Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/January-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.
- Reason
- High quality panorama with great EV because it shows not only the village itself, but also it surroundings.
- Articles this image appears in
- Kingswear
- Creator
- Herbythyme
- Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support and with thanks to Mbz1 :) --Herby talk thyme 16:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Nice panorama and good EV, although I feel like the left side is cropped a litttle tight, and so is the right side for that matter. Just slightly. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom.--Caspian blue 19:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Diliff, perhaps just needed that bit more width (a 4th photo...?). --jjron (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I could explain it but that would mean admitting to the fact that the left side beyond where it is was becoming overexposed (and did not add much) and that roof tops and extraneous objects were intruding on the right hand side and you would not expect me to do that on wiki would you...;) It is certainly one I will look at getting/improving on in the future. Thanks for the interest. --Herby talk thyme 16:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Elekhh (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support I always wonder who first thought "Hey this hill looks really steep and is precariously overhanging a big river - let's build loads of houses there..." Gazhiley (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Kingswear and the Dart s1.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Illustration from the first published work of archaeology about Aztec culture. Restored version of File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Aztec calendar, List of calendars, Mesoamerican calendars, Felipe de Zúñiga y Ontiveros, Antonio de Leon y Gama
- Creator
- Antonio de Leon y Gama
- Support as conominator --Durova382 22:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support as conominator --Garrondo (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support, Durova and Garrondo really brought out the illustration's original qualities. Well done. –blurpeace (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support good picture for the author's article. franklin 02:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Conditionalsupport. Quite nice, but can I get something cleared up. There seems to be a discrepancy between the image page and the article caption: Image page says "The images depicts an aztec sun calendar" (sic), the article caption says "A late 18th-century representation of a calendar wheel...". Perhaps the caption is just a little unclear, but is this a genuine Aztec calendar (redrawn in the 18th century), or an 18th century conception of what they might have looked like? I would also recommend an English translation of the book title on the image page (should be easy enough to do and I think it may be meaningful for the image). --jjron (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)- I believe it's based partly on this calendar stone, discovered two years earlier, and partly on other calendars. Thus it is a Spanish representation of what, in genral, Aztec calendars looked like. If I'm wrong Durova or Garrondo can correct me. Chick Bowen 21:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- This image is a generalized representation of the Aztec calendrical system, as an introduction to specific concepts and artifacts presented later in the book. The famous Aztec calendar stone had recently been excavated and studied for the first time, and this was arguably the first work of archaeology about Aztec culture. Durova386 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe it's based partly on this calendar stone, discovered two years earlier, and partly on other calendars. Thus it is a Spanish representation of what, in genral, Aztec calendars looked like. If I'm wrong Durova or Garrondo can correct me. Chick Bowen 21:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support, adds a lot to every article in which it is used. J Milburn (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support fabulous image.--Caspian blue 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Elekhh (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support, high quality and quite informative. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1b.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- I think this image does a rather good job in illustrating how the Namib Desert looks even if there is not so much to be seen - it's a desert!
- Articles this image appears in
- Spitzkoppe, Namib Desert
- Creator
- Ikiwaner
- Support as nominator --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Like on some other planet. Brand[t] 21:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good image --Herby talk thyme 11:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nicely Done. I'm not sure such a wide panorama is really needed in this case though. A smaller shot of just the mountains and road near the center would have sufficed in my view. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Such a panoramic is available too. However for illustrating the desert I think the nominated one serves a better purpose. --Ikiwaner (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic! -- mcshadypl TC 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great stuff. Worked there once, impressive place. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Astonishing. Meniscus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC).
- Support per nom. Durova390 04:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Spitzkoppe 360 Panorama.jpg —Maedin\talk 18:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- EV, and good quality, interesting buildings that have access directly to lagoon
- Articles this image appears in
- Belvedere, California
- Creator
- mbz1
- Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Excessive blown highlights. Is there a better time of day to take this photo? ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 17:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- It probably is a better time, but the the thing is I am not sure, if I will ever find that place again :). We were driving very narrow, very windy roads, that were changing to even more narrow and windier roads. As a matter of fact I am still surprised that eventually we were able to find our way back :) --Mbz1 (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- You could use google to give you directions (since the image is geocoded) :P Noodle snacks (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Google directions, turn right here, turn left there... It is so boring. I like to drive to the places like "I am not sure how I get here, and I am surprised I was able to get out" :)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- You could use google to give you directions (since the image is geocoded) :P Noodle snacks (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. The picture has extremely good resolution, but there is to much contrast between light and shadow. The cropped version cuts off too much of the scene. Generally speaking, I guess that if you pointed that camera at almost any scene in the appropriate light you are likely to get an FP. Snowman (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support The image (original not the edit) has been re-uploaded by me having done a little work on it. Based on clipping there was no real exposure issue but I've toned it a little to reduce the glare without degrading the image (I hope!). I prefer "reality" as far as possible so the work is minimal - I could do a little more I guess. --Herby talk thyme 17:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality panorama of Abbotsbury village in Dorset, UK. The image includes most of the important features in Abbotsbury including the ruins of the Abbey, the old barn and the church. It has a high EV.
- Articles this image appears in
- Abbotsbury
- Creator
- Herbythyme
- Support as nominator --Herby talk thyme 10:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Did you use some vertical control points? Some of the buildings seem to be leaning this way or that. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not explicitly - it was an "automatic" stitch with Hugin. I'm guessing over that angle of view, that age of buildings there is likely to be some variations. If there is a specific part of the image that bothers you feel free to point it out and I'll go back to the original images (there are five) maybe. --Herby talk thyme 11:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- A few of the buildings to the left of the church in particular seem to have a tilt. Adding a few vertical control points (assuming hugin can do this) should fix it easily. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not explicitly - it was an "automatic" stitch with Hugin. I'm guessing over that angle of view, that age of buildings there is likely to be some variations. If there is a specific part of the image that bothers you feel free to point it out and I'll go back to the original images (there are five) maybe. --Herby talk thyme 11:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Considering that this was taken by a 14 megapixel camera, the fact that it's only 1094px high seems a bit small to me, especially since the buildings take up such a small part of the picture. I realise that it's often more convenient to work with downsampled images (I often do it myself for this reason, especially when using Hugin), but I'd like to see a bigger version if possible. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Uploaded larger size one (pretty much full size) - "refresh" maybe. I have bandwith restrictions so don't usually upload the full sized image. The height won't be massively better given what is lost in cropping. --Herby talk thyme 16:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Aesthetically, I'm not a fan of the framing, with the ground level extending beyond the top of the shot on the left side of the panorama. I'd prefer to see sky across the top. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support I've checked vertical lines, and I believe they are OK.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Withdrawn Sadly I don't have time to deal with the changes that folk seem to thing are necessary at present. --Herby talk thyme 08:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- I first nominated this image back in August 2008, thinking it of high quality. It hasn't changed, and the encyclopedic value is still there - in fact, the only reason the image failed last time appeared to be a confusion when the image was uploaded. It's wonderfully encyclopedic and of high res.
- Articles this image appears in
- Death Valley
- Creator
- Landsat 7 image; this image was made by NASA
- Support as nominator --ceranthor 16:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Could you explain a little bit more what this image would be used for--what it tells us that a visible-light photograph wouldn't? It appears to illustrate the paragraph on convection in the article, but there's no explanation there of how those processes are shown by the picture. Also, what's the bright red on the right side about half way down? Is that just a more intense version of what you're describing in the legend as "rust"? Chick Bowen 16:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's of very high quality, for one, and tells us more about various aspect(s) of Death Valley. I think it's obvious why the aspect(s) it shows (ie. climate, geology) are important to the article on the subject and overall are highly encyclopedic - as I mentioned in the nom. Is the bright red the pinkish colored thing? ceranthor 21:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- See to the right--what is the red there? Are those parts hotter, lower, higher, flatter? Also, I hope I'm not being totally dense on the image's function, but it's not that obvious to me. Basically, this image would be used because it tracks vegetation in the valley more clearly than a visible-light image, which in turn shows the relationship between topography and climate--do I have that right? Again, it may seem obvious to someone familiar with this kind of image, but I think currently the relationship between the image and the corresponding prose in the article isn't very clear. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's basically it. I can understand your problems with the article; it's not great. I intend to improve it at some later time, actually. ceranthor 22:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm not sure what the red is. Upon initial looks, I thought it might be open land at a dramatically lower (or higher?) elevation. Thermography might yield some answers. ceranthor 22:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's basically it. I can understand your problems with the article; it's not great. I intend to improve it at some later time, actually. ceranthor 22:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- See to the right--what is the red there? Are those parts hotter, lower, higher, flatter? Also, I hope I'm not being totally dense on the image's function, but it's not that obvious to me. Basically, this image would be used because it tracks vegetation in the valley more clearly than a visible-light image, which in turn shows the relationship between topography and climate--do I have that right? Again, it may seem obvious to someone familiar with this kind of image, but I think currently the relationship between the image and the corresponding prose in the article isn't very clear. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support: informative, and far more visually attractive than its less colorful visible-light counterpart. Sarah182 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very informative, high quality. Beautiful. Jujutacular T · C 20:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Another professional quality portrait received through image submissions. Thought it may be worth a nomination.
