Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Noclip (talk | contribs) at 04:22, 18 November 2007 (nom Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/National Cathedral). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

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

Promoting an image

If you believe an image should be featured, create a subpage (use the "For Nominations" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets.

All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here.

The archive contains all opinions and comments collected for candidate nominations and their nomination results.

If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.

Delisting an image

A featured picture can be nominated for delisting if you feel it no longer lives up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Create a subpage (use the "For Delists" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

For delisting, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures, except that:If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance.

Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December.

  • Note that delisting an image does not mean deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).
Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations.
Step 2:
Create a subpage
For Nominations

To create a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for your nomination, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the field below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.


For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

To create a subpage for your delist, add a title for the image you want to delist/replace in the field below and click the "Create new delist nomination" button.


Step 3:
Transclude and link

Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (direct link).

How to comment for Candidate Images

  • Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional.
  • Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly.
  • You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
  • If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case.
Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.
Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version.

How to comment for Delist Images

  • Write Keep, followed by your reasons for keeping the picture.
  • Write Delist, followed by your reasons for delisting the picture.
  • Write Delist and Replace if you believe the image should be replaced by a better picture.
  • You can weak keep, weak delist or weak delist and replace instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.

You may find the glossary useful when you encounter acronyms or jargon in other voters' comments. You can also link to it by using {{FPCgloss}}.

Editing candidates

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

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

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

Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting.

On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet (roughly 75–150 cm) away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that the image must be viewed in original size (263 × 68 pixels) - if enlarged or reduced, results are not accurate.

Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended.
To see recent changes, purge the page cache.

Current nominations

Washington National Cathedral Twilight

Original
Alternate
Reason
Beautiful building, interesting lighting.
Proposed caption
The Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the City and Diocese of Washington, known as the Washington National Cathedral, is an Episcopal cathedral in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It is a listed monument on the National Register of Historic Places and the designated "National House of Prayer" of the United States. In 2007, it was voted one of the three most beautiful buildings in the United States in a survey by the American Institute of Architects.
Articles this image appears in
Washington National Cathedral
Creator
User:Noclip
  • Support as nominator Noclip (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - technically brilliant. I'd prefer a larger size though, I'd like to be able to zoom further in. Any higher res versions available? E8T9A8 —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I find the moon looks like a dirty spot on the thumbnail. The moon is also of "poor quality" compared to the otherwise high-res building (e.g. does not enhance the encyclopedicness of the image), and should be considered to be edited out if possible. – sgeureka t•c 22:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Maybe a little harsh, as it's a perfectly good shot in many ways. On the other hand the bar for these shots gets higher with every architecture-related submission, and this one doesn't quite clear it. There's some softness and CA at the sides, some jpg artifacting, and very awkward-looking distortion that makes the building to the left appear almost two-dimensional. The crop is too tight at the bottom and lighting-wise, I'd have waited maybe 10 minutes until the sky darkened just a little more and let the artificial lights dominate. It looks "flat" without this contrast, where it could really "pop" with just a bit more. --mikaultalk 13:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Firstly, it's quite an awkward perspective, I feel. Secondly, as Mikaul pointed out, there is some distortion and CA. I really do like architecture photography mind you, although this shot doesn't really do justice to what is an otherwise very nice cathedral. -- Chris.B | talk 15:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 02:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Caffinch

Original
Original edit 1
Edit 2
Reason
I feel it is a really good photograph of the avifauna in question, and shows good contrast between bird and background.
Proposed caption
The Chaffinch, (Fringilla coelebs), is a small passerine bird in the finch family Fringillidae, also called a spink. Its large double white wing bars, white tail edges and greenish rump easily identify this 14-16 cm long species. A male is seen here; a breeding male caffinch is unmistakable, with a reddish underparts and a blue-grey cap.
Articles this image appears in
Finch, Passerine, Chaffinch, Fringilla, Vinkensport, List of birds of Egypt
Creator
MichaelMaggs
  • Support as nominator -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support -- Ryo 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I think this is a fine encyclopedic shot, but I can't help wishing for a bit more sharpness and for a rule of thirds crop. My edit for a rough example of what might have been, but the sharpening really introduces artifacts which aren't pleasing and the crop needed to be done through the lens really. Its a good photo, just not perfect.[reply]
  • Weak support -- same here. Beautiful colors, great pose and certainly encyclopedic. Focus should be on the face but it's more on the back of the bird... Wwcsig (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was poised to support this, but at 100% it's disappointing. It's one of those great images which should just be left to be admired in context, rather than laid out under the loupe to pull apart and mark down. I can't support it for FP: it has to be sharp under scrutiny, and it isn't. I won't oppose it, either, as it has two supports already and I'd actually be happy to see it promoted.. before running off to nominate a few similar shots of my own ;) --mikaultalk 18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I agree at least partially. The best, Ryo 00:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a wild bird. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The raw image is being looked at by Fcb981 now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I uploaded an edit. I managed to pull a bit more texture from the feathers, retain better sharpness and minimize sharpening artifacts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcb981 (talk • contribs)
Hmm, that probably makes it a weak support edit2. I think I have a penchant for the composition in this shot, the photographer has caught the subject with a very nice expression. -- Chris.B | talk 15:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unfortunately the motion blur is too much, and I doubt it's introduced by editing: to the contrary, it had been quite aggressively sharpened already. People say 1/[equiv. focal length on 35mm] is the fastest shutter speed you should shoot photos, and 1/60 is just way too slow for a 600mm (effective) lens. Or at least, move up to a higher ISO: a clear image with noise is better than a blurry image without noise. --antilivedT | C | G 10:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support edit 2 I am happier with the processing in it. It looks more natural. The other two are to artificial to get my vote. pretty bird -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose All Nice bird and lighting, but quality fails it unfortunately. Sorry! --Fir0002 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Low flying Cessna 150

A low flying Cessna 150L in Swifts Creek

A sharp and interesting shot of a Cessna 150L - the low flying swoop providing an interesting backdrop to the typical blue sky image of planes in flight IMO.

