elaborate on what you mean by "fake"? Nothing has been fabricated. High dynamic range imaging and tone mapping are well-respected techniques. Please propose a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. Also, it is arguable that this nomination has more EV than the VP you mentioned since it also shows the pool and has more detail. Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- It gives an too artificial look and looks like a painted picture. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can you kindly elaborate on what you mean by "fake"? Nothing has been fabricated. High dynamic range imaging and tone mapping are well-respected techniques. Please propose a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. Also, it is arguable that this nomination has more EV than the VP you mentioned since it also shows the pool and has more detail. Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Just doesn't look real. I'm distracted by how it looks like it has been painted. Anoldtreeok (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Alternate by AmericanXplorer13 - If it's for voting. It looks real in this one. Anoldtreeok (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, mine is for voting. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Alternate by AmericanXplorer13 - If it's for voting. It looks real in this one. Anoldtreeok (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Support Alternate by AmericanXplorer13, Oppose all others. AmericanXplorer's is the only one that looks even slightly realistic. Kaldari (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)- Oppose all per Nergaal. I didn't notice how many flaws there are. Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- People who support this should take a closer look at the technical aspects of the image. The alt by AX for example: take a look at the "column" right above the entrance and you will see how horrible the colors get just left of the column. Nergaal (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose all: Sharpness just not there. Maedin\talk 20:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 23:57:57 (UTC)
- Reason
- Great quality up to 1600px wide [11], preferred composition, obvious value.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Malagasy Giant Chameleon, Chameleon
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Reptiles
- Creator
- Bernard Gagnon
- Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- The composition is good, and the image quality is acceptable. It is a great picture to show the species. There are, however, some technical deficiencies: there is some front-focusing, i.e. the focus is on the tree branch rather than on the animal; and the background is quite distracting (though, given the nature of the camera used, there is probably no way to reduce DOF). Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Background as per purple puppy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shroomydan (talk • contribs) 05:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Conditional support Please denoise the bg --Muhammad(talk) 09:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)- Background now denoised. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support looks good. Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Only 4 supports. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 07:47:47 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is arguably the highest quality photo of the University of British Columbia, which is a highly notable university ranked within the top 50 in the world (and 2nd in Canada). There is also great encyclopedic value in the foliage, as well as the colour in autumn.
- Articles in which this image appears
- University of British Columbia
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others
- Creator
- User:Purpy Pupple
- Support as nominator --Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose university is notable but the image is not. This image is more about artsy than any EV value. Nothing in this image is exemplified well (if you don't count the trees). Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with being "artsy". On the contrary, it is sufficient to be "eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article" (quoted from top of the page). This is particularly relevant since UBC enjoys a reputation of being a beautiful campus. In addition, it is a fallacy to not notice the trees, especially since the scene is in a country whose very flag is designed after the colour of the tree leaves in fall. Moreover, the caption specifically says to notice the trees. Purpy Pupple (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Agree, but just taking the caption literally: Student Union Building on the left, the Aquatic Center in the middle, the War Memorial Gym on the right, and the bus loop in the background. None of these are depicted sufficiently well. Without a map attached to the image, there is little a reader will get out of it other than "looks pretty". Nergaal (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with being "artsy". On the contrary, it is sufficient to be "eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article" (quoted from top of the page). This is particularly relevant since UBC enjoys a reputation of being a beautiful campus. In addition, it is a fallacy to not notice the trees, especially since the scene is in a country whose very flag is designed after the colour of the tree leaves in fall. Moreover, the caption specifically says to notice the trees. Purpy Pupple (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Very pretty, but minimal EV in its current usage. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per above... It's very pretty but the trees just make it impossible to see enough of the buildings mentionned to make the EV high enough sorry... gazhiley.co.uk 13:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Nergaal. Nothing wrong with artsy as long as it also has high EV, but this photo unfortunately doesn't as the focus seems to be the foliage. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular talk 14:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 08:59:48 (UTC)
- Reason
- good quality and EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Monument Valley, Utah, List of appearances of Monument Valley in the media
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
- Creator
- Caaz