- Articles this image appears in
- Kevin Symons
- Creator
- Harry Cason (and, for what it's worth, uploaded with permission of the subject)
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose . Not well framed. Snowman (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I think we tend to be a bit tough on portraits, but this is back focussed and per snowman, poorly framed. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. agree with NS, except that I kinda like quirky framing on some portraits. I'd say that for a 'professional' portrait, the framing is not accidental. It's very clearly back focussed though (focus should generally be on the nearest eye), and it made me wonder: perhaps the only reason this was released under a CC-BY-SA is because it wasn't one of the 'keepers'... But having said that, releasing a photo with poor focus and demanding your name be attributed to it wouldn't be great for business either! ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to assume that the target audience for these kind of shots are not photography enthusiasts, and so the technical details are often not that important. Instead, they are just trying to show the subject in a pleasing, memorable way. I would assume that any and all aspects are deliberate. Note that it's also possible that it was the subject that judges which ones were the "keepers", and so may well have missed aspects such as those you mention. J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Very true, but any professional photographer would take dozens of similar photos in order to make absolutely sure that they had a keeper, because even the very best cameras misfocus occasionally. So the fact that this misfocussed image is the one that has been provided says something. But as for exactly what it says, well, you're right, it's debatable. As with most FP condidates that don't pass, it isn't that they're outright poor images, it's just that they're not as good as they could or should be. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to assume that the target audience for these kind of shots are not photography enthusiasts, and so the technical details are often not that important. Instead, they are just trying to show the subject in a pleasing, memorable way. I would assume that any and all aspects are deliberate. Note that it's also possible that it was the subject that judges which ones were the "keepers", and so may well have missed aspects such as those you mention. J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see what you mean about quirky framing is sometimes interesting; however, I think that this image should include to top of the head and not clip the lapel. Snowman (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Badly framed, and extremely shallow depth of field. Jennifer500 (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- decent resolution, clear illustration of a tractor from the 50s in use
- Articles this image appears in
- Ursus Factory, Ursus C-45
- Creator
- Łukasz Golowanow & Maciek Hypś
- Support as nominator: —Maedin\talk 10:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- You have to go to Cuba in the first opportunity. You will find all kinds of old machinery like this still "working". franklin 10:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nominator. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per above. -- mcshadypl TC 03:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good --Herby talk thyme 09:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom, cool shot. Fletcher (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Is that a real numberplate? Don't we have some kind of policy about blanking them? J Milburn (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's not. Such plates aren't legit in Poland. Sir Wolf (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do we have such a policy of blanking license plates? I see people do this sometimes as a courtesy, but on the other hand, there's no privacy right for property in a public place. Fletcher (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good but a bit more foreground and less background would have worked better IMO --Muhammad(talk) 17:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Durova390 03:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see some level of blur (motion?) on all of the subject. I am curious about why it has not been commented. Is it acceptable in this kind of images (means of transportation)? franklin 05:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it's motion blur, though I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong. I think you're seeing the softness that sometimes comes with poorer quality lenses, and don't forget that you're viewing high res. I think it has not been commented on because slight softness at that resolution isn't an immediate no-no. Does that answer your question? Maedin\talk 08:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- It does indeed look soft all over. Perhaps people were cutting it some slack as being from an 'under-represented part of the world' and an irregular creator, though a good point about no one mentioning it. A 50% downsize would still keep it within the guidelines, and brings it nearer to accepted sharpness so that needs to be considered too. --jjron (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- In fact, a closer look suggests the focus has missed. If you look you can see the dirt about five feet behind the back wheel is where the focus is. --jjron (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm reluctant to disagree with you, but I don't see that the area you've described is any sharper than the rest of it. Definition is being added by the pieces of hay, but as far as I can tell it's not taking the focus? Maedin\talk 13:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't go so far as to say that the focus was missed. My opinion is this: The focal point is on the driver, not behind the tractor. Both and the stickers on the window are most clearly in focus. However, I think that the softness is due to the lens. I haven't had a good look at the EXIF data, but chances are it was just taken with a cheap consumer level lens. They're usually a bit less than tack sharp at large telephoto focal lengths at the best of times. Sure, it's not tack sharp, but it's high enough res to compensate for that. As you mentioned, downsampling 50% would hide the sharpness. I find that's an appropriate litmus test for sharpness issues: Downsample it to a reasonable size and see if you would still hold the same criticisms. Just don't necessarily upload the grossly downsampled image to Wiki ;-). Keep the original online, unless the downsampled image doesn't sacrifice any detail, that is. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I quite disagree - I am used to hunting for focus in things like sports images (focus often just misses the action and the only thing to judge by could be say an otherwise indistinct patch of grass, like the situation here, and re Maedin, you don't need the hay, I can see it in the dirt). I believe my assessment of the focus being behind the tractor is correct. Like most assessments, it takes a bit to get used to picking focus in these images and I can understand others missing it. This is more than just softness - downsizing does help hide the 'softness' issue, but even then a good eye can still pick the focus as being behind the action. I'd agree with the comments re the lens, but that doesn't alter the location of the focus. --jjron (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it's motion blur, though I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong. I think you're seeing the softness that sometimes comes with poorer quality lenses, and don't forget that you're viewing high res. I think it has not been commented on because slight softness at that resolution isn't an immediate no-no. Does that answer your question? Maedin\talk 08:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Sharpness isn't perfect, but it's not out of focus - just soft. Not too soft to oppose though IMO. Interesting subject. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Ursus Darłowo 2009.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality, high EV, hard (because of the very rare opportunities) to obtain image. The image shows dozens of different types of tide pools animals in their natural habitat. The main reason is that tonight is New Year Night, so I hope that after the celebration everybody is going to be in a high spirit and support my image :) Happy New Year!
- Articles in which this image appears
- Intertidal zone
- Creator
- mbz1
- Info Sea anemones you see at the bottom of the image are under the water. The tide comes and goes constantly. The tide brings anemones their food.
- Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Interesting. Excellent EV, quality, and caption and provides a variety of specimens to illustrate the zonation of tide pools in an intertidal region. Nice job, ZooFari 05:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Excellent EV and fascinating content. However, I noticed quite a few minor technical errors which (if possible) I'd like to see fixed. I've uploaded an annotated version of the image since it's difficult to describe the locations of all the issues. If there's nothing you can realistically do to fix the blurred areas, then that's fine, but I'd like to see the obvious brush marks and places where clear repeated patterns have been created by the clone tool fixed. I realise that some of these issues are very minor, but they add up to be a more substantial problem; if you could eliminate as many of them as possible then I'd be prepared to support. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you are right about some situations, cannot agree with some others. If I am to spend lots of time on the image, I might be able to fix some problems, or maybe I will try to take another set of the images one day, but probably not. I like to go to tide pools, but it is way too slippery to carry a tripod and expensive camera I guess, so next time I will go, it will be for my own enjoyment only :) In a meantime I'd like to thank you all for the comment and the vote, and I withdraw the nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality and resolution, meets criteria
Also featured at the Turkish Wikipedia. - Articles this image appears in
- Dust storm
- Creator
- Created by NASA, uploaded by Pixeltoo
- Support as nominator --Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support I think I saw this at commons. Interesting. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's probably because I nominated it both places at the same (general) time. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Worthwhile image --Herby talk thyme 16:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support The density of images at dust storm is way too high. However, I prefer this one over most the others. Jujutacular T · C 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Only used in the gallery at Dust storm. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as this is used only in a gallery. The article's imagery needs to be cut down massively- we don't need a gallery to show multiple similar images. Further, I do not think I would be comfortable supporting if it was cut down now- I would rather see it sit in the article for a little while to demonstrate that editors do not generally prefer other images. J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I did such a cut down. I can't say that the images were organised in order of merit. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per J Milburn Nelro2 (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Now that Noodle snacks has cleared out the article of its images. upstateNYer 03:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support: GerardM (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Redsea sandstorm May13-2005.jpg —Maedin\talk 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- good image
- Articles this image appears in
- House Finch
- Creator
- Photographed by John Benson. Image modified by Snowman
- Support as nominator --Snowman (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Like the composition but don't think sharpness is up to usual standards. Fletcher (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Second Fletcher. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 23:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality portrait of a notable politician provided to us by the office of the subject. I know some people dislike these images, but I would certainly be supporting, so I am happy to nominate.
- Articles in which this image appears
- William Stachowski
- Creator
- New York Senate photography staff
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Question How do we know the right person released this image? Since OTRS essentially takes an uploader's word (assuming they have a @senate.state.ny.us email address), that means the janitor (should he have an email address) can release this, per our methods. The NYS Senate actually does release its content CC-BY-NC-ND, which is good, but not good enough. But I don't think anybody but a representative of the Senate leadership has the ability to release this. IMO, the image is owned by "the Senate" at large, not just the senator or his staff, so being released by his staff doesn't seem valid to me. I could very well be wrong, but I'm just not convinced yet. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 23:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not a lawyer, but I personally think this is legit. The person sending the email is emailing on behalf of the subject and the senate, and explicitly said they are authorised to release the image. I'm willing to take their word for what they are and are not authorised to do. It's possible someone is out-and-out lying about who they are, but this is a possibility with every submission. J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose While a good photo and definitely shot professionally, that speaks of most elected federal politicians in the US. This photo doesn't possess exceptional quality or significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.213.214 (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- A nice picture taken in the plant's natural environment. I just have to find one of the yellow variety now.
- Articles this image appears in
- Telopea truncata, Waratah
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Generally well done, good DOF (single shot?) or is the flower smaller than I think (perhaps should have an indication of size on image page or in caption)? My main quibble would be the tightish crop at bottom - just looking at the image proportions, you wouldn't have a bit more height tucked away would you? --jjron (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not - I lost a bit when stacking. I'd say 50mm across, roughly. I can't find an online reference with flower size to add detail to the article though. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Interesting flower, somewhat difficult subject. No reason not to support. Maedin\talk 21:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice image, good EV showing both inflorescence and leaf detail. Melburnian (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good Image in a native environment. The upper part of the background is Lake Pedder.
- Articles this image appears in
- Isophysis tasmanica
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support; focus isn't perfect, but I do like the "natural but not distrating" background. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Question. Is this a definite ID? From the article: "It has...star-like yellow to brownish-red flowers". Doesn't seem to gel, or perhaps article is lacking some info? --jjron (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- According to this there is a rare yellow form. The Tasmanian Waratah or the Common Teatree are other examples that come in different colours. On the ID issue I am confident, google has plenty of matching examples. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
ConditionalSupport per nom, pending ID confirmation (see above). --jjron (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)- I'm confident on this ID based on charcteristics shown in the photo that correlate with this reference:
- Local in the mountains of Western Tasmania (Mt Eliza, Southwest National Park, Tasmania)
- Superior ovary
- Syle with thick recurved stigmatic branches
- Half-nodding flower
- Single terminal flower enclosed in paired, opposed, large leafy spathes. Melburnian (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm confident on this ID based on charcteristics shown in the photo that correlate with this reference:
- If I'm reading that right it suggests flower colour is "dark red-purple or yellow", so perhaps the article could be touched up with this info. --jjron (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Very nice. Maedin\talk 21:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice image, good EV, far superior to other images of this subject on the internet. Melburnian (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. As usual, good quality shot. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Durova391 20:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Isophysis tasmanica.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Caught the inflorescence half way through opening which is useful.
- Articles this image appears in
- Bellendena montana
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Oh, spring is coming (online). --Caspian blue 17:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Illustrative shot. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Big fan of this shot. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 23:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support nice image --Herby talk thyme 09:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great shot Tim1337 (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good detail and composition, I would have preferred to have the distinctive leaves in focus as well, but this still has good EV for the inflorescences. One of a nice set of images by Nooodle Snacks depicting indigenous Tasmanian plants in their natural environment. Melburnian (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. --ZooFari 01:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Bellendena montana.jpg --Staxringold talkcontribs 02:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Quite a lucky find given it's rarity. The closed wing habit seems pretty typical - I followed this one about the bush for quite a while and it wouldn't open it's wings except in flight.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Silky Hairstreak, Pseudalmenus
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. As usual, good capture. That macro lens of yours actually seems to have bokeh'ed the background into oblivion though.. If anything I'd prefer a background slightly less uniform. But beggars can't be choosers. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support As above. --Muhammad(talk) 16:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Durova390 03:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Jujutacular T · C 06:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support High quality image. SpencerT♦Nominate! 18:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Snowman (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Nice composition, colours, and very sharp. Per Diliff, agree that background is slightly disturbing as it makes the image appear as a studio shot. Elekhh (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Fantastic image. --Carioca (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Pseudalmenus chlorinda.jpg —Maedin\talk 08:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Photochrom of a late nineteenth century world's fair. The domed exhibition hall was designed by Ferdinand Boberg, who was a prominent Swedish architect. That and most other structures in the scene were subsequently destroyed. Restored version of File:Stockholm photochrom.jpg.
- Articles in which this image appears
- General Art and Industrial Exposition of Stockholm (1897), Djurgården
- Creator
- Detroit Publishing Co.