Appears in Cessna 150

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I feel teh cluttered and uninspiring background ruins it. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Confused shot - background and foreground merging. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Ryo 15:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC) And a hard decision on this one. Fantastic focus on the aircraft, and being able to see the pilot is great. But I agree that the background muddles things, sadly.[reply]
  • Support, i love the backgrund. Yes, i'm serious - the contrast between the pin-sharp airplane vs the motion-blurred background adds to the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support here too. You couldn't wish for better depth of field, I think complaints about the bg are a little misplaced. Unlucky with the light (from the left would have been great) and a little higher in the frame, and less tightly-cropped.. ..all forgivable nitpicks. Well-captured, good enc, bonus hilarious face in the cockpit. --mikaultalk 18:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I could see the pilot's face!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral the picture is good but the background spoils everything. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Caption please! Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opposing on a caption is not a valid rationale except if it doesn't contain information on what the subject is. A POTD style caption is not required on FPC - all we want here is the same style caption as you'd get in an article. We're not here looking for a rehash of the first paragraph of the image's home article. We're looking for the best pictures wiki has. Please reconsider your vote. --Fir0002 07:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you mean "A low flying Cessna 150L in Swifts Creek" is supposed to be the caption? I was looking for it in the usual spot. I suppose this technically meets the criteria, but these 8 words are not much of an effort; enc value stems from the image and the text. A caption is supposed to put the image into context, draw the reader into the article, and so on, as described here. "A low flying Cessna..." didn't do this job; I certainly didn't feel a desire to read the article, and I didn't even notice the caption the first time I looked at it! The FP criteria say the image has to have a good caption. I'll support your other Cessna image above if it gets a good caption. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry Jeff but you're position is flawed on several counts. First - where is the consistency? The Louvre Panorama below gets by at a mere 6 words without comment. Second the caption provided described the situation perfectly - it says what the picture is of (a Cessna 150) what it is doing (flying low) and where it was taken (Swifts Creek). Any further information is superfluous. A caption shouldn't draw you into reading an article, the image should draw you in. And it's all fine and dandy to refer to WP:CAP but if you care to actually take a look at it this caption fares pretty well covering most requirements: identifies the subject (Cessna 150); is succinct; it doesn't really establish the relevance to article as this requirement doesn't apply to FPC (unless you count the reason for nomination); provides context (it was taken in Swifts Creek); perhaps the caption doesn't draw the reader into the article, but the thumbnail does and that is what is important on a page about pictures not about the subject the picture depicts. I think you should take a look at WP:CAP - your caption on the Wagner card is not succinct weighing in at 93 words (enough to start a stub!). And while we're onto the subject of your Wagner card caption, I'll move onto the third flaw of your argument. The captions you seem to desire are worthless rehashes of the article. Over half your caption is taken directly from the first paragraph of the article, with the rest stringing on a few other sentences from the article. And it's not just yours, to pick another current candidate at random check out the Downy Woodpecker. Beyond 10 or so words giving the kind of detail that is in my caption, the rest is taken from the article. And what is the point of that? If you are interested enough on the subject go get that info from the article!! I mean if an image appeared with that kind of caption in an article what would people do? Strip it back to that which describes the image alone. Even the details I provided here go beyond what an article would want - check this out. The image does have a good caption - it's just a current distorted trend which seems to encourage article rehashes in the guise of good captions. Please return to what FPC is about - identifying great photos, not captions! --Fir0002 02:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The only thing this pic has going for it in the FP nom is its high level of detail.. but I can see this being delisted in like a year when we're no longer impressed- it's really just barely wowable --ffroth 20:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. The background is a shame, it almost merges into the plane. -- Chris.B | talk 15:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downy Woodpecker2

Original
Cropped version
Edit 2: Cropped and sharpened version
Reason
I am nominating this image because I feel that it is a good image that clearly shows the subject. My main concern was the fact that the background is a tad fuzzy, but I looked at several other Bird FPs, and a few others have similar backgrounds.
Proposed caption
A male Downy Woodpecker eating a seed at a bird feeder. Downy Woodpeckers usually forage on trees, picking the bark surface in summer and digging deeper in winter. They mainly eat insects, and also seeds and berries. However, Downy Woodpeckers can often be found in treed suburban backyards and will often feed on suet at birdfeeders, especially during the winter.
Articles this image appears in
Downy Woodpecker
Creator
Myself

Oppose I like the negative space on the original - but unfortunately the quality isn't up to standard IMO in terms of sharpness. --Fir0002 11:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Not quite sharp enough. I'm usually not a big fan of feeder shots either unless the feeder complements the bird. Wwcsig (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Another decent bird shot (again, the original crop is by far the best) let down by lack of sharpness where it counts (prefocussed, maybe?) Frontal lighting is always a pain when you're looking for detail and this one suffers doubly for that reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MIckStephenson (talk • contribs)
  • Support Edit 2, even if it's not as sharp as it could be, it's far sharper than the Caffinch picture which is getting supported by several people above. My crop removes the useless empty space to the left of the bird, while not cropping any of the bird feeder. I also sharpened the bird a bit, and only the bird to avoid getting any artefacts due to the sharpening. --Aqwis (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral It really is a nice shot, nice composition (especially edit2) and very encyclopedic IMO. Unfortunately - as so often is the case - the sharpness is below average. -- Chris.B | talk 15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Anti-War Protest

Original
Alternative 1
Original Crop-Not for voting
Reason
It's a high quality, striking image of a anti-war protest.
Proposed caption
Soldiers and civilians march down 15th street NW in Washington DC in protest to the Iraq war.
Articles this image appears in
Protest, Opposition to the Iraq War, Flag desecration
Creator
User: Lipton_Sale

Not promoted MER-C 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Immortal Game