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Vignetting of individual frames causes the sky to appear slightly uneven. The image suffers from severe oversharpening around harsh transitions, and disturbing image noise in the sky. The horizon seems to be slightly uneven, as it dips downwards at around 1/6 of the way from the left side of the image more than would be expected, although I'm not sure since I am not familiar with the topography of the region. This has to be a frequently photographed location and I am certain that people will have (or have taken) far superior pictures. Purpy Pupple (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose It's almost impossible to pick out one really outstanding picture among the hundred or so images in commons:Category:Monument Valley. I would suggest File:Monument valley ArM.jpg as a lovely simple composition, or File:Monument Valley Sunset MC.jpg or File:Desert121.jpg (a bit small) for mood lighting. If it has to be a panorama of this location, I'd favour File:Monument valley panoramic.jpg over the current candidate in spite (or perhaps because) of the visitor's facility being visible in fg. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Info Current FP. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Halos around most of the rocks where the background is the sky... Pet peev... gazhiley.co.uk 12:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Jujutacular talk 14:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 09:06:53 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality and EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Transvaal Museum, Mrs. Ples, Australopithecus africanus, List of human evolution fossils
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
- Creator
- José Braga, Archaeodontosaurus
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support alt, oppose original -- The alt showcases nicely the complete skull from several angles, whereas the original features a highly annoying fake shadow. Purpy Pupple (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose original because of the strange fake background. No opinion on the alt at this time. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose original, neutral on alt Per the above on the original, background is pretty clearly faked and it ruins the image even though the background isn't the main feature if the image. The original is nice but on black it looks off. Cat-five - talk 05:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support alt --George Chernilevsky talk 09:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular talk 14:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 08:56:41 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality, good EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Befreiungshalle
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Richard Bartz
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support iff the picture is cropped so that it is centered on the building, and possibly adjusted for slight perspective distortion. Or, something like this picture may have more encyclopedic value.Purpy Pupple (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I uploaded a crop, but I think the original ha a better composition. Nergaal (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Unless I'm mistaken, they should both be promoted as a set because this is a building that has to be seen from all sides to be fully understood and appreciated; ideally we'd have four photos, but I'm not going to insist on that (and it may be difficult depending on the terrain). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support both as set only. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm really confused here. Why do you need a set when the building looks the same on all sides??? I support the original with it's intriguing composition, or even the other picture in the article. I strongly oppose a set and the cropped version. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- How can you be sure it looks the same on all sides if you've only seen one side? More importantly, the original doesn't show an entrance, so you might think it's a monument that cannot be entered (the small opening at the top could be for maintenance, say). The entrance of course is best seen in File:Befreiungshalle-kelheim-aussen2.jpg. Meanwhile, the original and alt beat that image on resolution (if we allow some artistic license for tilt). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- You can guess it looks the the same. Having a set of 2 pictures that look, for all intents and purposes, the same is in my opinion a ridiculous suggestion. I also like the picture you linked, I said I would support that "other picture in the article" as well. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- How can you be sure it looks the same on all sides if you've only seen one side? More importantly, the original doesn't show an entrance, so you might think it's a monument that cannot be entered (the small opening at the top could be for maintenance, say). The entrance of course is best seen in File:Befreiungshalle-kelheim-aussen2.jpg. Meanwhile, the original and alt beat that image on resolution (if we allow some artistic license for tilt). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support alt: The last one. First is too far, the second down under has a bad perspective.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support original, lovely composition. Oppose alts because of the uninspiring compositions and oppose set as all angles seem to be pretty much the same. This is turning into a fun nomination... J Milburn (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Alt 2 correct focus --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 04:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support original and/or crop - Seem a bit more natural than the other one. Anoldtreeok (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose all, sort of using Papa's reasoning. Think our ideal FP of die Befreiungshalle should show the door; from a search for images, it would appear that a shot from the north or the south would best achieve that. As far as I can tell, the topography doesn't allow for easy photography of the eastern door straight on. I disagree with the promotion of either a single photograph or a set of them that give the impression the building is entrance-less. Being a monument on top of a not insignificant hill, it wouldn't be atypical for it to be so. Maedin\talk 13:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support original (weak because EV hindered by omitted doors). Oppose alts and oppose set per JMilburn. --Avenue (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Befreiungshalle Hall of Liberation Kelheim.jpg --Jujutacular talk 14:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Summary:
- Original: Nergaal, Aaadddaaammm, J Milburn, Anoldtreeok, Avenue (weak), PLW (set)
- Alt 1: PLW (set)
- Alt 2: Greatorangepumpkin, Extra 999, Anoldtreeok
- Oppose all: Maedin
→ Promoted original. Jujutacular talk 14:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- As PLW's support applied only to a set, the original only has 4.5 supports? Maedin\talk 15:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've requested more input from PLW. Jujutacular talk 15:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since PLW hasn't edited in some time, I can't really justify leaving this as promotion. My apologies for the mistake. Jujutacular talk 06:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 21:06:12 (UTC)
- Reason
- good EV; informative about gravitational lensing and black holes; decent quality for an animation
- Articles in which this image appears
- Black hole, Gravitational lens