- Support as nominator --Durova390 03:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Encyclopedic, high quality, good restoration. Jujutacular T · C 06:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Quality work. --Herby talk thyme 08:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Can't fault the quality, and it's one of the more interesting historic restorations for me. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support GerardM (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I believe the correct term is "Wowee wow wow". --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support wonderful. Don't happen to have anything from the Gothenburg exposition of 1923? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 03:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Looked around. Unfortunately not. Maybe we could coax open a few archives in Sweden. :) Durova390 04:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support I didn't realise that "World Fair"s were still running. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Awesome, I've actually been at this exact location a few years ago when I went to the Nordic Museum (and Skansen, which isn't visible in the picture). :) Theleftorium 11:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Catches the eye. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 14:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Satisfies all of the criteria Buggie111 (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Fascinating to think that this was taken at such a time. Sir Richardson (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Stockholm photochrom2.jpg --Staxringold talkcontribs 18:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support as nominator --ZooFari 18:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I guess the topic is dangerous. Even if all technical details are optimal the search for the optimal photograph can have many approaches in this case. For example I could wish in this case for having an individual with the three sprouts in three different stages: incipient, small (like the three here) and more developed (with an actual stalk and leaves). Also I could wish for having a sectioned individual next to it in addition. The availability of potatoes to everyone make those wishes not so unreal. About the picture itself, I think the light is too bright on the potato (mostly to the left). But this probably can be solved doing some little tweaks. franklin 19:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Support for good general representation of a potato... that can see. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 23:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)- Comment. I thought when Fir (and a few others) where uploading shots like these it was generally agreed that the 'type' of the fruit/vegetable should be identified. --jjron (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, a different previously failed
potato image FP nom and it's nom. --jjron (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe it is a high starch russet, and I think Fir's is a type of tuber (Russet Burbank maybe?). ZooFari 16:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, a different previously failed
- Comment. I think this photo needs a rather dramatic crop. It's OK to crop through the shadow, BTW, since we're not a stock photography site, i.e. we don't care about adding this potato onto white stationary and business cards :) Kaldari (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Personally I'd ask for a cross section and focus stacking given that it isn't hard to repeat. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's focus stacked. ZooFari 02:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- My mistake. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have provided an alternative showing a sliced version on the left, as suggested by NYer and NS. I have updated the cultivar according to the packaging and used a few more frames on the right version during focus stacking. ZooFari 22:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1 More than enough detail for FP. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 05:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1 Jujutacular T · C 20:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1. As long as no scale is added. Kaldari (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1 Only. Noodle snacks (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Is the Alt 1 going to be added to the article, or to replace the Original in it? Some little care should be taken. One thing is the nomination of pictures recently added to articles and another is images that are not even in use. franklin 05:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Both images are now in their designated article. --ZooFari 05:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. As I said once it makes me worried that the boundary of point 5.1 of FP criteria can be pushed too much. (all the previous supports were given when this point was being violated) The danger is still there. For example, the alt is now (woops, this now is the now of a past time. it was now when I was writing.) only used in Russet Burbank potato. Has it been properly identified? Placing it in potato is less risky. The other requires a more careful study. A specialist or a source can tell whether the differences that I see in potatoes in the article Russet Burbank potato are of a level that doesn't affect being in the same classification. franklin 05:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just so you know, if an edit or alternate is promoted, it will replace the original nominee in an article, no matter what. upstateNYer 07:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- All I know is that it's a russet potato as noted on the packaging. The russet article redirects to Russet Burbank which IMO is misguided. There are several types of russets forming even more category trees (thanks to these brilliant people called botanists) but some are just hybrids belonging to the upper class potatoes. --ZooFari 17:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- And the alt is used in potato as well, illustrating the low-starch russet. The original is only used in potato illustrating the sprouts in the description section. --ZooFari 17:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- No No No. We don't junk up articles with every variation of a photograph just so they all technically meet the featured picture criteria. Only a single photograph from a nomination needs to be in the article to qualify all the alts. Whichever photo wins should be used in the article(s). Remember, our primary concern here is improving articles, not winning contests. Having two or more essentially identical photos in the same article is ridiculous. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't intended for a winning championship. I just find alts difficult to arrange which is why I prefer a single image for a nomination. Of course, I could have changed my mind and use the original to go by the FPC process with this given advice , but I could see you already fixed it yourself. --ZooFari 04:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- No No No. We don't junk up articles with every variation of a photograph just so they all technically meet the featured picture criteria. Only a single photograph from a nomination needs to be in the article to qualify all the alts. Whichever photo wins should be used in the article(s). Remember, our primary concern here is improving articles, not winning contests. Having two or more essentially identical photos in the same article is ridiculous. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Needs a scale. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- The original is about 10 cm (4 inch) and the alt is about 4 1/2 inches (11.5 cm) including the sprout at the end. Typically normal. Since I don't know the measurements precisely, I decided not to embed a scale and play guessing games; instead I have posted it on the file page. Scales suit macros better IMO anyways. --ZooFari 01:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Russet potato cultivar with sprouts.jpg —Maedin\talk 12:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- From 1907 to 1909 a fleet of 18 United States Navy circumnavigated the globe. They were known as the Great White Fleet because during that era US warships were painted white during peacetime. This illustration appeared in the New York Herald on February 22, 1909, the day of their return to home port at Hampton Roads, Virginia. Restored version of File:Great White Fleet return.jpg.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Great White Fleet, New York Herald, William Allen Rogers
- Creator
- William Allen Rogers
- Support as nominator --Durova391 23:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support This is a valuable and high-quality image Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support What color were the ships painted during times of war? And how long did it take the sailors to paint them all (and how much money!)? upstateNYer 07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Shades of gray, to make them harder for enemies to spot and shoot at. ;) Durova391 00:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Although that wasn't always true: [1]. I think dazzle camouflage could make a very interesting subject for a FP... Thegreenj 04:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Shades of gray, to make them harder for enemies to spot and shoot at. ;) Durova391 00:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support: GerardM (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Clearly has the quality, don't want this to fail with lack of reviewers. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support -MBK004 21:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Great White Fleet return2.jpg —Maedin\talk 11:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Roald Amundsen led the first expedition to reach the South Pole, was the first human being to reach both poles, and was the first person to traverse the Northwest Passage. There's something stylish about one hand in the pocket and another on the ship's wheel as he leaves on another polar mission. Restored version of File:Roald Amundsen.jpg.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Roald Amundsen, Arctic exploration
- Creator
- Lomen Bros.
- Support as nominator --Durova391 03:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Restored version of File:Roald Amundsen.jpg. ZooFari 05:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, apologies for the typo. It's fixed now. Durova391 07:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support good image with good EV well restored --Herby talk thyme 17:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support: Excited to see this. Great EV, even better subject, :) Maedin\talk 15:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support: GerardM (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Famous explorer with a global reputation
- Support Restoration well-done; high encyclopedic value. NW (Talk) 05:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support He probably posed for this. It gives historical context and something unspoken about the man himself. Interesting image. Good choice for restoring, imo. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Roald Amundsen2.jpg —Maedin\talk 11:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, everyone, I got keen and closed this without realising that I voted. I apologised at fpc talk, but if anyone would like to endorse the outcome of the closure (or ask me to undo it), that would be fine. It's too cold for me to think properly, :) Maedin\talk 11:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I forgive you, but I can't speak for the marauding masses looking for a bone to pick. ;-) It's fairly cut and dry in this case so really I can't see anyone questioning the result, in all seriousness. No harm done. In fact, really, when the result is unanimous, I don't really see why anyone capable shouldn't be able to close it. It just means nominations are likely to sit longer otherwise, when we have a fairly small group of active closers.Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your confidence. I know these things can and have been delicate issues though, so wanted to avoid the appearance of evil, :-) Maedin\talk 20:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I forgive you, but I can't speak for the marauding masses looking for a bone to pick. ;-) It's fairly cut and dry in this case so really I can't see anyone questioning the result, in all seriousness. No harm done. In fact, really, when the result is unanimous, I don't really see why anyone capable shouldn't be able to close it. It just means nominations are likely to sit longer otherwise, when we have a fairly small group of active closers.Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- I found this by accident while looking through nuclear reactor pages here. I was stunned by the quality of the image, and it occurred to me that if this image was eye catching to me it may be worthy of an FP star, so here I am with my find. This is an .svg image, so size is not an issue. I have omitted the details of the nuclear reaction since all nuclear reactors are more or less the same, but if it becomes an issue I will be happy to add such information to the caption. Note that the image here is for a theoretical reactor currently under development for commercial use; however, this should not be a problem insofar as OR is concerned, as soviet Alpha-class submarines used a variant of the reactor shown here for propulsion and electric consumption. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Articles in which this image appears
- Generation IV reactor, Lead cooled fast reactor
- Creator
- Original image created by Commons User Lcolson; vectored image (used here) created by Commons User Beao
- Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 06:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Looks good. I'd ask for the title on the top left corner to be removed and provide the raster source [2] for verification. The holes could also have a realistic 3D coloration, which shouldn't be hard to do. The gradient inside the generator could also use an invert in coloration so that it would fade into white in the middle and extend to black on the edges. Also, de-capitalize the second words of the labels. --ZooFari 06:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I lack the technical competence to do that, but I will pass along the suggestions to Beao on your behalf. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am flattered :). Fixed the text. --Beao 13:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Any success on my other suggestions? Let me know if you need help. --ZooFari 19:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am flattered :). Fixed the text. --Beao 13:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I lack the technical competence to do that, but I will pass along the suggestions to Beao on your behalf. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Being someone with expertise in the subject, I'm even having a hard time understanding what's going on in the recuperator and compressors. Also, a very thorough description is needed for me to support this. A simple "This is an LFR" isn't good enough; it must describe what's going on. upstateNYer 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- It could also use a start marker. Perhaps a large arrow like the one coming out from the generator. --ZooFari 16:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)'
- Well, there isn't exactly a starting point in these systems, really. The only place I would consider a start would be the pump that forces the coolant to flow. And now that I say that, no pump is mentioned here or at the source; liquid can't flow without a pump. I'm concerned that DOE may be withholding design information for the sake of national security, which wouldn't be surprising and should be expected, but it leaves us with a very sub-par diagram, IMO. upstateNYer 07:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- "liquid can't flow without a pump"? Time3000 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's a nuclear reactor; the starting point is the nuclear reaction. ? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 06:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, there isn't exactly a starting point in these systems, really. The only place I would consider a start would be the pump that forces the coolant to flow. And now that I say that, no pump is mentioned here or at the source; liquid can't flow without a pump. I'm concerned that DOE may be withholding design information for the sake of national security, which wouldn't be surprising and should be expected, but it leaves us with a very sub-par diagram, IMO. upstateNYer 07:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- It could also use a start marker. Perhaps a large arrow like the one coming out from the generator. --ZooFari 16:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)'
- Support per nom. Not an area where I claim expertise, but the source is reliable and this is faithful to the source. Durova391 19:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom, though I've taken the liberty of changing the lines from the labels so they don't stop at the reactor casing. Time3000 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose due to blatant inaccuracies discussed above. upstateNYer 03:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. The article is poorly developed with some limited understanding of the point in the R&D cycle for these investigative reactors, and limited explanation of the process. The image is nice, though. I would nominate the Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor first, though, easier to understand, better sourcing, even if the image isn't as appealing. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 06:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted —Maedin\talk 23:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality and EV. Wikipedia has only one FP of mosquito. This was previously nominated here but was probably lost in the flood. Appears in the article for over 3months now.