Original
Reason
If you're not a chess expert, you might not realize that Black is losing badly until it's too late.
Proposed caption
The immortal game was a chess game played on 21 June 1851 by Adolf Anderssen (white) and Lionel Kieseritzky (black). It is one of the most famous chess games of all time, and acclaimed as an excellent deomonstration of the style of chess play in the 19th century, when where rapid development and attack were considered the most effective way to win. In this game, Anderssen achieves checkmate and wins despite sacrificing a bishop, both rooks, and the queen.
Articles this image appears in
Chess, Immortal game
Creator
User:Karophyr, with edits by User:Capmo
This game is included in most introductory chess books, such as The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games (ISBN 978-0786705870). The portable game notation is available here. MER-C 03:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support Ryo 15:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I suspect this was made with a chess program. I think anything that raises the interest in chess is great, but it is hard to support an export type file. If it were unique, and easy to discern it from the "Save as animated gif" feature of several programs it would get my support for sure. Cheers, Ryo 15:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh good point and thanks for pointing that out. Revised to support...cheers, Ryo
  • Oppose I'd support a slower version with smoother transitions. It's interesting, entertaining and educational, just a headache to watch. --mikaultalk 18:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's not that hard to follow if you at least know the rules of movement of chess pieces, but the last frame should be a little longer though. --antilivedT | C | G 10:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support IF the motions were more apparent. It doesn't need to be actual motion - it could be a line from the source to the destination. The image should also show the sacrificed pieces on the sidelines, since that is an important part of the subject. Also I would hold on the last frame for much longer. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-20 14:29Z
  • Oppose but only because of the concerns above; this can and should be featured, but it needs refinement. Perhaps a line showing each move, and showing which move number they're on? --Golbez (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Despite speed issues it is a very good animation of a chess game, which I think is fairly hard to do well. Cat-five - talk 23:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Louvre Panorama

Original
Reason
The recent Louvre image nomination had me looking through the article and I found this image. Highly encyclopedic and technically excellent. Already FP on Commons.
Proposed caption
The Louvre museum in Paris, France.
Articles this image appears in
Louvre
Creator
User:Benh at Commons
  • Proposed Caption:
Panorama of the Louvre’s Court of Honor; in the center is I. M. Pei’s glass pyramid that serves as the main entrance to the museum. Originally a medieval castle chartered by Philip II of France in 1198, the current structure of the Louvre was begun in 1535 by Renaissance architects Pierre Lescot and Jacques Androuet du Cerceau. Over the next 200 hundreds years, it would undergo several additions and expansions by various monarchs, including the Grande Galerie under the reign of Henry IV, the Denon and Richelieu Wings under Louis XIII, and other projects by Louis XIV and Napoleon III. Although the Louvre served as the formal seat of government for France from its inception to the end of the Old Regime in 1789, it is perhaps famous today for being the most visited art museum in the world. Among its collection of 380 000 objects (including 11 900 paintings) are the Mona Lisa, Venus de Milo, and Winged Victory of Samothrace.
Too long? --Malachirality (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine by me.--HereToHelp 18:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great picture in many respects --Fir0002 11:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cour Napoléon at night - Louvre.jpg MER-C 04:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


John Doe

Original
Reason
I think the photo is well composed.
Proposed caption
John Doe is an American singer, songwriter and bass player who was the founder of the seminal L.A. punk band X. His musical compositions and performances are varied, including country and folk music. Doe also performs with the country-folk-punk band The Knitters. He is also a well-known film and television actor, notably playing Jeff Parker in the Roswell television series.
Articles this image appears in
John Doe (musician)
Creator
Paul Zollo

Not promoted MER-C 04:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Louvre Museum in Paris

Original
Reason
This is the best image of my life.
Proposed caption
This image is from Paris, France. This is the exterior of Louvre Museum.
Articles this image appears in
Creator
Brískelly

Not promoted MER-C 04:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Royal British Legion's Paper Poppy

Original
Edit 1
Alternative 1
Reason
Paper Poppies like this one are worn throughout the United Kingdom every year in early November to raise money for the Royal British Legion and to remember those servicemen and women who died for their country. The image is of high resolution and shows the entire subject in detail. The poppy itself is not perfect, there is a slight bend in it, but this does show how they are worn by real people in the real world.
Proposed caption
An artificial corn poppy, made of plastic and cardboard by disabled ex-servicemen, worn in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries from late October to Remembrance Sunday in support of the Royal British Legion's Poppy Appeal and to remember those servicemen and women who died in war. Wearing poppies to remember the war dead comes from the poem In Flanders' Fields by Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae which concludes with the line "We shall not sleep, though poppies grow, In Flanders fields". Although originally worn to commemorate those who fell in the First World War, poppies are also worn for the fallen of every conflict since.
Articles this image appears in
The Royal British Legion, Remembrance Day
Creator
Philip Stevens
  • Oppose Although the extra effort has greatly improved the pic, it's still short of FP quality, I think (artefacts, contrast, over-sharpened)
    I know it's often hard to detatch subject matter from image, but we are bound to judge image quality way above subject worthiness and this isn't quite there. Seriously though, I wish all Wiki photos were so carefully taken, it's a worthy attempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MIckStephenson (talk • contribs)

No consensus MER-C 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Honus Wagner T206 Baseball Card