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Astronomy
- Creator
- Urbane Legend
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps this would be better if the background object was something other than a line (effectively). As is I couldn't tell if the lens flips things on an axis or not for example. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I also think this could be better if it was rendered in (say) 1080p and uploaded as video, rather than animated gif. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I also think this would be better as a video, the animated gif is just way to small, so I Oppose on size grounds. The first is too small the second forces the reader to download a 12 meg file to view the animation, which is prohibitive for many of the readership, not everyone has broadband. Plus my fairly new laptop visibly lags for several seconds to render that image, animated gifs are not meant to replace video codecs. — raekyt 16:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I also think this could be better if it was rendered in (say) 1080p and uploaded as video, rather than animated gif. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose due to format issues as per above. The 12 mb "very large size" is large only in filesize, whilst the image resolution is extremely low. Furthermore, due to the nature of GIF images having a small colour palette, there is a significant and annoying amount of dithering. This should be in a true video format.Purpy Pupple (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 23:48:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- A view of old (Bank Hall) and new (Daffodils), the dead and derelict with a new lease of life from the flowers that still grow there. A good contrast of life after death in the season of spring. A fine example of jacobean architecture and also of derelict buildings.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Bank Hall, Bank Hall Estate, Lancashire, List of historic houses in England, Buildings at Risk Register, Jacobean architecture, List of Restoration candidates, Heritage Trust for the North West
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- John Howard
- Support as nominator --Bankhallbretherton User talk:Bankhallbretherton 23:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality is decent, but not great in my opinion. Given the relatively small resolution, the picture is not very sharp. The composition could also be better; I don't really think the daffodils need to take up a third of the image. Jujutacular talk 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Much as it's great to see a local picture, there is just too much daffodil. J Milburn (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry another oppose. I don't like the composition, sharpness, colours and EV. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per above --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 03:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Aaadddaaammm put it best - but my main reason is the sharpness... gazhiley.co.uk 12:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 09:32:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality and EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cadmium, Group 12 element
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
- Creator
- Alchemist-hp
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support I think that, where possible, each element should deserve its own FP. This is consistent with many other elements. The image quality is good, too, and the 1 cm^3 cube provides a nice sense of scale. Purpy Pupple (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is because Alchemist-hp is the author of like 99% of all the metal FP's.. for a list of what we have and still need see User:Raeky/ElementalFPs. — raekyt 14:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per above. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support As always. — raekyt 14:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support nice --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 04:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Avenue (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support as creator. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Cadmium-crystal bar.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 09:29:49 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality, high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Manganese, Group 7 element
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
- Creator
- Alchemist-hp
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Good image as usual, but I think it should be better to have a label or legend of some sort to indicate which chips are refined and which ones are oxidized. Purpy Pupple (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- All of them I think are refined, but in air, the metal gets oxidized. Notice the bottom center piece: it is recently broken to depict a fresh surface. Nergaal (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see, I must have misread the caption as a list of different entities. Purpy Pupple (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- All of them I think are refined, but in air, the metal gets oxidized. Notice the bottom center piece: it is recently broken to depict a fresh surface. Nergaal (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful as always. — raekyt 14:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Good Ev --Muhammad(talk) 05:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support nice --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 04:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support good work, well done. --Elekhh (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support as creator. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Manganese electrolytic and 1cm3 cube.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 17:43:14 (UTC)
- Reason
- We don't currently have any FPs of sponges; this is an attempt to remedy that. It's one of the very nice scans we have from Haeckel's work. About 7 megapixels of calcareous skeletons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Calcareous sponge
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Others
- Creator
- Ernst Haeckel, uploaded by Ragesoss
- Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Yep ok. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support with my restoration --Citron (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- support but I would really like to see (Haeckel 1904) in the caption.Shroomydan (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support sponges. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 03:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 09:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support good EV. Nergaal (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Haeckel Calcispongiae.jpg --Jujutacular talk 16:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 22:08:52 (UTC)
- Reason