- Articles this image appears in
- Culex
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 11:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is just a question for myself. Is the abdomen of the mosquito only the brown thin or is it transparent and continues until the shinny part? franklin 21:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am not sure I get your question --Muhammad(talk) 18:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- In the abdomen, that line of little bright dots. Are those hairs or is it that the abdomen is transparent and that's the end of i? franklin 14:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- They are hairs, usually a sign of a male mosquito --196.45.152.109 (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good use of limited depth of field and the bristles show up well. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Awesome shot for such a tiny little thing, I like the angle and framing. Shame we don't have a species ID, but I guess you'd have to really know you stuff to identify more precisely. J Milburn (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- The entomologist required more than just a picture to id the mosquito. Tricky subject + little research + taken in a remote forest = very hard to id ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 14:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per J Milburn. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 14:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Good. The bristles look great! Would you consider getting rid of the white out of focus circle, top right near the critter's leg joint? Please? In the article's taxobox, it seems disproportionately prominent. I'd try myself, but I wouldn't have a clue how to fix it, :) Maedin\talk 22:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- My laptop has some probs. Will give it a go tomorrow at the earliest --Muhammad(talk) 15:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Suspended while Muhammad works on an edit. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I put up an edit over the original since the change was very small --Muhammad(talk) 15:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perfect, thanks Muhammad, :) Maedin\talk 18:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Back to voting We'll give it a day to make sure nobody has a problem with this. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Good job getting all those head details in. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Good resolution, but shallow DoF. No matter how many mosquitos are or are not featured. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 04:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Culex sp..jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- A little gross perhaps, but good EV and good quality. DOF is shallowish, but about as good as possible for a single shot macro. The main focus is well placed, showing the ants feeding around the head in a variety of positions, especially the one on top munching into the empty eye-socket.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Meat ant, Ant, Predation
- Creator
- jjron
- Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support It is kind of creepy, but gives an excellent, high-quality view of the meat-eater ants' activity.--Twilight Helryx 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per above. Wonder if they'd share their meal with me if I said pretty please :) Sir Wolf (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Time3000 (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Nice macro image. It is a bit gross yet it shows the natural wildlife up close. Love it. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Kangxi emperor6868, on all points. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support - Shallow DOF, but very good focus and detail. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 04:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Ants eating cicada, jjron 22.11.2009.jpg —Maedin\talk 07:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Nice image for a smallish butterfly
- Articles in which this image appears
- Paralucia, Bright Copper
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support. Not the most exciting butterfly, but that is of course no reason to oppose. Instead, the "weak" comes from the fact it clearly wasn't flat when photographed, which means the wings are not shown precisely, and the tips are out of focus. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- All of the photos I have of this fellow (three different branches) exhibit the same pose, so I'm not sure I can do much. The wingspan is 25mm, which isn't so big for a butterfly. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why is the top-left wing such a different colour? Is it a trick of the light or is it really more of a brown colour than green-blue? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Forgot to mention it, but the brown to green-blue areas are iridescent, changing colour with the angle of view. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why is the top-left wing such a different colour? Is it a trick of the light or is it really more of a brown colour than green-blue? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- All of the photos I have of this fellow (three different branches) exhibit the same pose, so I'm not sure I can do much. The wingspan is 25mm, which isn't so big for a butterfly. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support: V good illustration of the iridescence. Unlike J Milburn, I think the butterfly is very pretty/interesting/exciting, :). I don't see a problem with the wings or that they're out of focus at the tips. Good environment, too. Maedin\talk 09:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Re-reading this, it sounds like I don't see that the tips of the wings are out of focus. I do, I just don't think it's a problem. Maedin\talk 13:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Good enough for me as well. --Muhammad(talk) 14:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Per Maedin upstateNYer 03:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Unusual composition; we could use more of these. --ZooFari 02:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Durova394 06:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Paralucia aurifer.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- A sharp, striking, very excellent quality photo of a mother Siberian tiger with her cub.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Siberian tiger and Wildlife of China
- Creator
- Davepape
- Support as nominator --Twilight Helryx 21:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Very nice image Tim1337 (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- weak oppose lovely image but you can't see the cub and the tigress has a weird pose --Thanks, Hadseys 21:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Really? It's right in front of the tigress (just look where she's looking). I saw it literally the second I saw this photo for the first time. As for the pose, again, the tigress is looking at her cub, and I've seen it frequently in documentaries about various animals, including tigers.--Twilight Helryx 21:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps he means you can't see the cub's face, or that you can't see the second cub (the image page says there are two of them - "Cubs Thyme and Warner, with their mother Sungari"). --jjron (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support the lovely image reminds me that 2010 is "Tiger's year" according to Chinese zodiac (thought the lunar year does not come yet).--Caspian blue 22:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Excellent for displaying the animal, the environment, and the relationship structure for the animal. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Suppport. Despite a slight problem with the framing (too much foreground, not enough background), there's a universality to the relationship between mother and child that's enough to disregard the rational thought of big honkin' carnivore who'd feed the likes of me to this cub in favor of awww...toss them a steak. Durova391 00:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support awwwwwwwwwwww... and on a technical note cannot see any flaws with this... oh, and awwwwwwww... Gazhiley (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- SupportA rare moment in high definition. I have no comment as of the technical side. I simply love it. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support You see what's there: the mother tiger's focus on her cub. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor composition and insufficient EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Panthera tigris altaica 13 - Buffalo Zoo.jpg —Maedin\talk 13:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- A high quality, esoteric image depicting the team with some of their own flavor (rather than simply the stiffer team photos the LoC has for many teams). I left a lengthy note about "Shelton", the unidentifiable utility player on the Commons talk page (I believe he's a minor leaguer who never appeared with the team officially in a major league game). Also note that the ship itself is labeled "Harry Cramnitz", "Frock", and "Leever" below those players (who are labeled elsewhere as well). And yes, the title is something of a joke on this.
- Articles in which this image appears
- 1909 Major League Baseball season, 1909 Pittsburgh Pirates season, Pittsburgh Pirates
- Creator
- Created by C. Rollins, Cleveland. Restored by Staxringold
- Support as nominator --Staxringold talkcontribs 03:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per the incredibly funny and kitsch depiction. It could be used for The Pirates of Penzance poster. :-) Caspian blue 07:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- OH, I should mention, Durova had the excellent idea that if this is featured we should ask the POTD people to use it on Talk Like a Pirate Day. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Suppport per nom. Aaaarrrrrr. Durova394 01:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Useful for the historical purposes of the team and the times. Makes you wonder about the significance of the portrayals of the players. I like how they're making the opposition coaches walk the plank. --jjron (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support: Very clever of the Pirates! High EV for the team article, and restoration is fine. NW (Talk) 00:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support GerardM (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:1909 Pittsburgh Pirates on a boat FINAL.jpg —Maedin\talk 13:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- It has enough EV and the quality is sufficient to justify a FP status. A recent nomination inspired me to put this one up for here.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Amstel and Magere Brug
- Creator
- Massimo Catarinella
- Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support lovely pic, can't see any obvious defects. A couple of the boats sem very low in the water though - especially the small one to our left of the open-able part of the bridge - couple in dark blue and purple tops... Almost looks like they're sinking! Gazhiley (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the latter can be explained by two things. The first being that this picture was shot from a non-raised pier. Further more, there was a gusty wind blowing, which created some waves. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't notice it on the first viewing, but I'm pretty sure the 'boats low in the water' that Gizhiley refers to is a stitching fault. Well, one boat in particular anyway. The little boat centre-right (with a red dot on the motor) is sitting extremely low in the water - in fact, it looks like the guy in the back is dragging his butt in the water. ;-) And the boat seems to have some slight ghosting artifacts and inconsistent colour and texture at the back. It takes an eagle eye to spot the faults (assuming I'm even right - could you check the RAW file to confirm?) so it isn't a big deal, but probably should be corrected if possible. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I checked the RAW file for you, but it really isn't a stitching error... I can make a screenshot. if you would like me to do so. You are right though. If there is a flaw in the panorama, it should be fixed. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, if you say so, I believe you! But it still does look rather strange, and I don't think waves would explain it, as they look too small and choppy. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I checked the RAW file for you, but it really isn't a stitching error... I can make a screenshot. if you would like me to do so. You are right though. If there is a flaw in the panorama, it should be fixed. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't notice it on the first viewing, but I'm pretty sure the 'boats low in the water' that Gizhiley refers to is a stitching fault. Well, one boat in particular anyway. The little boat centre-right (with a red dot on the motor) is sitting extremely low in the water - in fact, it looks like the guy in the back is dragging his butt in the water. ;-) And the boat seems to have some slight ghosting artifacts and inconsistent colour and texture at the back. It takes an eagle eye to spot the faults (assuming I'm even right - could you check the RAW file to confirm?) so it isn't a big deal, but probably should be corrected if possible. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'd prefer a crop that didn't have as much empty water at the bottom. Time3000 (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, I was going to suggest the same thing until I had a read of the nomination. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support. I'd prefer to not have the far left side cropped at the top, and the lighting could be slightly better (looks slightly warm tinted, especially the sky which is either fairly hazy or not quite the right colour), but otherwise very nice. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- These pictures were taken about six months ago during summer. They have been shot during the period the sun was setting, so this might explain the warmer colours. I've just rechecked the RAW-files and I can't improve the crop in the upper left corner, but I do agree with you. It should be more spacious. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support Holding back from full support because of the framing: would prefer less foreground and more sky. Otherwise fine. Durova391 19:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I can always crop of part of the bottom, if you would like me to do so. I think the foreground adds up to the EV though. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's more that the view would feel brighter and more open with a bit more sky at top. Looks like it'll pass though. Durova401 17:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support: GerardM (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC) It is the size of the water that makes this bridge special.. Please leave the amount of water as it is because this is what makes the "magere brug" so special
- FYI, it's customary to sign the end of your comments, rather than the start. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support per Diliff, Durova and others. --jjron (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support: I think that, like Diliff's recent Thames FP, the water here is important. I agree about the crop at the top left, but it isn't enough to prevent full support. This is a good capture of the activity on the river, and especially nice to see the bridge in the process of being raised/lowered. Maedin\talk 07:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Amstel.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support as nominator --December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 01:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is too little space bellow the apples compare to the one from above. franklin 05:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the featured picture Apricot and cross section.jpg has Apricots close to each other, and, that picture is on the Main Page right now. They are both similer. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 05:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. The apricots in the main page are pretty close, but the gap between them is properly centered in the picture which makes it look fine. Here, on the other hand, due to the vertical placement of the apples in the frame, it looks like the sectioned one is going to fall out of the picture (not a desired feature in this case). Also it can be repaired, or at least they did something similar in Pinnacles National Monument's nomination when added more sky. franklin 06:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Needs scale and identification of the type of apple. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the need for type identification,but unless the apple type is uniquely large or small, I disagree with the need for a scale. SpencerT♦Nominate! 22:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)- Just saw comment below and added cultivar to caption. SpencerT♦Nominate! 22:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Added edit. Unfortunately I don't know the size but support anyways. --ZooFari 00:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also cultivar is mentioned in the article. --ZooFari 00:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- weak support Edit I it find hard to support this kind of pictures, but I think it is fair. franklin 22:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support edit only. Looks good. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support - For Edit 1 only. Not very special. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 04:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. FWIW I think the variety ('cultivar') may be misidentified here. I suspect it's a sundowner, not a sundown (see here for example.) Coming from the same area of the world as Fir, can't say I can ever remember seeing a variety identified as sundown. --jjron (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that a brand name? franklin 07:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like the cultivar name for a Sundowner should be Cripps red [3] franklin 07:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW (ha! I learned this acronym) here is a huge list of apple varieties [4] franklin 07:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- One of them is Sundown [5] franklin 07:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you check my original link, it appears your final link is calling the Sundowner a Sundown - the other information seems to match, except for the harvest period, but presumably your link is an American site vs my Australian site which would explain that, and they are an Australian apple so would probably go with that for the name. Maybe the shop Fir bought if from had it labelled as a Sundown, but as I say I can't remember seeing them as such anywhere, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. My first linked site says "Cripps Red apples of an appropriate quality may be sold using the trademarked brand name SundownerTM", so maybe it would be more accurate to label it a Cripps Red anyway. --jjron (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- good image
- Articles in which this image appears
- Common Nighthawk
- Creator
- Gavin Schaefer
- Support as nominator --Snowman (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support, very pretty bird, this picture shows the camoflage nicely. J Milburn (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Good image --Herby talk thyme 17:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per J Milburn. upstateNYer 07:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per J Milburn. Durova391 06:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Cute bird. =3 Ditto J Milburn.--Twilight Helryx 21:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Er, very grainy background. It shouldn't be hard to fix and will give my full support till then. --ZooFari 23:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per J Milburn: shame about the noise but still very nice. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support I love that it looks on my monitor exactly as it looks in person. (Or in bird.) --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: (particularly to ZooFari) I've uploaded an edit over the top that addresses most of the noise issue. Maedin\talk 10:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Reminds me of a tawny frogmouth. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Chordeiles minor -British Columbia -Canada-8c.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- On the one hand, this animated gif powerfully illustrates the case that the so-called "Killian documents" (alleged documents that were presented or came to light in the run-up to the 2004 U.S. presidential election that related to George W. Bush's Vietnam-era military service) were forgeries. On the other hand, 450 × 202 pixels and "PD-BECAUSE" licensing. Still, I think the nom is worth discussion.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Killian documents authenticity issues, Killian documents controversy, Little Green Footballs, Charles Foster Johnson
- Creator
- Charles Foster Johnson
- Support as nominator --Spikebrennan (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too much recentism and systemic bias for me. Is this image still going to be notable in 100 years? Not likely, IMO. Apart from it's current notability, the image doesn't have any other compelling qualities. Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- comment Since it's generaly accepted not to be a work of the US federal goverment the copyright status is highly suspect.©Geni 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. I have no concerns about recentism/notability- if it has a place in an article, it has every right to be here. This just doesn't seem to be much of a featured picture to me- there's not really much to it, and I personally find the animation a little annoying. I'd rather compare the two alongside each other. J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. The main attraction of an FP for me is when i look at it and instantly want to know more about it - I can't even be bothered to read the text in this as it's very uninteresting looking and as mentionned by j milburn the annimation annoys me... Gazhiley (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- My response: the content of the text is really beside the point. The principal EV offered by this image is in the Killian documents authenticity issues article. The main trust of that article is that this document (among others) was purportedly prepared with an office typewriter at a National Guard facility in the early 1970s (and Dan Rather and CBS News published reports which relied on this); but the animated GIF demonstrates that it appears much more likely that the document was prepared on a contemporary version of Microsoft Word. The animation shows the similarity betwen the purportedly 1970s document and the result that would have been obtained with Microsoft Word. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough, and thanks for your reply... But I still think it's really uninteresting and thus I can't see how this can be considered a featured picture... But each to their own... Gazhiley (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing featured about it. Tim1337 (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - This kind of images should be nominated at the valued pictures, not here. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 04:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Unique and eye catching Blue luminous tone. nice resolution, excellent contrast.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Petronas Twin Towers, Skyscraper, and Malaysia.