Original
Edit 1 - removed hole
Reason
Moving over from picture peer review. An excellent scan of a historically important baseball card.
Proposed caption
The T206 Honus Wagner baseball card is a rare baseball card depicting Honus Wagner, a dead-ball era baseball player who is widely considered to be one of the finest players of all time. The card was designed and issued by the American Tobacco Company from 1909 to 1911. A total of only 50 to 200 cards were ever distributed to the public, and as a result of the card's rarity and popularity, prices have soared. In 2007, a collector paid $2.8 million for one, making it the most valuable baseball card in history.
Articles this image appears in
T206 Honus Wagner, Honus Wagner, and others.
Creator
National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, uploaded by Wickethewok
  • While we're at it, why not photoshop out the crack in the Mona Lisa, or perhaps the crack in the liberty bell?
  • Support original, Oppose edit. Iconic. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-15 19:35Z
  • Weak Support Original, Support Edit 1. I can see no problem with someone removing that big dirty splotch (and hole?) above his head, but it would sure improve the image. Change to full Support if someone does a good fix (I'd do it myself, but don't have time). --jjron 22:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably shouldnt try to touch up a museum photograph of an old relic --ffroth 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. It says there are up to 50 - 200 of these. So the photo here is of a copy that is flawed; it doesn't mean they're all flawed, and presumably it wasn't flawed when it was made. The reason for the flaw is never mentioned in the nom or image description. Now if the flaw was a result of Honus Wagner burning a hole in it with his cigarette while admiring his own card or something we should leave it, otherwise it's adding no encyclopaedic value so can be repaired. The other option is we could say that there are many versions of this card out there somewhere, there must be better quality ones, so lets wait till we get a photo of one of them. --jjron 06:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read the card's article, you'll see that there has been heavy scrutiny and criticism of cards that have been altered in order to improve them. To photoshop out the problem would only muddy the waters; this example is one that is owned by the baseball Hall of Fame and that adds some enc value as well. Only 50-200 were ever produced; only a tiny handful remain, and only one other in such good condition. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most likely memorabilia experts in this area know each of the 50-200 cards by heart, and could easily identify each one in a lineup. I believe we would be reducing encyclopedic value by creating a photoshopped example that no expert could identify, or that they could potentially mis-identify (unless they knew it was photoshopped). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-16 18:22Z
  • Yeah, sure, but most likely memorabilia experts would also read the image description that tells them it's been edited and links to the original. Personally I'm more interested in the billions of people who aren't memorabilia experts and just want to see a good image. --jjron (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:HonusWagnerCard.jpg MER-C 04:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Leopard Tortoise

Original
Reason
A good closeup view of the tortoise showing its face very clearly.
Proposed caption
The Leopard tortoise Geochelone pardalis, is a large and attractively marked tortoise. It is a large, grazing species of tortoise that favours semi-arid, thorny to grassland habitats. Leopard tortoises are the fourth largest species of tortoise.
Alternative 1
Edit 1 of Alternative 1 by jjron
Edit 2 of Alternative 1 by Ryo
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Articles this image appears in
Tortoise, Leopard Tortoise
Creator
Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Both the above votes are these users first FP votes. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, so? Newbies have suffrage here. --ffroth 04:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite typical to mention when new users appear unexpectedly to vote, in case of potential sock puppetry for example. One of these users has only 15 edits on Wikipedia, the other just 25. It doesn't mean their votes don't count, just that they need to be treated with caution until they 'prove' themselves. --jjron 06:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could just about understand that rationale if they were supporting but as it stands they were making an opposition, which if they were a sockpuppet perhaps wouldnt be in their best interests. I think that, despite them being new, they gave valid reasons for their objection and this should be noted rather than the legitimacy of their vote --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 09:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been known for users to create multiple socks in order to post multiple opposes (or its equivalent) as part of some type of 'revenge' against a user. It's not that hard to come up with such simple 'valid' reasons as were given here. --jjron (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is so exceptional about them? Lipton_sale 3:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
What is so exceptional? Its a great shot! It shows the details of the tortoise's facial expression. It makes you feel as if you are there. I have not seen any other such picture of a tortoise on wikipedia. --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 06:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • i'm not really sure where to put this in the article (i'm a noob) but I am not a "sock puppet" or whatever you call them just because this is my first vote doesn't mean that I can't have a say, and also I have made only a few edits to articles b/c I thought I could add to those articles.Tenio (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really like Alternative 1, but in the same way as I might like a portrait of a family member or a pet that displayed some of their more endearing characteristics. Yet this does not automatically translate into FP status. Unschool 05:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would people stop posting comments under the Template:- line? Kthxbi. --ffroth 06:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Original or Alt 1 (see below). OK, Alt 1 has better composition (though I'd rather it just a little further back), but you can see right in there to view how the head retracts into the shell, the mouth structure, etc; high encyclopaedic value. The exposure is better on the Original, the Alt looks a bit overexposed, probably too much flash. So I'd full support something like Alt 1 with the exposure/colouring of the Original. --jjron 07:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either with preference for alternative 2, encycloped and crisp, wikipedia sure gets its moneys worth from its editors --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 09:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alternative 1 for a better composition.--Mbz1 13:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to lighting and due to the fact that you can't see the entire tortoise. My personal opinion is that as a general rule, an image of an animal that doesn't show substantially the entire animal ought not to be eligible to be featured unless the animal is very commonplace, or its general appearance is widely known, or the image is illustrating a specific unique and distinctive feature of that animal. Spikebrennan 14:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This image is illustrating a specific unique and distinctive feature of the animal. It is showing the face, it is showing the scale like projections on the legs which are unique to this tortoise. These close up views also show clearly features which can not be seen with the entire view. Even the nostrils can be seen! What more could you ask? I have added two more pictures. Sorry for so many pictures but, after all the constructive criticism I took a few pictures which I hope will suit your demands.---- Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all sorry, their compositions and lighting are just too snap-shotty. They lack the wow-factor that is the first requirement for an FP to me. de Bivort 19:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support alt 1 -- Ryo 19:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Alt 1 is a nice, though not encyclopedic and has harsh flash. A lot could be done with a bit of curves adjustment and a touch of saturation to lower that effect. The new angles are more encyclopedic, but feels dead since is shot from above. The perfect should would almost have to mean putting the thing on a rock or something elevated so you can both step away with the flash and yet remain at eye level or below it to create a sense of size. Cheers, Ryo[reply]

Edit 1 of Alt 1 uploaded.