- Compelling and professional quality portrait of an eyecatching and notable individual from a notable photographer, released under a free license. The EV is particularly high, because it shows off the "facial art" for which the subject is known. Caption nabbed from the article.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Hera Hjartardóttir
- FP category for this image
- People/Entertainment
- Creator
- Kyle Cassidy
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support. High quality and striking portrait, excellent EV. When I saw this appear in the article, I thought it should be nominated, so I'm glad to see it here already. --Avenue (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Maybe missed the focus a little, but not a deal breaker. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom --Muhammad(talk) 11:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Muhammad. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely striking shot with high encyclopedic and very high quality. Cat-five - talk 05:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- This snowballing support is a bit surprising. For commons this is perfect, but here, I am not sure that the composition is really the best. Would it be possible to have a crop without 20% of the right side? Nergaal (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support but I prefer the crop. — Jeff G. ツ 19:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think I prefer the original, to be honest. Much nicer looking. J Milburn (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also, you appear to have fiddled the lighting; was that deliberate? As an aside, I am reminded of this nomination, in which the more interesting composition was featured. J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, that was not deliberate. All I did with Paint.NET was crop to 1393x1331 and save at 95% quality. Would another quality setting be better in this case? — Jeff G. ツ 19:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also, you appear to have fiddled the lighting; was that deliberate? As an aside, I am reminded of this nomination, in which the more interesting composition was featured. J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think I prefer the original, to be honest. Much nicer looking. J Milburn (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think the current crop is too tight. It kills the composition. Try only half of the crop you did (also, save at 100%). Nergaal (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Or perhaps not tight enough. It does make the composition unbalanced, but cropping the other side might fix that. --Avenue (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Done, 1700px with 100% quality. — Jeff G. ツ 05:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Taeniura_lymma2a.jpg/1200px-Taeniura_lymma2a.jpg){kind=link}
_edit1.jpg){kind=link}
_edit1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bromine_vial_in_acrylic_cube.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Adansonia_grandidieri04.jpg/900px-Adansonia_grandidieri04.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Adansonia_grandidieri04.jpg/1200px-Adansonia_grandidieri04.jpg){kind=link}
_entire_colony.jpg){kind=link}
_entire_colony.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[6]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5VtJeXZw2eY/St53VNZMIWI/AAAAAAAAARA/jXMkXmUD6Ag/s1600/IMG_3040.JPG){kind=link}
![[7]](http://www.tevenei.com/tvm/img/mi_braincoral.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://marinebio.org/MarineBio/Press/downloads/marinebio_braincoral.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Cam%C3%A9l%C3%A9on_Madagascar_02.jpg/1600px-Cam%C3%A9l%C3%A9on_Madagascar_02.jpg){kind=link}
Which version is preferred? Jujutacular talk 16:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Original. J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Original Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Original. --Avenue (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: The original has been replaced in the article by the cropped version. --Avenue (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Hera-photo-by-kyle-cassidy.jpg --Jujutacular talk 09:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2010 at 00:47:15 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality diagram with great EV when showing possibility of life on other planets.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Earth, Water, Astrobiology, Extraterrestrial life, Habitable zone, Planetary habitability
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Astronomy
- Creator
- Chewie
- Support as nominator --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - The original GIF version of this image was deleted due to an inappropriate license - "Please keep in mind that the ThinkQuest Library is free and available to the general public. Approval is only granted when used for educational and non-profit use." Kaldari (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy close - As per Kaldari, the image has no appropriate license and in fact, the image itself is marked for meeting the criteria of speedy deletion. Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Withdrawl - The speedy close notice was added minutes ago, I should have checked the original GIF image and copyright information before uploading. Shame, it was such an interesting image. Sorry! AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2010 at 00:31:15 (UTC)
- Reason
- Strong and eyecatching portrait of a very high technical quality. A crop of this photo is currently in use on the main page. This would be our first volleyball FP, our first female athlete FP and (I believe) our first Russian athlete FP.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Yekaterina Gamova, List of Olympic medalists in volleyball
- FP category for this image
- People/Entertainment, as we do not yet have a sports category.
- Creator
- Platon Shilikov
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Aaadddaaammm (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Btw, it looks like she shows a serve grip. Twilightchill t 08:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support - I was thinking of nominating it myself, actually. Excellent photo. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support TbhotchTalk C. 22:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a very good portrait, IMO. The lighting is awful, causing a very strange look to her face. I can't understand why a photographer would want half of his subject's face in the shadow. Maybe it's artistic, but it's not even close to being encyclopedic. The other images from this shoot (see commons:Category:Yekaterina Gamova) have more EV but suffer from the same lighting problems. The volleyball is also extremely distracting in this shot. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Half of the face is in a shadow, and all together looks really unnatural.