- Creator
- Someformofhuman
- Support as nominator --Calmer Waters 05:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose There are severely blown highlights on the top half of the towers. I wouldn't normally oppose just for that, but in this case the affected area is a substantial portion of the image. Also there's something strange going on with the colour spaces: firefox shows the sky as a strange shade of purple, which ought to be fixed. Time3000 (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also the image seems to have undergone aggressive NR IMO --Muhammad(talk) 09:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Time3000... Shame though as lovely colours on most of it... Gazhiley (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I do see the "whiting out" of some of the lines at the top portion of the structure. Was hoping that the overall coloring effect would compensate for it. Shame indeed Calmer Waters 10:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Beautiful sky. I used to live in Malaysia, so I have witnessed Petronas Tower countless times. However the top part of the left tower is somewhat out of shape. In addition the foreground (Entrance to the philharmonic hall) was too dark. Too bad, the background was wonderful. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above plus the perspective problems. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Striking, but just not "real" enough. Specific problems listed above. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Hi, thanks for nominating my image, but as the creator, clearly I do not like it either. To my personal view, it's just horribly photographed and too much overprocessing. That's why I wrote under the Image Creation/Manipulation headline as quoted "To be honest this isn't a very good image produced by me; I don't consider this my personal favourite". Therefore, I strongly oppose my own work. Still, many thanks and much appreciated. Someformofhuman (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Meets all FPC criteria. It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cerros de Incahuasi, Salar de Talar, Norte Grande, Central Andean dry puna, Geology of Chile, List of mountains in Chile
- Creator
- Luca Galuzzi
- Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Goes a step toward correcting our shortage of South American FPs. Already featured at Commons and de:wiki. Good find. Durova391 16:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Had to prove to myself that it wasn't a painting. upstateNYer 04:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Incredibly beautiful. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Suppport Like UpstateNYer I took a while to be convinced this wasn't a painting... Purely breathtaking image... Gazhiley (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Nice colours, good quality, now for the article. --jjron (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support - sometimes the light is simply perfect - Peripitus (Talk) 23:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support - absolutely amazing. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Great image --Herby talk thyme 17:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Excellent light. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support This is absolutely breathtaking. I had to come see it again - that's how I know it should be featured! mheart (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The painting-like quality seems to be coming from some very aggressive noise reduction. Compare the original with the current version. I actually think the original is probably better - there is a lot of lost detail. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Based on Noodle's above comments, I gave the original a very slight de-noise (detail was quickly lost in the mountains, so the sky is still a little noisy) and also kept the original colours; the edit that was voted on was over-saturated (I think, or it may have been a colour profile issue). See edit and "original" aggressively denoised and over-saturated edit. It may be taking too much liberty, but I uploaded over the top. As I see it, this was only a correction of a previous mistake, not really an alternative, and those who object can oppose the image and upload the painting-like one as an edit. Or, of course, you can revert my edit, I don't mind. I'm just extremely reluctant to see the spoiled version become featured due to people not coming back to the nomination and updating their votes (which is common). The other reason I decided to upload over the top is that both the Commons and the de.wiki nominations were for the noisy original: the aggressive de-noise and alteration of colours only happened months afterwards. Maedin\talk 10:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- You could try doing a masked noise reduction, so that the sky is NRed heavily whilst nothing is done to the mountains. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, that's beyond my current skill level, :) Maedin\talk 10:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- What bit of software are you using? Noodle snacks (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Photoshop CS4 with the Noiseware Professional plug-in. I've got the software to do it, I'm just not sure how to, and would question my results. Maedin\talk 11:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Think I may have it. Perhaps you can comment on the upload in a moment. Maedin\talk 11:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Is it okay? I didn't do NR anywhere but sky. Maedin\talk 11:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I probably won't keep reviewing all the edits, but did notice when I voted that the mountains were soft on detail as mentioned here. So if someone improves on that situation while keeping the essence of what I voted on, consider this my support of said version. --jjron (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think it looks fine, the landscape has texture, and the sky is noiseless now. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Is it okay? I didn't do NR anywhere but sky. Maedin\talk 11:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Think I may have it. Perhaps you can comment on the upload in a moment. Maedin\talk 11:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Photoshop CS4 with the Noiseware Professional plug-in. I've got the software to do it, I'm just not sure how to, and would question my results. Maedin\talk 11:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- What bit of software are you using? Noodle snacks (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, that's beyond my current skill level, :) Maedin\talk 10:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- You could try doing a masked noise reduction, so that the sky is NRed heavily whilst nothing is done to the mountains. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Per nominator. An extraordinary picture. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 04:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Miscanti Lagoon near San Pedro de Atacama Chile Luca Galuzzi 2006.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- I think the image is illustrative because you see a rhino from the front and from the side in a single image. It's valuable because there are not too many wild living rhino pictures. It's one of the highest resolution rhino pictures we have.
- Articles in which this image appears
- White Rhinoceros, Rhinoceros
- Creator
- Ikiwaner
- Support as nominator --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose In my opinion (and I may be wrong about the technical definitions here) there seems to be a lot of noise on the rhinos themselves, especially the furthest away... It looks like it has a fur coat in fact... The horn of the closest seems very blurred too... Shame though as its a very rare photograph I would imagine... Gazhiley (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- This comment is somewhat unreasonable. The picture has >8MP (more than 4x as many pixels as Noodle snacks butterfly and almost 5x more than Muhammads Culex sp, both of which just got promoted). Judging images at 100% without any regard for resolution makes no sense. You are basically punishing the uploader for not uploading a degraded downsampled version that would fool amateurs into thinking that the image is tack shap. Lame! --Dschwen 23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not unreasonable at all... I have no idea about technical reasons/fixes... They just look like they have fur coats and horns due to the fuzziness... End of... Gazhiley (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- This comment is somewhat unreasonable. The picture has >8MP (more than 4x as many pixels as Noodle snacks butterfly and almost 5x more than Muhammads Culex sp, both of which just got promoted). Judging images at 100% without any regard for resolution makes no sense. You are basically punishing the uploader for not uploading a degraded downsampled version that would fool amateurs into thinking that the image is tack shap. Lame! --Dschwen 23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- File:Waterberg Nashorn1.jpg has not so much noise. – Wladyslaw (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Image page needs English description for en:wiki. The image itself is very nice, but re quality, I'm at a bit of a loss too - with the camera and settings you wouldn't expect much noise, but there does appear to be quite a lot in the background. Perhaps the lens used? --jjron (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- The picture has beautiful contrast, exposure, and color balance—credit, of course, is due to the painter's haunting original. 1,313 × 2,069 px. It is by far the best example of this piece of art (see also the bigger but blurry and desaturated File:Gustave Moreau 007.jpg, the smaller and wildly contrasty File:Gustave Moreau Orphée 1865.jpg, and the much smaller and wildly contrasty File:GustaveMoreau01.jpg) and the most captivating portrait of Orpheus available.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Orpheus, Gustave Moreau, Decapitation
- Creator
- Gustave Moreau / The Man in Question (uploader)
- Support as nominator — the Man in Question (in question) 05:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Question What's the source for this file? Durova394 05:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- An uploaded photograph of an oil-on-canvas painting in the Musée d'Orsay. More information has been added to the file. — the Man in Question (in question) 06:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good resolution, good image quality; clearly illustrates one of the most notable rivers in Canada and North America. The image also shows much of the Fraser Valley.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Fraser River; Fraser Valley
- Creator
- User:Mimigu
- Support as nominator --Mimigu (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Large bluriness in the foreground. Also exagerated curvature makes sides of pic look almost 20 degrees off horizontal... Gazhiley (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry Mimigu. It's an interesting and impressive scene, but the technicals on this one aren't quite good enough. As Gazhiley mentions, there is a blurred frame in the middle (next time, try to get a good focus lock, then set the camera to manual focus to complete the set. That way, the focus doesn't vary and hunt on each frame), and the panorama itself is curved. Also, if you live nearby, perhaps you could take it on a clearer, sunnier day? That way, the sky would probably avoid being blown out and white. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment You have a good point. To fix the exaggerated curvature Gazhiley mentioned, I can re-stitch the panorama using different settings. As for the blurriness, the very old and crappy Canon EF 28-80mm lens I have also suffers from a mild de-centering defect causing half the frame to be blurred at times. I don't know when I will have time to go up to Westminster Abbey again, but when I do, I will use a better lens and do it in better weather. Maybe I'll even do it in HDR! Mimigu (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh thanks for the explanation re the lens. Although I have to admit, if one of my lenses was doing that, I wouldn't use it anymore, since there's no point taking photos that are almost unusable! It's probably too old and cheap to get repaired unfortunately. Possible, but you might as well buy a new lens for the same price, if you haven't already got one. And yes, I guess you would need to re-stitch it. You should always attempt to keep the horizon straight though, it's not so much doing it with 'different settings' as doing it 'correctly'. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- The 18-55mm IS is pretty good value for money (but avoid the non IS version). Noodle snacks (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh thanks for the explanation re the lens. Although I have to admit, if one of my lenses was doing that, I wouldn't use it anymore, since there's no point taking photos that are almost unusable! It's probably too old and cheap to get repaired unfortunately. Possible, but you might as well buy a new lens for the same price, if you haven't already got one. And yes, I guess you would need to re-stitch it. You should always attempt to keep the horizon straight though, it's not so much doing it with 'different settings' as doing it 'correctly'. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment You have a good point. To fix the exaggerated curvature Gazhiley mentioned, I can re-stitch the panorama using different settings. As for the blurriness, the very old and crappy Canon EF 28-80mm lens I have also suffers from a mild de-centering defect causing half the frame to be blurred at times. I don't know when I will have time to go up to Westminster Abbey again, but when I do, I will use a better lens and do it in better weather. Maybe I'll even do it in HDR! Mimigu (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose The background is too blur. If you are really want to use the Auto Focus, then try to find an area that is clear at the foreground as AF would most likely focus on the foreground. Else use MF to focus on the river. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- A glorious image that's received a nice bit of press attention over here- see this BBC article, for instance. I've seen it on TV a few times. There's possible even enough for an article on this image itself. The image illustrates our current cold snap extremely well. Currently only used in one article as it is so young (as well as my userpage :)), but I have no doubt that such a striking and high quality shot has a place in many. I'd just like to anticipate comparisons to the equally beautiful File:Scandinavia.TMO2003050.jpg, and note that this image illustrates something completely different- the idea of Britain being covered in snow like this is strange- I don't think it's occurred in my lifetime, and this is the longest cold snap for several decades. I appreciate that there is a little cloud cover here, and so this is not quite at the same level as the other in terms of being a "perfect shot", but this is not meant to be a shot of a "typical winter Britain", as the other is a shot of a "typical winter Scandanavia". And, of course, a little cloud cover is to be expected (and even favoured) in this case, due to the fact this is trying to illustrate the weather, rather than the geography.