  • Support Edit 1 of Alt 1 per my previous comments, I think this addresses the lighting issue on the original of Alt 1. Perhaps this also addresses some other's concerns? --jjron (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this edit helps quite a bit. I made some further minor edits - reduced the accented hotspot, reduced grain in the off focus top corner, and was a bit more aggressive with sharpness on the lower face (where I think it can stand it without losing anything). The licensing variables on my upload is imperfect, still learning the tools here...cheers, Ryo 14:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. This nomination is verging on the absurd! I have no idea which to offer an opinion on, which to ignore.. please, if you have any doubts, consider using picture peer review before nominating images here. --mikaultalk 09:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Offer opinion on all of them if you dont mind. Your reason for opposing is unfortunately not justified. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • While it may be true that there are too many choices here, that is not a valid reason to oppose. To do so would seem like a violation of WP:Point. --jjron (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Violation? Well, the reason I'm opposing is because the original nom was clearly not FP material. The image closest, in my opinion, to FP quality (alt 1) doesn't appear in any articles. The second, third and fourth (!) alternatives successively weaken and demean the original nom to the point of absurdity. The only point to make here is that there's clearly no chance of any of the above being promoted, something a preliminary visit to WP:PPR would probably have avoided. Here's a point: I believe we should limit the candidate images in a nomination (not edits, which are generally beneficial) to one. I've suggested as much on the talk page, where I'd direct any further comments. --mikaultalk 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The alt 1 was provided together with the original. Both can not be used in the articles. Hence the one that is selected by you guys to be the best would then be used. You say that alt 1 is close to FP quality. Do you support it? Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • With respect, that's not how FPC nominations are handled at all. You can get an assessment as to which is the most encyclopedic image of the two at the peer review page. The one selected by those guys would then be nominated. The FPC page is for assessing images which appear in Wikipedia articles; the fact that Alt 1 doesn't is reason enough not to support it. Also, I'm not at all keen on the colour and tone rendering from the flash lighting, and find the context – the tortoise seems to be, erm, perched upon another – a little distracting and confusing, but maybe that's just me ;) --mikaultalk 22:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. This is my first vote on an F.P. nom, but I've checked this page daily for at least six months (hopefully I won't get marked down therefore). None of the photos here is of F.P. quality, so I'll direct my comments at Alt. 1, which is the best in my opinion. At full res it's artifacted, overly bright and lacking sharpness; the large patch of blue on the right hand side is also distracting from the subject. Conversely the edits are over-sharpened and over-saturated; I think these clearly show that editing out the image's shortcomings from the supplied jpeg would be nigh on impossible. bad_germ 19:10, 18th November (UTC)
    • Your vote seems reasoned enough (but what is it about this nom that's attracted three new voters?). However I'd like to point out that you say that Alt 1 is "...lacking sharpness..." while "...the edits are over-sharpened...". Interesting, because in doing my edit (Edit 1) I did absolutely no sharpening whatsoever (I remember this clearly, because usually I would do a bit of sharpening, but I was surprised by how sharp this was). --jjron (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe my eyes are deceiving then, and the increased saturation brought it out. The quality of the image in the most important area (eye and mouth) is just not there when viewed in full resolution. I for one came out of the woodwork because the uploader has had a number of self-noms (here and here), and would perhaps be better served by the peer review. Whilst enthusiasm is no doubt encouraged, when nominating your own pictures ruthless objectivity must also be used to avoid disappointment. bad_germ 11:41, 19th November (UTC)

Note. It appears the integrity of this candidate may have been severely compromised by possible sock puppetry at the beginning of the process - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sxenko. If not promoted, I propose that this candidate be closed without bias and renominated at the nominator's discretion. --jjron (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose All I'm not really much of a fan of any of the close ups - the composition and lighting is lacking in my opinion. Alt 1 is probably the strongest of the close-ups but it should have been taken at a wider angle. And when I say a wider angle I'm not just saying I would prefer more of the carapace showing (which I would) but also the wider angle would provide a more interesting perspective. I also dislike the dirt and stuff around his mouth. Alt 3 has softer (nicer) lighting and a full body composition (which in my opinion is better) but looks a bit messy - with the grass and stuff obscuring parts of the body and the poor background with all the pink flowers and stuff. A good photo, but not quite FP standard IMO --Fir0002 00:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Forest Crepuscular Rays

Original
Edit 1
Original 2
Reason
Wikipedia already has two beautiful FP for this subject:

and .
The nominated images however represent a different type of the rays, created by the sun the mist and the trees. That's why IMO the nominated images may be considered.