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. I can see the point of moody photos of musicians where this matches their performing persona, but I see no encyclopedic value in the shadowing here for a volleyball player. The volleyball is relevant, but a bit overwhelming. The main page crop is better, but still not FP IMO. Eyecatching though. --Avenue (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support: great photo-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose poor lighting.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It seems to me that the lighting is an artistic choice. The criteria do say that we're looking for compelling images, but artistry should not detract from the EV of the image for the purposes of an encyclopedia.--RDBury (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose the brightly lit and colourful volleyball draws attention from the person's face, which is instead rendered in gloomy grey. Purpy Pupple (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per purpy purple --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- oppose good composition, good quality, but poor lightning --kaʁstn 17:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular talk 16:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2010 at 05:11:46 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality, high resolution, high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Mission Santa Clara de Asís Santa Clara University
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- JaGa
- Support as nominator --Jujutacular talk 05:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support There is a *very* slight tilt (using the horizontal lines from the doorway up) but nowhere near noticable enough to affect my vote... Lovely picture... gazhiley.co.uk 11:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Support an interesting and historic building, and this photo surely delivers a lot of EV. However, the big cross in the foreground is very distracting and obscures part of the building. Also, the colour of the sky is an extremely strange shade of blue, probably due to a polarizing filter. Nonetheless, the picture still has my support due to its image quality and aforementioned EV. Purpy Pupple (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support, as per Purpy Pupple. J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose the front cross is too distracting. Nergaal (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support nice lightning, very good quality, very good composition. The croos is imo a superb part of the composition. --kaʁstn 17:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Karsten. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Mission Santa Clara.jpg --Maedin\talk 19:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2010 at 14:14:28 (UTC)
- Reason
- Figured I'd pop my head in for a nomination. :-) I took this recently on a trip to Prague and I think it does a good job of illustrating the geography section of Prague. It's very high resolution and a fairly complete view taking in a 180 degree view from Petřín Lookout Tower.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Prague
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Panorama
- Creator
- User:Diliff
- Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Prague-tically perfect... hehe gazhiley.co.uk 15:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I missed your puns. ;-) Yeah, it's a shame a shadow is cast over the right side. If I had got up there 15 minutes earlier it would have been completely bathed in sunlight. And 5-10 minutes after this panorama, it was completely clouded over. You win some, you lose some. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've been on hols for a couple of weeks visiting the rents in the Lakes - My mum certainly doesn't share your view on my puns! hehe... I will admit the shadow aspect of this isn't an issue for me - I didn't notice it until you and Purpy Pupple mentionned it... gazhiley.co.uk 09:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I missed your puns. ;-) Yeah, it's a shame a shadow is cast over the right side. If I had got up there 15 minutes earlier it would have been completely bathed in sunlight. And 5-10 minutes after this panorama, it was completely clouded over. You win some, you lose some. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support A beautiful picture of a seemingly nice place. I was starting to wonder when you were going to upload again. --Muhammad(talk) 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Impeccable image quality and an invaluable amount of encyclopedic value. It is, of course, too bad that the city is partially in shadows; but the sheer excellence of the image quality far outweighs that minor issue. By the way, there seems to be a lot of people on the bridge. Is that normal? Just curious. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Remember visiting this tower myself many years ago. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support; I've been to the tower too. Lovely view of the city. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom --Extra 999
OpposeIt's a great stock photo, but there is nothing spectacular about it. Shroomydan (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)- Support Amazing. I got stuck for several minutes just looking at all the details. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support after seeing the thumb, and the shadow, I wanted to oppose; but I simply cannot not support this after seeing how impressive is the zoom. Nergaal (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- support* I repent of my earlier opposition. At full size the image is quite spectacular.Shroomydan (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support That's a big picture!!! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Undeniably high in EV, and has exquisite detail. Sophus Bie (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Nice work! SMasters (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Prague Panorama - Oct 2010.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2010 at 21:21:08 (UTC)
- Reason
- With sharp focus and neutral background I think it would make a valuable addition to the Food gallery. The image was previously orphan. Time to eat :)
- Articles in which this image appears
- Vlaai, Dutch cuisine
- FP category for this image
- Food and drink
- Creator
- Vlario
- Support as nominator --Twilightchill t 21:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support yummmy! Nergaal (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support the image quality is quite good; you can even see the individual sugar crystals! However, the top part of the picture is not as sharp as somewhere in the middle, since it is not coplanar with the plane of focus and I imagine no tilt-shift lens was used. Excellent nonetheless. Good encyclopedic value. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Looks almost edible. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- oppose The artificial white background.Shroomydan (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Is this a cookie or a cake? It needs a size reference or size mention in the caption.