- Articles in which this image appears
- European winter storms of 2009–10, Winter of 2009–2010 in the United Kingdom, Terra (satellite)
- Creator
- NASA
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Durova394 01:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support –Juliancolton | Talk
- Support: This is why my flat won't get warm and why I can't bring myself to get up for work in the morning! Apart from that sentimental value, very good image, great in its article. Maedin\talk 06:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support As soon as I saw this picture on the main page headlines I came straight in here to make sure it was nominated... Very striking picture and certainly a rare image given how long its been since we were this snow-covered...Gazhiley (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- I did the same as Gazhiley, it's a really fantastic image. There's currently no FP for the PotD on Monday (11th), what's the process for adding this in (assuming it's becomes an FP)? bad_germ 09:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's decided in advance? I thought it was a random image from the general pot of FP's... Gazhiley (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- This Monday 11th? It won't even be closed by then so won't be POTD. No, it's not just a random image, in general they basically follow the order of FP promotion. See Wikipedia:Picture_of_the_day/January_2010 for this month's archive. --jjron (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well I never... You learn something new every day around here! Thanks! Though now i won't have the feeling of anticipation every time i log into wiki to see if a FP I've voted on is front page... Ah well... Gazhiley (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- This Monday 11th? It won't even be closed by then so won't be POTD. No, it's not just a random image, in general they basically follow the order of FP promotion. See Wikipedia:Picture_of_the_day/January_2010 for this month's archive. --jjron (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Great picture. These don't come around often Tim1337 (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support. This image appeared in all the Spanish newspapers today to illustrate their stories, if that counts as international impact ;-) The image also has educational value: if you look carefully, you'll see a few bits on the West coast that are not covered by snow, an effect of the North Atlantic Current. Physchim62 (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just to mention this also appears on the front page of our local newspaper today in South Wales (albeit a cropped version showing just Wales) so i can attest to it being all over the media if our little old paper has it too! Gazhiley (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I like it a lot, but... it could be better. The lower-res image (commons:File:British Isles on 7 January 2010.jpg) is slightly larger in scope - it includes Orkney and Shetland, whilst Shetland is cropped out of this one and we lose half of Orkney. The master copy from which both were made must exist somewhere - is it possible to obtain a high-resolution version of the complete one rather than the incomplete one? Shimgray | talk | 14:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- The raw data this comes from is available from NASA here. However, MODIS imagery suffers badly from bowtie distortion and its not at all easy to fix it. I've had a quick play can generated a image covering the whole of the UK and Ireland with a resolution ~4500x5000. However, NASA are much better at fixing the distortion than me. I can upload my version and present as an alt if required.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Nice one --Herby talk thyme 17:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support, however there is some nasty banding artifacts in the sea. (I can see some in just about every area of sea without cloud cover) I'd prefer one with that fixed.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support - A fantastic image which shows a beautiful blanket of snow unprecedented in my lifetime. Used on the front page of multiple newspapers in Britain. - hahnchen 22:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support High quality image with very considerable EV. Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support I love it. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support A beautiful picture - thank you Terra (satellite)! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support. This is the epitome of a picture speaking a thousand words, and truly something you don't see very often. I archived a copy on first sight! 81.157.43.45 (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, we can't accept votes made by IPs. Please log in! Thanks, :) Maedin\talk 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support marvelous image, perhaps good illustration for Climategate and Global warming controversy articles? :-) Caspian blue 21:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support I probably wouldn't put it in the articles mentioned by Caspian Blue unless there are references in either direction mentioning the storms specifically in relation to global warming. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Definitely something you don't see everyday! Hayden120 (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support in agreement with the above. --candle•wicke 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Great_Britain_Snowy.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very good quality and resolution, adds encyclopedic value to the article.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Burj Khalifa
- Creator
- Nepenthes
- Support as nominator --Alokprasad84 (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was expecting this one. franklin 14:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, image must be considered non-free. J Milburn (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Yeah, it's a shame there's no FOP in Dubai. Also CA and motion blur near the bottom. --ZooFari 02:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment So technically speaking, we can't have one image of this building hosted on the site? upstateNYer 02:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if you could upload locally or not but that image is going to end up on COM:DR soon. According to my experience at DR, they take FOP seriously. --ZooFari 02:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh my! I got completely lost. Can you provide the meaning of the acronyms so I can learn what interesting thing is happening with Dubai? Thanks franklin 02:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Freedom of Panorama, a pet peeve subject. --ZooFari 02:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Another threatened FP: File:Bnf 20070218.jpg. Elekhh (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- That one hopefully will be saved by the "incidental inclusion" recourse. But no idea how a huge thing like this can be included incidentally in some picture. Crazy copyrighted world. franklin 06:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the wheels are in motion to get these deleted. A single image of the building could be uploaded locally under a claim of fair use, but, naturally, it would have to meet all of our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it wouldn't, if I understand the law and our policies correctly. The copyright in this case only applies to the building, not to the photograph. Thus, some of the NFCC would apply and some wouldn't. Obviously there wouldn't be a prior publication requirement (NFCC #4), but since the only possible infringing commercial use would be a poster of the building, it would make sense for these kinds of photographs for the resolution maximum to be higher than normal (to put it another way, the only thing enforceable by the NFCC is the resolution of the display of the building, not that of the image as a whole). Someday we're going to need an actual FOP policy, but it would be extremely complex because the rules are different in every country. A WMF directive would be useful. Chick Bowen 02:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- The only reason we'd need a specific policy (which wouldn't be that great) was if we started trying to make distinctions like this. The image is of a non-free object, and so must be considered non-free itself- it's just the same as images of contemporary artwork- in countries with no freedom of panorama, it's exactly the same law. Thus, the images should be treated no differently. J Milburn (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Support - Very good resolution and quality. Strong EV also. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 21:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)- Request for suspension - The image, along with a hundred others, has been nominated for deletion here. --ZooFari 22:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Abstain - I´m sorry, I voted to quick. But it should be able to be a featured picture; the building and the photo are both magnific. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 23:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- So are many non-free images from all over the web and beyond... J Milburn (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Suspended pending results of deletion nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- File has been deleted. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- good technical quality, portrait, resolution, and EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Mola (art form), Kuna (people)
- Creator
- Markus Leupold-Löwenthal
- Support as nominator —Maedin\talk 22:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I think it is a bit underexposed (just needs a kick in photoshop/gimp). Noodle snacks (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I boosted it a bit. Maedin\talk 10:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support That is better. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I boosted it a bit. Maedin\talk 10:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support A good portrait that is valuable from two points of view: the textile art form and the ethnic group. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per above, 2 sets of EV. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Striking picture, good EV on the art form as well. Clegs (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support good portrait, nice colors --George Chernilevsky talk 12:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support. A great encyclopedia picture. Kaldari (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support, very valuable. --TheMandarin (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Not only does it have stunning color, but patterns; makes for interesting image. Upon closer view, I can almost feel the texture of the fabric. --Neon Sky (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:KunaWomanSellingMolas.jpg --jjron (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Focus is bang on and photo is sharp, great resolution, super pose (also characteristically aggressive), and certainly the clearest image we have of facial and mouth detail for seals.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Southern Elephant Seal, Elephant seal (gallery)
- Creator
- Serge Ouachée
- Support as nominator —Maedin\talk 21:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Support Absolutely hilarious. upstateNYer 21:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom and per UpstateNYer. We obviously need to add hilarity to Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely worth a proposal. upstateNYer 23:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would support any such proposal. I am also happy to co-chair the subcommittee which decides the background colour of the page for the organisation of the vote count. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the proposal for said subcommittee needs to go to FPC:Talk first. --jjron (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would support any such proposal. I am also happy to co-chair the subcommittee which decides the background colour of the page for the organisation of the vote count. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely worth a proposal. upstateNYer 23:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support As mentioned at COM:QI, there's a person in the left eye :) --ZooFari 22:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- What were you expecting :P? Noodle snacks (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support But not getting the hilarity? Gazhiley (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support And to Gazhiley, look at him! He's so silly. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Simply great (and nice aperture, too!) Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Heavy Support It's killer. So perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buggie111 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 11 January 2010
- Support - Per nominator. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 04:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support wow, this is an awesome candidate. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Must be really awesome to bring you back :-) --Muhammad(talk) 05:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- haha, it is certainly eye-catching, since I happened to be scrolling FPC. And it's nice to be recognized still, thanks Muhammad. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Must be really awesome to bring you back :-) --Muhammad(talk) 05:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Question: In pictures of birds, I have seen that people ask for it to be a profile picture to be able to see the features of the beak, tail and wings. Why is it that in this case it is not asked? Not feature of wings, tail and shape of the body are really distinguishable. Is is different this in birds? franklin 22:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is particularly important for birds so that you can see the plumage. I guess this picture is supposed to be about "face and mouth detail", ie a portrait. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- We have lots of bird FPs, so the expectations are higher. We rarely get arctic creature candidates. --ZooFari 22:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've asked for that once or twice. My big difference is per Noodle Snacks, this guy another foot down is going to have basically the same coloration and such. Admittedly you get no tail detail here, but it provides significant information. Also, as Zoo mentions, more pics does tend to create higher standards. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent picture of high encyclopedic value. - Darwinek (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Support Not only is he cute, but instantly made me smile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon Sky (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted Mirounga leonina.jpg --jjron (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h51000/h51396.jpg){kind=link}
- Reason
- High quality panorama of a UK National Park in snow showing a number of Tors.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tor
though I guess it probably should be onand Dartmoor too. It seems to be used in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography too. - Creator
- Herbythyme
- Support as nominator --Herby talk thyme 16:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: you have a Sony α 350, which is a 14.2 megapixel. Assuming that you took the photographs for this panorama in landscape format and at full resolution, this means that the panorama could potentially be up to 3056 pixels high, albeit minus the content that is lost by the need to crop Hugin's output into a rectangular shape. The fact that this panorama is only 1360px high, coupled with the fact that its width is a round number (7500px), would suggest that you have significantly downsized this picture. I'm not opposed to this practice per se, but in this case it seems like the picture has been so heavily downsized that a lot of detail has been lost. The land beneath the summit of each hill, in particular, has a really odd texture to it. As is, this picture is not something that I would be willing to support. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the full one is 10000x1800. The crop looses quite a bit (as does a slight rotation). I can't see anything significant lost at all. As to the texture beneath the tors I am not clear what you mean. There is a covering in places of snow, dead bracken shows through in places as does other dead vegetation, there is a lot of broken rock in the area (it was extensively quarried) - might or might not explain stuff. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I just mean that so much of the fine detail in this picture, such as the branches of the trees and of the ground on the hillside immediately beneath each tor, is of a very low resolution: to the extent that it's impossible to resolve the texture of the trees' branches, and to the extent that the hillside has an unnatural distorted texture to it. If this picture were larger then, assuming it were in focus etc, we might be able to resolve some of the fine details that I'm talking about. I realise that in some cases these fine details aren't particularly important to the EV/beauty of the picture, but in this case I don't find the composition to be particular striking either, so I'm afraid it's going to have to be Oppose. I'm surprised that you have had to crop so much out of the picture given its composition, but apologies if I jumped to the wrong conclusions: perhaps it might be worth thinking about getting a lens with a longer focal length, then doing panoramas which are two or three rows high. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the full one is 10000x1800. The crop looses quite a bit (as does a slight rotation). I can't see anything significant lost at all. As to the texture beneath the tors I am not clear what you mean. There is a covering in places of snow, dead bracken shows through in places as does other dead vegetation, there is a lot of broken rock in the area (it was extensively quarried) - might or might not explain stuff. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support I enjoy the panoramas, this one will fit right in. Although EV could be an issue. This file only links to Tor Tim1337 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I do want to see it in Dartmoor. It might even fit in moorland too, though the snow might weaken the enc there. I would probably support after that. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's there now, thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support I was thinking about nominating this myself. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support very nice panorama --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Breathtaking view, it is as if you are really witnessing it with your own eyes. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Saddle tor to Hey tor pano.jpg --jjron (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very good quality and resolution. Also adds encyclopedic value to the article. Already a FP at commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Ramayana, Sahibdin
- Creator
- Sahibdin
- Support as nominator --TheMandarin (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support as:
- Already a FP at a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (passed with 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral) and on the Turkish Wikipedia
- Nothing similar to this genre in current FPs
- Rather strange image as it is a depiction of the great climax war of the Hindu epic Ramayana (there are only 2 Hindu epics) by a Muslim artist Sahibdin from the Mewar school of Rajput painting
Disclosure: Suggested TheMandarin the nomination on his talk. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Online ref to support that Trisiras or Trisira (lit. "three-headed") battled with Hanuman as described in chapter Yuddha Khanda of Ramayana by Valmiki. There is another Trisira in Ramayana killed by child Rama in Bala Khanda [6]. Another Trisiras exists in Hindu mythology. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. franklin 14:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Am I missing something here? Why was this not promoted? -- mcshadypl TC 01:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- It lacks the 5 supports necessary for promotion. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Leading German poet and playwright. Restored version of File:Schiller.jpg.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Friedrich Schiller
- Creator
- Published by Jos. Koehler, artist unknown.