Proposed caption
Crepuscular rays, in atmospheric optics, also known as sun rays or God's rays, are rays of sunlight that appear to radiate from a single point in the sky. These rays stream through gaps in clouds, or trees or other objects. The rays are beams of sunlit air, which are separeted by dark shadowed regions. These shadowed regions could be shadows of clouds, trees or any other object. The image shows that the rays are actually three dimensional shafts of sunlit air. Look for tose rays at misty mornings or evenings.
Articles this image appears in
Crepuscular rays
Creator
Mbz1
  • Support as nominator Mbz1 14:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course only original image is in the article now. Whatever image gets more positive comments would be placed in the article. If you do not believe that the image should be in the article at all, please say so and it will be removed from the article as soon as the nomination is over. Thank you.--Mbz1 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty, but after reading the Crepuscular ray article I'm confused as why you'd think your tree shadows would be crepuscular rays?! The pictures do not add to the article, they actually subtract by picturing someting else by definition. --Dschwen 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Dschwen; the opening line to the article (which you've adapted for your caption) doesn't mention tree shadows at all. I agree it's a similar phenomenon, but it doesn't appear to be quite the same thing. If you can point to something which backs up your point then fine, but otherwise I'll have to go with strong oppose based on it not being encyclopedic of the topic at hand. I will also try to read up on it as well. 99.236.51.219 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign in. Matt Deres 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for your comments and vote,Dschwen and Matt Deres. I'll try to explain why atmospheric optics experts (I'm not one of them, but I read their books) call the phenomena in the nominated images crepuscular rays. Yes, you are right you see shadow of a tree, but you also see the rays - the beams of ligt in the gaps of the trees. Here how tree shadow looks and it is still crepuscular rays. With cloud crepuscular rays you see shadows of the clouds. With trees vrepuscular rays you see the shadows of the trees. Here how famous atmospheric optic expert Andy Young explained to me fog shadows when I asked him about this :
    "These fascinating shadows look odd since humans are not used to seeing shadows in three dimensions. The thin fog was just dense enough to be illuminated by the light that passed through the gaps in a structure or in a tree. As a result, the path of an object shadow through the "fog" appears darkened. In a sense, these shadow lanes are similar to crepuscular rays, which are caused by cloud shadows, but here, they're caused by an object shadows." So in other words there is no difference in the rays we see in gaps of the clouds, or in gaps of trees or other objects. Crepuscular rays article also talks about shadow in few places. IMO it is rather article that does not give the complete pictures of crepuscular rays than the image does not belong to the article. I would have corrected the article, but with my English I'd better not. When I said that I would remove image from the article, if community decides so, I did not mean that the image is not of crepuscular rays (it is), I meant that maybe you find there are too many images in the article. IMO image adds value to the article by showing a different kind of crepuscular rays. I'd also like to mention that there are few images at Commons in category crepuscular rays with trees here. They were taken by different people at the different time, but all of them ended up in crepuscula rays category (the right one IMO). Should we remobe them too? I'm afraid Wikipedia is not a reliable source, if one wants to know more about atmospheric optics in general and crepuscular rays in particular.Please feel free to ask me more questions. I'd like also to ask Matt Deres to share with us what he found on the subject, please.Thank you.--Mbz1 01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW I think Mbz1 might be right that these are a type of crepuscular rays, and it could well improve the article having this info and the pictures. Having said which, I would find it hard to justify having 3 FPs for a 450 word article, especially when, from what I can see, that's the only thing any of them illustrate. --jjron 07:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your comment, jjron. If we had this conversation the day before yesterday, I would have tend to agree with you that three FP for such a short article could be one too many. It is why I said in the image introduction that Wikipedia already has two FP for the subject. However after reading the comments from Dschwen and Matt Deres and getting not just oppose, but a strong oppose for the reason the image "not being encyclopedic of the topic at hand",I've started to believe that the image should be considered for FP, if for nothing else, at least for the educational purpose. I've been interested it atmospheric optics for few years and,when I look at a phenomena, I know what I'm looking at most of the times. I believed so called "forest crepuscular rays" or "tree crepuscular rays" are very well known phenomena. I see it is not the case.I've improved the caption of the image and tried to explain the image better. Thank you. --Mbz1 12:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice picture Mbz1, Why not try nominating it at commons? H92110 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. MER-C, does no votes at all count as promoted? :) --ffroth 06:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination for the lack of interest. As Dschwen commented on another candidate: "Lack of votes = lack of interest = not an interesting picture = not FP material". Thank you all for looking and for the comments and for the sole vote the image got.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this may be worth a renom once it's verified that this belongs in the Crepuscular rays article; I suspect that lengthy discussion and those doubts may have put off many voters. This would be especially true if you limited it to just what you consider the best picture to nominate at first instead of three to help avoid confusion, and if there weren't already those two featured. --jjron (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hypotrochoid

Original (click to view)

Reason
The picture shows an excellent example of how a hypotrochoid is constructed, and it significantly adds to its article.
Proposed caption
The construction of a hypotrochoid. As the smaller orange circle rolls around the inside of the larger green circle, the point attached by the blue line traces out a curve known as a hypotrochoid.
Articles this image appears in
Hypotrochoid
Creator
ipi31415

Not promoted MER-C 04:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Murraya koenigii flower

Original
Reason
The pictures, I believe are of good quality. They are also of great encyclopedic value, and are the only pictures available (on wikipedia) which show the flower.
Proposed caption
The Curry Tree, Murraya koenigii is a small tree growing 4-6m tall. Its leaves are highly aromatic and are commonly used as seasoning in Indian cuisine.The leaves are also used in the traditional treatment of diabetes. The flowers are small white, and fragrant.
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Articles this image appears in
Curry Tree
Creator
Muhammad Mahdi

Not promoted MER-C 02:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Olympic Stadium of Montreal at night.

Original
Alternate
Reason
Taken from Commons FPC, very beautiful picture.
Proposed caption
The Olympic Stadium in Montreal, built as the main venue for the 1976 Summer Olympics, is a 56,040-seat multipurpose facility. It is the fomer home of the Montreal Expos and is currently an alternate host to the CFL Montreal Alouettes. The building has been wrought with problems since its conception. It was not completed in time for the 1976 Olympics and finished over budget. In 1986 a large piece of the building fell during a MLB baseball game. In 1999 a large piece of the roof caved in on workers preparing for the Montreal Auto Show, causing the show to find a new venue. The stadium is now closed for four months every winter as the fire marshal has concerns about the roof being unable to support snow loads.
Articles this image appears in
Olympic Stadium (Montreal)
Creator
User:Acarpentier

Support Alt Per above lovely light and sharpness --Fir0002 11:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support alternative, fantastic shot! That said, neither of these pictures (nor any of the pictures on the article page, for that matter) get to the heart of what this building really looks like. If you have access to it, I'd like to see the exact same shot taken from a different location / angle. See how dramatic this structure can be? . In any case, I do think both of these pictures are brilliant, and I support them completely, but if you ever decide to snap a better angle, I'd definitely support the replacement. tiZom(2¢) 16:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Le Stade Olympique de Montréal Nuit Arriere-Gauche.jpg MER-C 04:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Forgotten Explorers of Antarctica

Original
Reason
Almost everybody knows something about exploration of Antarctica. Most people would name Robert Falcon Scott, who tried and failed to be the first at South Pole, Roald Amundsen, who did it and Ernest Shackleton and his amazing story of survival. I've nominated the image to bring attention to all of the brave men I've mentioned above and to countless forgotten others. The image could be two times historic. First because the drawing was made in 1899 and second because, if Wikipedia is correct about this, Borchgrevink's Cape Adare hut still existed as of 2003, but was being destroyed by the effects of penguin guano.
Proposed caption
In February 1899, Borchgrevink's party of Southern Cross Expedition landed at Cape Adare - the northeastern most peninsula in Victoria Land, East Antarctica,where they built a prefabricated hut (the first human structure ever built on the Antarctic continent). They wintered at Cape Adare and were picked up in January of 1990 by Southern Cross ship.
At the image you could see a drawing above Kolbein Ellefsen's bed in Borchgrevink's Cape Adare Hut. Ellefsen was one of the members of the Southern Cross Expedition. He was a good sailor and also the Cook on the expedition and a talented artist. While looking at the image, please, try to imagine a young man (Kolbein Ellefsen was in his yearly twenties) during unforgiving Polar night, not knowing what's going to happened next (one of the expedition members did not make it), who used a Kerosene lamp or a candle with its ghostly light to draw portrait of a beautiful woman above his bed. The image was taken in January of 2001.
Articles this image appears in
Carstens Borchgrevink
Creator
Mbz1