- From what I know it's a cookie, but don't know its usual size. Twilightchill t 08:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Shroomydan as this gives us absolutely no hope of guessing how big this thing is. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Dutch version of the article says that it is "usually with a diameter of 27 to 30 centimeters". Nergaal (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- This puts it at 28-30. Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yea ok, thanks for the info, but are you gunna be there standing behind everyone that looks at this image, whispering in their ear "they're typically 27-30 cm"? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- This puts it at 28-30. Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with size. Looks like a gigantic lattice cherry pie. Not keen on the floatyness of it, either. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I added diameter to the main article. The magnified image is actually what is to be expected from FP candidate. Twilightchill t 08:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- A diameter in the article doesn't help the image. FPs are expected to be magnified? I may not know much about photography but that statement sounds ridiculous. The Prague nomination below this one should be 100 miles wide then. Matthewedwards : Chat 17:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- This could be easily fixed through caption (the scale would look moot on such subjects I think, as this is not a scientific image). Twilightchill t 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- A diameter in the article doesn't help the image. FPs are expected to be magnified? I may not know much about photography but that statement sounds ridiculous. The Prague nomination below this one should be 100 miles wide then. Matthewedwards : Chat 17:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I added diameter to the main article. The magnified image is actually what is to be expected from FP candidate. Twilightchill t 08:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Floating effect is disconcerting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Excellent illustration of the subject, and I enjoy the detail in the sugar crystals. Sophus Bie (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not so sure how EV this is. It could be any old lattice pie. SMasters (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Check the images of vlaai and lattice pie, you'll see the difference in pattern (the lattice pies have bigger grid). Twilightchill t 08:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- 6 supports and 5 opposes; 2 of these oppose votes seem to have been addressed. Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Which two opposes have been addressed? For the two that I think you may be referring to, I disagree. On what did you base your assessment that they've been addressed? Maedin\talk 20:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Adam's and SMaster's. Nergaal (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Discounting votes is tricky business. If they changed their mind based on others' arguments that's one thing, but otherwise... Jujutacular talk 09:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- In any case, the opposers' concerns about the picture were not dealt with, it's just that things were explained to them. Compare- if someone opposed a pic of a bug based on the fact there was no scale bar, and a scale bar was then added, it would be fair enough to discount their oppose. In this case, someone opposed based on the lack of a sense of scale- someone then said "oh, it's x-sized"- a very different thing. If someone opposed a black and white picture of a flower saying that they couldn't tell what colour it was, someone striking that vote because the photographer replies "oh, it's red" would be ridiculous. The same here (with Aaadddaaammm's oppose, especially). J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, if my reasoning above doesn't convince you, here's my "vote"- this looks to me as a clear not promote. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- In any case, the opposers' concerns about the picture were not dealt with, it's just that things were explained to them. Compare- if someone opposed a pic of a bug based on the fact there was no scale bar, and a scale bar was then added, it would be fair enough to discount their oppose. In this case, someone opposed based on the lack of a sense of scale- someone then said "oh, it's x-sized"- a very different thing. If someone opposed a black and white picture of a flower saying that they couldn't tell what colour it was, someone striking that vote because the photographer replies "oh, it's red" would be ridiculous. The same here (with Aaadddaaammm's oppose, especially). J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Discounting votes is tricky business. If they changed their mind based on others' arguments that's one thing, but otherwise... Jujutacular talk 09:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular talk 21:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2010 at 10:48:19 (UTC)
- Reason
- Meets Criteria
- Articles in which this image appears
- Rhipidura albiscapa
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose although this is a very sharp image, it does not significantly stand out from the other high-quality pictures in the article, and the tail (which its name suggests is unique or interesting) is out of focus. Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose poor background --kaʁstn 17:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Carschten, mainly. --Avenue (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Purpy Pupple, the tail is out of focus. Sophus Bie (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular talk 21:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2010 at 10:51:05 (UTC)
- Reason
- Easily the best photo of the male of this species (though there are plenty of photos).
- Articles in which this image appears
- Superb Fairywren
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support. The lead image of a featured article is always going to, for me, look that little bit better. The pose on this bird is a tad awkward and, though the composition's nice, I wonder whether something better would be possible. J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can't say I'm a fan of the direct flash lighting of that image, the overall sharpness or the distracting background. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Love the lighting on this one --Muhammad(talk) 02:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support pretty and EV. Nergaal (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Nice --George Chernilevsky talk 14:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per above --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- Very good quality and value. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent EV, stunning blue feathers. wackywace 21:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose the bird's anus is a little too front and center.Shroomydan (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to oppose whatever you next nominate, just because you made me zoom in on a bird's anus. Thanks bro! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Because you can see the asscrack" is a valid reason to oppose? Nergaal (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Birds don't have an anus but a cloaca ;o) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can't be valid then... :D Noodle snacks (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- It seems valid to me... J Milburn (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, was just kidding around.Noodle snacks (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- It seems valid to me... J Milburn (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can't be valid then... :D Noodle snacks (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Birds don't have an anus but a cloaca ;o) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Malurus cyaneus PM.jpg --Jujutacular talk 17:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2010 at 11:15:57 (UTC)
- Reason
- Compelling photograph with bags of character, despite its rather standard pose. Nice lighting, and he looks like a football coach, which is nice. Would be our first Russian athlete (second if my nomination lower down the page passes by some miracle) and our first football coach.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Anatoliy Byshovets (it may filter into others over time)
- FP category for this image
- People/Entertainment, while we have no sports category.