- Support as nominator --Durova394 05:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Good EV, good restoration, meets criteria. Jujutacular T · C 04:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Artist unknown, eh? Hmm. . . There aren't that many images of Schiller from life. I'd bet this is from a later drawing loosely based on the much-imitated 1794 bust by Heinrich Danneker (which was copied several times, with variations, by Danneker himself, before being mass-produced later on). Those busts mostly have the head inclined to the left (his left, that is) rather than the right, but they're unique in having the long, messy hair, as in this drawing, rather than what appears in the early paintings (as in our articles). Chick Bowen 05:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually de:Datei:Bild4308c.jpg shows a version of the Danneker bust closer to this lithograph. Chick Bowen 05:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support GerardM (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Great detail! Staxringold talkcontribs 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Schiller edit1.jpg --jjron (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- A beautiful and high quality photo that illustrates a courtship behavior of the Splendid Fairywren.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Splendid Fairywren
- Creator
- Nevil Lazarus
- Support as nominator --Twilight Helryx 00:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Slightly noisy, but charming. Good color and composition. Durova391 06:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Durova. Elekhh (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Splendid image... teehee Gazhiley (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- oppose too much noise, not so sharp (especially the leg) – Wladyslaw (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Noisy, but it's fantastic, the facial expression, up close. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I gave this a slight de-noise; detail is preserved, so although noise is not gone, it's at least better than it was. I uploaded over the top; the difference wasn't enough to warrant a separate upload, imo. Maedin\talk 10:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Not high enough quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Very impresive colors. High quality photo. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 04:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment To elaborate on my vote - the quality really detracts from the EV here. It's hard to make out what this face fan behavior is all about because of the noise and poor lighting. Makeemlighter (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Splendid Fairy Wren - Lake cargelligo - Spt 05 089.JPG --jjron (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Absolutely beautiful image found while cleaning out images with ambiguous file names. Has already been featured on the Polish Wikipedia. Nice resolution and very clear with excellent contrast. used on articles on at least six of our other Wikipedias. Also OK under Freedom of Panorama for this country.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Kremnica
- Creator
- Pudelek
- Support as nominator --Calmer Waters 01:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Regardless of freedom of panorama, the statue itself is public domain because of age. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I know its not exactly the photographers fault, but there's a lot of shadows on this and I can't help feeling that there's detail missing in those shadows... Gazhiley (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also it might be my eyes but the top of the statue appears to be out of focus? Gazhiley (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I tend to agree with Gazhiley. Taking the photo with minimal shadows might be a challenge, but it would show the detail that this image just does not. -- mcshadypl TC 01:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- I'd easily put it on par with those of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, U.S. Grant and Golda Meir.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Franklin D. Roosevelt, New Deal, President of the United States, Liberalism, United States presidential election, 1932, 1930s, Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century
- Creator
- Elias Goldensky
- Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose- Too much sharpening and post-processing. At full resolution it looks like FDR's face has the texture of fuzzy suede. File:FDR_in_1933_edit.jpg, although not as sharp, seems far more accurate as far as skin texture, etc. Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)- Replaced with edit Sir Richardson (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Previous nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. We have 3 or 4 versions of this image on Commons and they are all edited to hell, IMO. I would support an unedited cropped version of the original LOC file if people could be convinced not to mess with it. Durova might be able to work some magic on it, but I wouldn't trust anyone else with a restoration this difficult. Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too much of the head is out of focus for my liking. --Chrismiceli (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Should be added to Malcolm Turnbull (sorry, humour for the Aussies). --jjron (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Another retouch version by myself now pictured. The suit is darkened, but its somewhat of an improvement. Sir Richardson (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose latest version. Huge areas of his face have just been wiped of all detail making it look really weird. BTW it's standard practice to add edits below each other like the noms just below this, not just keep swapping over the 'Original' with new edits (I think you've done this twice?). --jjron (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per jjron, and even a mint edition of this photo wouldn't be terribly interesting; better photos of FDR exist. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Just a bad image of FDR... — raeky (talk | edits) 12:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Absolutely terrible Photoshop processing. It isn't even in any articles. -- mcshadypl TC 01:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- good quality, interesting stained glass
- Articles in which this image appears
- St. Barbara Church
- Creator
- Pudelek
- Support as nominator --Pudelek (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. I think, for me, for this sort of subject to stand out enough to be FP it would need to be a series showing all of the stained glass in the church, as I assume there is a lot more that is not shown in this image. Perhaps something similar to this: File:Albert Memorial Friese Collage - May 2008-edit1.jpg. Obviously it's a very different subject, but that's my first impression when I see the image - I feel like it's a small fragment of the stained glass, and I want to see more of it, and perhaps more of the context of it. It's quite well done though, it's high res and (I assume) perspective corrected. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Some original Native American ornamented containers, restored version of File:Apache-still-life.jpg.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Apache
- Creator
- Edward S. Curtis
- Support as nominator --Brand[t] 21:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It's a good photo and certainly has potential, but it could do with some cleaning up to remove the dust and fingerprints from the background and the scratches from the left-hand side. Time3000 (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly I did not notice fingerprints while restoring. This low-res version has superior quality, maybe someone could assist? Brand[t] 12:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've done a very quick dust removal on it - I won't vote on it since it's my own work. It could possibly do with a slight crop to get rid of the borders, but I haven't got time to get it perfect at the moment. Time3000 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Interesting, but the article makes no mention. How and of what material are they made? What are they used for? The article or the caption needs work imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like they are woven. I have expanded the cap. Brand[t] 12:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good and referenced. Another problem though (sorry to nitpick) exactly what has been done during the restoration doesn't seem to be noted on the image page. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Does this old b&w photo have some advantage over a modern photo of present-day baskets or a modern photo of old baskets? I imagine that many museums have old Apache baskets in their collections. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Color would of course be ideal, and far superior over a B&W version. Do we have a color version? — raeky (talk | edits) 12:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- If we have a modern photo, this could be replaced, but the set seems to be unique. Brand[t] 18:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Color would of course be ideal, and far superior over a B&W version. Do we have a color version? — raeky (talk | edits) 12:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- It is clear whilst still clearly showing the camouflaged plumage colouring.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tawny Frogmouth
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Everything looks perfect, and it fits all of the criteria. He's SO cute. Buggie111 (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Nice composition and sharp. Encyclopedic style image. Would be nice to have one with open mouth in the article as well. Elekhh (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I had a look through my photos, no open mouth for you unfortunately. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support oh..the eyes are really something.--Caspian blue 06:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support But what about the caption needs changing? It is suggested above but not explained as to what needs changing... Gazhiley (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support We already have one FP of the bird but IMO this shows the breast plumage better --Muhammad(talk) 10:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- The colour cast on that one seems a little odd to me compared to the other images though it could just be the flash. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not a colour cast - I was in my bird book the other day. That one is a rufus morph (most of them are this colour). Noodle snacks (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- The colour cast on that one seems a little odd to me compared to the other images though it could just be the flash. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Great photo which easily meets the FP criteria. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Buggie. WP:CUTE should exist. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Nice! Tim1337 (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Caspian blue. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 21:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. --TheMandarin (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Great image --Herby talk thyme 17:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Durova403 20:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
-2.JPG){kind=link}
Promoted File:Podargus strigoides Bonorong.jpg —Maedin\talk 23:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- clear and sharp and shows both adult and juvenile
- Articles in which this image appears
- koala
- Creator
- Benjamint 00:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support as nominator --Benjamint 00:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support good EV --Muhammad(talk) 05:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support As above, good EV and also nice quality shot... It's amzing how violent these guys are despite their cuddly appearance! Gazhiley (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Coincidentally I photographed a koala today. I am curious about the violence though, almost all they seem to do is sleep when I see them. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nice shot - every considered it for here? Yeah I heard they can get very aggressive - especially if handled... The article seems to mention it under behaviour, and draws reference to political issues raised around this behaviour... I must admit though the two I got to hold in a zoo both seemed very dosile and quiet, but who knows if they were 100% compusmentus... They do sleep a lot though... Maybe they are the furry version of teenagers - sleep all day and get angry if disturbed! Gazhiley (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Coincidentally I photographed a koala today. I am curious about the violence though, almost all they seem to do is sleep when I see them. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support nice --George Chernilevsky talk 12:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. This iamge appears to be saved with the AdobeRGB colour profile. This is going to cause some problems for viewers. I actually only noticed when the preview on the image page had vastly different tones to the full sized image (I assume Imagemagick strips the profile metadata and assumes it's sRGB). To be entirely honest though, the preview image looks more natural than the full version with AdobeRGB which is a little too red hued IMO, and that is puzzling. Benjamint, you haven't shot it in AdobeRGB and then done your post-processing in software that doesn't recognise colour profiles, did you? ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Alternative 1
assuming the colour profile issue is fixed.Very nice image, and extra EV for showing the mother/baby interaction too. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC) - It was shot in RAW and then converted with ACR which would have applied AdobeRGB. I've uploaded a new version and tweaked the color balance very slightly.. I think it should all be correct now. Most past uploads should be fine since I had only begun using RAW at about that point :-) Benjamint 00:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- ACR only applies AdobeRGB if you tell it to. Best not to if your images are going to appear on the web. You can always go back to the RAW files and export an AdobeRGB version when you specifically need one, but yeah, keep the default as sRGB. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support I like this one over at least one of the existing FP's, a delist-and-replace might be in order, or if this one passes a delist on one of the previous FP's might be in order. — raeky (talk | edits) 12:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Koala and joey.jpg —Maedin\talk 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- good quality close-up showing detail in leaves and nuts of plant with fingers for scale
- Articles in which this image appears
- Kunzea ericoides, Kunzea
- Creator