Not promoted MER-C 02:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Pentagon Fireball

File:Pentagonfireball.jpg
Original
Reason
Yes, yes, I know the image doesn't agree the featured picture criteria (low resolution, jpeg artifacts, low techinal standards) but this is ONE-OF-A-KIND image of historic american event that will live on forever.
Proposed caption
Frame of security camera footage taken 20 feet away from where American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the western side of the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001. All 64 people on board are killed, as are 125 Pentagon personnel. The section of the where the plane crashed was, at the time, being renovated, so most of the offices were unoccupied.
Articles this image appears in

Creator
Latitude0116, Noahcs

Not promoted MER-C 02:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


MIT great dome

Original
Alternative reduced noise
Problem areas highlighted
Reason
I haven't been doing HDRs that long but this was definitely a situation where it couldn't have been done any other way. The highlights on the dome were like 8 stops brighter than anything else... There is also an edit where some noise is reduced, from COM:FPC where this is passing pretty handily.
Proposed caption
A HDR representation of The Great Dome at MIT, which sits atop Building 10 and is featured in most publicity shots, is modeled on McKim, Mead, and White's Low Memorial Library at Columbia University.
Articles this image appears in
MIT
Creator
User:Fcb981
  • Support as nominator Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there an image without any noise reduction? The tone mapping just doesn't look right, and playing with the original, I get the impression that it itself was under a fair bit of noise reduction, and the edit, well, looks like plastic... thegreen J Are you green? 01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no noise reduction on the original. The edit is not mine. I can see bad noise anyway so people tell me things are noisy and with my calibrated monitor I don't see why they get worked up... what exactly doesn't look right? If you mean the posturization around lights in the inside, that is just a result of the HDR compression which sorts luminosity values and around light sources you sometimes see it. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • <sarcasm>Oppose You can't see stars in the sky! It's sooooo underexposed!!</sarcasm> Support Either with slight preference to Edit. Good tone mapping, looks weird at thumbnail but realistic at full resolution. However, why is there a sharp border between the sky and the dome? --antilivedT | C | G 02:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both I think a better picture could be taken. The original is not terrible, but the patchiness/graininess of the trees and shadows leaves it a bit short. The edit *is* terrible - the trees and foreground are blocky green smears - not one of our "best". Matt Deres 04:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop being so pedantic. Of course a better one could be taken. If we were to say that if a better picture can be taken the picture is not FP then we would have a few high resolution scan of some ancient tapestries and nothing else! Instead of getting worked up over the grainyness of the sky or some loss of detail on some leaves, ask yourself if you think this is a visually impressive picture that shows some of wikipedia's best work. I think FP is about stunning photographic contributions. Something on a white BG is not stunning. An HDR where a bright dome is accented against some orange clouds and the building is properly exposed as well in my opinion is stunning. If you disagree that this is a beautiful picture, but if you just don't like that the leaves are a little smeared, I think you should look at this for what it is. Its a photograph, not an SVG graphic. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your reply is an excellent example of why people shouldn't nominate their own work. Calm down. Your picture is good, but it doesn't match the high standards set by pics like this or this, both of which are also night shots of large buildings. Look at them honestly - does the MIT dome have the same kind of clarity or detail? With the utmost respect for your ability (which far outweighs my efforts behind the lens), it does NOT. Hence, my opposition. The edit took the minor drawbacks of your photo and made them much worse. Matt Deres 04:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "...people shouldn't nominate their own work...". Please note that one of the two pictures you link to was a self-nom, and in fact Diliff who did both of them, along with many (probably most) of the best contributors we have, all usually self-nominate. --jjron 04:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, it is true that the pixel dimensions of this are not as high as either of the diliff shots that you mentioned, those are stitched though. This one isn't so there is no way I could have gotten them that big. You are entitled to your interpretation of the FP standards, which is fine. But eventually, it comes down to this question: "Is this as good and artistic picture of the 'thing' that we can reasonably get and does it have visual appeal to the point that it would make a good main page picture?" I mean, I can go back, or diliff could go, during the day, and take a 15 segment stitched panorama and all that, and it would probably be less grainy, it would have more pixels but would it be better? I mean, how much to pixels matter anyway? sure, you can make larger reproductions, but when you blow it up on screen, you are lost. Sure, you can see every little rivet, but what does that have to do with the actual appeal of the picture. Do the colors evoke emotion? does it show the glow of the dome that could never be captured without HDR? does it make we look? stare? You yourself opened it up to full size. Presumably because it caught your eye, you liked the look of the dome, or the tone mapping or the subtle clouds. But once that full size opened, you were no longer looking at it for beauty. You were no longer looking at the colors, or the composition, or thinking about art. You were looking for noise, for lack of sharpness, for ghosting, for lens flare, for blown highlights, for crushed shadows, for stitching errors, for all those things that actually don't have much at all to do with photography. I believe that you know art, and I believe you know the technical aspects of photography. If you truely think that the technical aspects of this photograph get in the way of enjoying its beauty, I can live with your oppose vote. If not, I urge you to think about this picture for what it is. Does firs temp file with green lines showing god knows what and red lines show I don't know what else matter, no. Not unless it gets in the way of the picture. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • 8 Shots at 1 stop interval for HDR, times 6 for a 2x3 stitch, times at least 2 for errors/people in the building, and you shall have the über-stitched FP you want! --antilivedT | C | G 22:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Aesthetics tho important are only one aspect of an FP - and to be quite honest it having a HDR look isn't overly stunning. I've seen plenty of good (and bad) HDRs and have made a few myself (eg Image:Yarra and bank by night.jpg) and so I'm not overly wowed by this example. So no it doesn't make me look. It doesn't make me stare. The colours evoke no emotion. Also if you took the time to read my comment, the green areas highlighted some areas of particularly poor quality due to what I assume was some very aggressive lifting of shadows. Red areas show sections where I believe digital manipulation and/or stitching/HDR merging faults have occurred. --Fir0002 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You clearly looked long enough to come out of your wikibreak to comment on it and upload a temp file.