- Creator
- Uncredited (Bolshoi Sport)
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support edit - awkward amount of head room cropped. Jujutacular talk 14:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Support A hair light would have helped with background separation. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Support the original: background underexposed, but good for the highlighting for the subject. Very good quality. And Oppose the edit: ruins composition, too tight crop at top. --kaʁstn 17:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree the crop is too tight at the top, but the original has too much- perhaps we could have a crop somewhere between? J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose both orig and alt. His face is not particularly feature-worthy and he seems almost annoyed. Also, the composition is pretty bad in both. Too much o his body is shown relative to the head; I would prefer a crop on top and also on the bottom (close to the tie). Nergaal (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, so I understand- you're opposing the current cropping, but do you feel an alternative crop could work? What do you mean about the "not particularly feature-worthy" face? J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, a crop with more of the face (as % of the image) might work better. Face: it might have good EV (although in this pic the character seems annoyed/grumpy/sad) but it is not outstanding or eye-catching (I think mundane subjects should be of really high quality, while outstanding subjects can be of lower technical quality to be worth featuring). Nergaal (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- The expression actually made it stand out, to me; it just screams "football manager". I guess I could attempt an alternative crop myself at some point, if no one else fancies giving it a go. J Milburn (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, a crop with more of the face (as % of the image) might work better. Face: it might have good EV (although in this pic the character seems annoyed/grumpy/sad) but it is not outstanding or eye-catching (I think mundane subjects should be of really high quality, while outstanding subjects can be of lower technical quality to be worth featuring). Nergaal (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support cropped The grimming face makes the picture more interesting imo. I don't know why, but this picture reminds me of a painting by René Magritte.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted —Maedin\talk 07:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2010 at 05:18:25 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good image quality and has encyclopedic value, showing a part of the world that few people would get to see. Stitching quality appears to be acceptable. Note: 360 degree panorama.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Canigou
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
- Creator
- Steve & Jem Copley from Kuwait, Kuwait
- Support as nominator --Purpy Pupple (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Opposethe thumbed image looks like an obvious support, but when clocking on the zoom, I realized that there is absolutely no need to have this image at 20MB, as it is not that sharp. Unless I am mistaken, I think this image would have the same quality at 5MB. Also, the composition is not that great (the people are slightly distracting). Nergaal (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)- Comment I always thought that downsampling was frowned-upon, but when I reread Wikipedia:How_to_improve_image_quality, I realized that it is actually recommended. I have uploaded the new file (10000 px wide) on top of the original. Please reconsider your oppose. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, it actually looks more decent. I am not 100% sold on the image though. Neutral for now. Nergaal (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I always thought that downsampling was frowned-upon, but when I reread Wikipedia:How_to_improve_image_quality, I realized that it is actually recommended. I have uploaded the new file (10000 px wide) on top of the original. Please reconsider your oppose. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment There's some strange artefact on the ridge below the sun - the top half is really blurred, and there's a distinct line below which the rocks become sharp. Is it atmospheric or photographic??? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I never actually noticed that before you mentioned it. Might be a stitching error. Purpy Pupple (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose There's the same error on the far left (left of the cross), I wish it wasn't though, cos I like the picture apart from this. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a pity :( ...I'm inclined to withdraw it, but I guess I'll wait a while to see if anyone supports it or can fix the error. Since it's a 360 degree panorama, it is understandable that an error near the right would extend all the way to the left. Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose There's the same error on the far left (left of the cross), I wish it wasn't though, cos I like the picture apart from this. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I never actually noticed that before you mentioned it. Might be a stitching error. Purpy Pupple (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I'm dubious about the EV-- you can't really see much of Le Canigou in this picture, given that the photo is taken from on top of it. Wouldn't a photo that showed the mountain (taken, for example, from a nearby mountain) have more EV? Does this photo have good EV for any other mountains in the area? Spikebrennan (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment seeing as people frequently climb to the summit, I'm sure there is some EV in showing the summit. For instance, the article also mentions, "On its summit there is a cross that is often decorated with the Catalan flag." -- this is clearly visible in the image (left side) and thus helps clarify the article. Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Poor image quality in some of the panorama segments. Nothing that can be done about it other than going back up and re-shooting. Which, coincidentally, I might have the chance to do in about 6 months time. Will have to see. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted —Maedin\talk 07:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2010 at 05:18:55 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good EV, high quality, eyecatching
- Articles in which this image appears
- Dioctria atricapilla
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
- Creator
- Richard Bartz
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support very good image. Indubitable EV. The little drops of water are cool! I should also like to see the article for this species expanded, though. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support Awesome image, I'm just not blown away by the focus or the res. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per above --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 15:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Sophus Bie (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. SMasters (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Schwarze Habichtsfliege Dioctria atricapilla.jpg --Maedin\talk 07:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2010 at 05:23:58 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tettigonia viridissima, Tettigoniidae