- Benjamint 11:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support as nominator --Benjamint 11:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Coment. Only the alternative image is in Kunzea. Also, didn't your mother tell you to clean your nails before taking a close-up photo of them? ;-) I suppose you're forgiven if you've been out messing with shrubs. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- heh, I cleaned them up a bit in PS aswell; they had been even worse! Added original to Kunzea. Benjamint 02:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Original per nominator. I prefer the original for the fingers a more gentle presentation than only the white background and the cut at the bottom. Also give sense of a scale. franklin 21:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose original but Support alternative preferably with a scale. I find the fingers disturbing --Muhammad(talk) 09:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- what is disturbing? distracting? franklin 11:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- The dirty fingers give me the chills :( --Muhammad(talk) 13:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I saw them as the earth where the plant came from. The hands of a farmer. They help to center the plant without having to cut it with the frame. Although the plant is probably cut anyway (but let me keep that in secret) franklin 14:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support either with preference for the original. I don't find the fingers that distracting, although if the alternative is used, would prefer a scale. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I added an alt (Alt2) with the fingers removed and a scale added. To get the scale I assumed the finger nail to be of 1cm width. Is that an acceptable procedure? Can it be better computed from some metadata of the picture? franklin 14:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support any of them, but the thumbnail tip needs to be cleaned. --Caspian blue 19:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the presence of the fingers, which nicely offer a scale, but the dirty fingernail is just too distracting. -- mcshadypl TC 01:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Made adjustments to the nail, uploaded over the original. Benjamint 04:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, this new version is preferable, but the quality is still not ideal. I would instead Support the "Alternative" version but with a scale bar. -- mcshadypl TC 18:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Alt 2 needs a license of some sort. SpencerT♦Nominate! 03:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't know how to put the same license as in the original. If someone knows how to go ahead. The image is going to be deleted after Friday 22 is that enough time for the nomination to finish? franklin 04:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Ti-tree sprig2.jpg —Maedin\talk 09:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Ornate hi-res image and one of the finest Commons currencies imho.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Russian ruble
- Creator
- State Bank of the Russian Empire
- Support as nominator --Brand[t] 14:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Crease across the woman's chest, significant yellowing on the bottom and on the "500" next to the woman, and dirt all around. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support --I appreciate the illustration, very intricate; enjoyed studying all of its features. To me, the crease adds character to the historical feel/value. --Neon Sky (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - its damage means it is not an accurate depiction of the banknote - the severe staining along the bottom could be misinterpreted as being part of the original design. (Maybe the stain could be edited out using photoshop?) Meowy 22:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also, is it the obverse? Looks like the reverse to me - all the signature / date of issue / serial number / promise to pay the bearer stuff is normally on side we call the obverse. And it is cropped, it does not show the entire note: see http://www.atsnotes.com/shop-paper-money/russia-14.JPG
- It's the obverse, as original Russian caption reads. Brand[t] 18:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also, is it the obverse? Looks like the reverse to me - all the signature / date of issue / serial number / promise to pay the bearer stuff is normally on side we call the obverse. And it is cropped, it does not show the entire note: see http://www.atsnotes.com/shop-paper-money/russia-14.JPG
- Oppose Cropped & stained. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted —Maedin\talk 21:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- very detailed and significant illustration of Cologne and the Hohenzollernbrücke
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cologne and Hohenzollernbrücke
- Creator
- Der Wolf im Wald
- Support as nominator --Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Weak Support AltYou replaced the alt image I added on Cologne with yours, I feel the alt is better composed and visually compelling so I put it here and voted for it. Weakly supporting it though because it's focus isn't entirely on the bridge and it's probably not the best vantage point for illustrating the bridge since it doesn't show it all. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)- You've gone and confused things by adding the alt (which was not nominated, nor is it in any articles currently), so I've changed the caption to state it is not for voting. You should probably adjust your vote too - either support or oppose the nominated image. However, I agree with you. They are both good images but I prefer the composition (with the focus more on the cathedral) in the Alt image, although the control of the highlights is superior in the nominated image. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Alt image was in articles before the nominator replaced it with his image... I just didn't revert his changes. — raeky (talk | edits) 12:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that, but the way it works here is that the image has to currently be in an article to quality as a candidate (the exception is usually when various edits of the original photo are presented for consideration in the nomination, not different images by different authors). If there is debate over which image should be used, the appropriate location for that debate is the article talk page, not here. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm aware, but when i was looking where this image was used I noticed it was placed as the lead infobox image on Cologne and just put there before the nomination, so I looked at what was there before and I found the image it replaced to be likely better in my opinion. I sorta have an issue with putting a self-made image in the article lead replacing existing good images in the processes. But yea It should be brought up at Talk:Cologne. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that, but the way it works here is that the image has to currently be in an article to quality as a candidate (the exception is usually when various edits of the original photo are presented for consideration in the nomination, not different images by different authors). If there is debate over which image should be used, the appropriate location for that debate is the article talk page, not here. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Alt image was in articles before the nominator replaced it with his image... I just didn't revert his changes. — raeky (talk | edits) 12:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- You've gone and confused things by adding the alt (which was not nominated, nor is it in any articles currently), so I've changed the caption to state it is not for voting. You should probably adjust your vote too - either support or oppose the nominated image. However, I agree with you. They are both good images but I prefer the composition (with the focus more on the cathedral) in the Alt image, although the control of the highlights is superior in the nominated image. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support original, very good result --George Chernilevsky talk 12:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support original. The tight cropping of the alt does not look natural.-Caspian blue 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Amazing. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 21:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support original on the basis of high EV for Cologne, as it presents three important buildings (including the Museum Ludwig on the left), and is more centered on the Cathedral. For the Hohenzollernbrücke article I would use the Alt as it is better focused on the bridge. Elekhh (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support orig. Very clear, lovely colours. Only slight shame is the scaffolding in the RH spire... Gazhiley (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support original, worthwhile image --Herby talk thyme 17:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Have been meaning to restore a photochrom of this bridge's predecessor. :) Durova403 00:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Fantastic picture. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Hohenzollernbrücke Köln.jpg —Maedin\talk 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
_1918.jpg)
- Reason
- high-quality image with good composition; not the best photo of the ship (that would probably be File:Uss arizona.jpg), but the only one that is large enough to qualify for FP. The angle this is taken from highlights one of the major differences of First World War capital ships from the same in the Second World War: the extremely low bridges. Compare the bridge on Arizona here to Nevada's in the Second World War.
- Articles in which this image appears
- USS Arizona (BB-39), Naval Review
- Creator
- Paul Thompson/War Department
_specs.jpg){kind=link}
- Support as nominator --—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - should the foreground be cropped out? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support. I say the foreground should be cropped out in the article about the ship, but a version with it should be kept if it appears in naval review. SpencerT♦Nominate! 00:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea, I've added it. There was only one image of a pre-WWII naval review before that, surprisingly. —Ed (talk • majestic titan)
- Support regardless of cropping -MBK004 05:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted No quorum. —Maedin\talk 12:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
_in_camouflage_coat,_1918_HD-SN-99-02137.JPEG)
_in_camouflage_coat,_1918_edit.jpg)
- Reason
- Image is of high quality and great composition.
- Articles in which this image appears
- USS New Jersey (BB-16)
- Creator
- Navy Department
- Support as nominator --—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Image is badly tilted (check the horizon). This can be fixed. While you're at it, is there a version where that mast/antenna or whatever is not clipped at the top? --jjron (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Durova's helped me out; see the edit. And no, there is no other version without the clipped top. I wish there was, though. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support Edit1 rare, interesting, valued. Tilt fixed now --George Chernilevsky talk 12:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Supportedit 1 per nom. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted No quorum. —Maedin\talk 12:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
_1918.JPEG)
- Reason
- high quality, interesting image.
- Articles in which this image appears
- USS Texas (BB-35), 14"/45 caliber gun
- Creator
- Underwood and Underwood
- Support as nominator --—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Interesting and okay quality, but I find enc. rather low: It doesn't show very much of the ship, and other pictures of the full ship exist at that time as well (File:USS Texas (BB-35).jpg). SpencerT♦Nominate! 03:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have just added this to 14"/45 caliber gun as well (forgot that it was a picture of the guns, too...) Do you think this increases the encyclopedic value enough to change your !vote? Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I keep my vote. If the focus is then on the guns, the the crew members are distracting and take the focus off the guns (they provide some, be it limited EV with the ship). In addition, a side view of the guns would be a better angle. SpencerT♦Nominate! 00:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have just added this to 14"/45 caliber gun as well (forgot that it was a picture of the guns, too...) Do you think this increases the encyclopedic value enough to change your !vote? Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry, have to agree with the limited EV, seems kitschy rather than encyclopaedic. And also brings back creepy and unsettling memories of Cher in that filmclip. --jjron (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose, I've got to agree on the limited EV argument, plus the focus should be on either the guns or the crew, not both. I say this as one of two editors who have brought USS Texas (BB-35) up to GA/A and have a vested interest in the article on the ship here. -MBK004 05:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not promoted —Maedin\talk 12:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- Previously nominated here, saw only support votes but was closed due to lack of reviewers (so please join in!). Time has passed, and Ed has nominated several ship-related images so I thought I'd give this another go! Already featured on the Turkish Wikipedia.
- Articles in which this image appears
- SMS Moltke (1910)
- Creator
- Harris & Ewing, restored by Staxringold and Durova.
- Support as conominator --Staxringold talkcontribs 05:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support as conominator (elbowing in here) Durova403 14:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support - to me, this appears to fulfill all the criteria. Note: am a member of WP:OMT —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support - I'll keep supporting this one, Tim1337 (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support WP:OMT editor-MBK004 05:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support nicely worked image with good EV --Herby talk thyme 17:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support - GerardM (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support - George Chernilevsky talk 08:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support. No issues here, good candidate. - Darwinek (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:SMS Moltke Hampton Roads 1912 FINAL.jpg —Maedin\talk 12:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reason
- very detailed with a deep improvement of a high resolution image. EV value
- Articles in which this image appears
- Château de Chenonceau
- Creator
- Ra-smit
- Support as nominator Calmer Waters 10:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: A similar image, Schloss Chenonceau.JPG, with less perspective distortion, has been recently unsuccessful as a FP candidate. Elekhh (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose original. It looks like a black hole is opening up over the castle. Kaldari (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: ALT1 would be the one submitted to be voted on. The original was placed to show the difference between the original and this touched up version. Calmer Waters 07:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Alt 1 Oppose Orig. The colour is better in Alt 1 but there is a massive loss of sharpness from the processing work - seen most clearly to left of picture - the trees and the bricks look like this is an oil painting almost... Unless its time for an eye test for me anyways! Gazhiley (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I do appear to be challenging your eyes lately Gazhiley :) Calmer Waters 11:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Its nothing personal honest! hehe Gazhiley (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted —Maedin\talk 12:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)