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
- Creator
- Richard Bartz
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
SupportWeak support: technically great! Image quality, composition, and such are all very good. I should like to see the article for this species to be expanded though... Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)- weakened support after people below pointed out that nymphs don't have as much EV. Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Support. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)- Support I love the colour. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
SupportWeak support due to green background --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)- Does nothing for me at thumbnail level: Green bug on green plant against green background. Difficult to see why someone would want to click on it, really. Having said that, at full size it is quite simply amazing. Medium well Support Matthewedwards : Chat 04:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 15:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Low EV. Nymphs are of low diagnostic value. Photos of adult insects are preferred as the primary photo. Also, the bokeh looks weird to me, but that's a bit nit-picky I admit. Kaldari (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with Kaldari. Also, there is no article to illustrate yet. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't get the EV rationale. You guys are saying we should not have FLs on duckings or kittens either because they have low EV? I am not arguing to have this picture in the species infobox; but I don't understand what is the problem with having a picture of each one of the stages that the insect goes through. Nergaal (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the photo isn't useful for the article, I'm saying a photo of the adult would be more useful. Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- So you are saying that we should not have FPs on kittens and ducklings? Nergaal (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, we do have a kitten article, so that might be an exception. But for others, I would say probably not. Kaldari (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think I'd take this as far as Kaldari, but there is little place for this image in the current article. It should lead with an image of an adult- if there is, later, sourced discussion of the nymph in the article, there may be room for this as a FP. But I must also echo NS- how certain are we that the id is correct? In any case, I've been persuaded- oppose. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Assuming bad faith from a user that has over 100 FPs on commons (and a lot of them on insects) is really ridiculous. A few noms ago users supported an extremely-colored brain coral just because google indicated that the colors might be real, whereas here a photographer with experience identified the species by himself (see this commons FP nom). And if we are not going to feature non-adults at FPs, some of the people opposing here should go and nom for removal whatever babyfish I nominated this month on an article that is one sentence long (or whatever FPs we have on non adults); otherwise opposing here while supporting there would be inconsistent. Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, I don't think juveniles are usually ineligible. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, I also do not think that juveniles are ineligible, nor am I assuming bad faith, so far as I can see. I'm not sure you understand what I am saying. J Milburn (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, I don't think juveniles are usually ineligible. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Assuming bad faith from a user that has over 100 FPs on commons (and a lot of them on insects) is really ridiculous. A few noms ago users supported an extremely-colored brain coral just because google indicated that the colors might be real, whereas here a photographer with experience identified the species by himself (see this commons FP nom). And if we are not going to feature non-adults at FPs, some of the people opposing here should go and nom for removal whatever babyfish I nominated this month on an article that is one sentence long (or whatever FPs we have on non adults); otherwise opposing here while supporting there would be inconsistent. Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think I'd take this as far as Kaldari, but there is little place for this image in the current article. It should lead with an image of an adult- if there is, later, sourced discussion of the nymph in the article, there may be room for this as a FP. But I must also echo NS- how certain are we that the id is correct? In any case, I've been persuaded- oppose. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, we do have a kitten article, so that might be an exception. But for others, I would say probably not. Kaldari (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- So you are saying that we should not have FPs on kittens and ducklings? Nergaal (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the photo isn't useful for the article, I'm saying a photo of the adult would be more useful. Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kaldari. It looks exactly the same as local katydid nymphs. I actually wonder how it was identified so specifically. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Maedin\talk 07:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2010 at 17:36:25 (UTC)
- Reason
- good quality, very good composition (nice using of the rule of thirds), good lightning
- Articles in which this image appears
- Pilsum Lighthouse, Krummhörn, List of lighthouses and lightvessels in Germany
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
- Creator
- Carschten
- Support as nominator --kaʁstn 17:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I'm not sure what I think about this. Not much of the image is devoted to the lighthouse, and the rest of the image doesn't really put it into context much - where is the sea? Also the people and cars in the background seem a little distracting. I can be easily persuaded to change my vote though! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose as the actual size of the lighthouse is below 1000 pixels. Technically is a fine, but not great picture. The EV is severely limited by the low resolution of the lighthouse itself (the middle window looks weird) and you can see some water on the left side, but it could easily be interpreted as a small lake. Nergaal (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Maedin\talk 07:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- ^ "Measuring the great white's bite". Cosmos Magazine. 27 July 2007.