<sarcasm> Tho I suppose you look at every fpc candidate in full size. </sarcasm> -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • ? I do view all FP candidates that I comment on at 100%. As for the wikibreak I'm glad to say that it's over! Y12 is finished so I'm back for a few months and will be reasonably accurate. However when I did comment on this I still had one exam to go and wouldn't have commented except that I feared it might receive a similar response to COM:FPC - big on looking at thumbnail but not so big on evaluating the image at full size. Having had a reasonable amount of experience with HDR I know that most HDR's do not come out particularly well at 100% - which is why whenever I see a HDR (and usually it's pretty easy to tell) I automatically assume it's not of high technical quality. And so if I see it up for FPC I'll view it at 100% and confirm/deny my fears. In this case my fears were realized and so I felt compelled to vote and point out the flaws to voters who might not notice them (as appears on commons). Without wishing to offend you, I'd have to say that stunning imagery was not the root of my interest. --Fir0002 11:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Very poor quality - noise is rife and the edit is hopeless, it makes the image worse if anything. I also think that this isn't a particularly good HDR - it's attempted to lift the shadows too aggressively resulting in very poor quality and artefacting (refer to highlighted green areas in my temp file). Also of concern are the red areas where it seems there has been a few stitching errors - although I have no idea what was going on in the right most red area - seems like a very poor clone job? PS: I would hesitate to nominate an image just because it is doing well on commons - they seem to have much lower standards in terms of IQ over there... --Fir0002 08:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stitching errors? There is no stitching in this picture. I've had pictures that pass here and fail commons. So, one could reverse the argument. There is no cloning on the wall, only cloning of a sign that was on the grass out. one of the few areas you failed to highlight in red. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 12:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well what's going on with that area on the RHS - as far as I can tell it's either a clone job or some serious artefacting. No stitching? Perhaps it's coming through from a misalignment in the HDR sequence because that looks pretty dodgy. Could you provide the longest exposed frame so we can see whether it actually looks like that or if it is some kind of error. --Fir0002 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But seriously, why are you looking at the grass and the tree? FWIW as long as the encyclopaedic parts (the building) is okay we shouldn't pick faults in the non-critical areas. Of course, there are way better pictures of grass and trees and other assorted foliages, but is it the subject of this photo? --antilivedT | C | G 09:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ummm... because they're part of the picture. Photos have been slammed on quality issues much more minor than that - such quality is unacceptable even if it is not the "main" subject. We're not just featuring a small segment of the photo but the image as a whole. Hence it must be of high quality throughout. --Fir0002 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • They do take up about half the image. Matt Deres 04:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So is the night sky, which is awfully underexposed to see the stars. Therefore this and all the other night architecture shots can't be FP! Seriously, complaints on the grass and the trees are totally irrelevant: They AREN'T the subject! They're simply minor elements, and it doesn't really matter if they're blocky or blotchy or whatever, unless it really cause a problem and distracts from viewing the subject (which doesn't apply in this case). --antilivedT | C | G 04:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the grass and trees were in the background, it would be perfectly fine for them to be blurred out somewhat. In a related way, we kind of expect the backgrounds in Fir's macro shots to be wiped out; at times, I think it actually makes the bug or bird look that much clearer and cleaner. We're okay with it because the bug could really be anywhere; we just want to see it well. The MIT dome isn't just anywhere - it's sitting on the lawn and is surrounded by the trees - they're part of the subject. IMO, while they don't need to have quite the clarity we demand for the building itself, as part of the subject they can't just be dismissed. At least, IMO. Matt Deres 13:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well the other thing with macro it is a technical impossibility due to the affects of diffraction to have much more in focus - this limitation does not apply here. And yes in a macro and wildlife shots bokeh is very useful in isolating the subject. But that isn't to say that noise or artefacty bokeh should be excused. It must be high quality bokeh. The "minor" elements here do not help isolate the photo and are of unacceptable quality. --Fir0002 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hmmm I wasn't the one that said your macro's background aren't good so I'll refrain from commenting on that, but are you saying that you can't tell the difference between the grass and the stairs/building? Or by "isolate" do you mean making the photo stand out? Isn't that the subject's job? Your HDR contains what, 3 stops of dynamic range? Everything is well lit (even the sky), and the effect of HDR is not that apparent. In this HDR, however, the difference between the dome and the grass is 8 stops (as said by Fcb somewhere above), and in real life it would be quite a dark place, without any direct illumination on the grass, versus a brightly illuminated dome. In effect it encompasses the dynamic range of the dark shadows of the trees and the street lamps in your HDR (bright light + white reflector ~= street lamp) without blowing out either, and retains a nice transition between the two. In 8-bit RGB this means 16 values for each stops for the texture, which is very little; personally I can't see the difference less than 5 values (also maybe because of the cheap 6-bit LCD panel), and this is probably the reason why the grass and the trees look smudged. If you want grass and tree textures, there are lots of high quality, high resolution, properly exposed pictures of them around, but are they the things that make this picture encyclopaedic? Are they the things that the picture is trying to illustrate? FWIW we can simply crop out all the grass and trees, does that mean that it's better? --antilivedT | C | G 10:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I mean by isolate stand out - as in Image:Young grasshopper on grass stalk02.jpg. My HDR contains 4 stops (-2, 0 and +2) combined to make a realistic image. And in your comment (inadvertently I think) you've raised an issue which I thought might have been discussed before now in a different context. Because the fact that it portrays the a dim scene completely unrealistically - if you went there you wouldn't see it anything like that. Which IMO - unless this is on the HDR article - is a negative rather than a plus. Furthermore I think you'll find that the tonemapping from to 8-bit has little or nothing to do with the quality - I suspect it's merely the HDR engine attempting to remove all black areas (as they tend to do) and in the process lifting the shadows aggressively. Perhaps Fcb could upload the longest exposure image he took to confirm/deny this as I asked earlier? The smudging in the edit is solely to do with (fairly poor) noise reduction - the original suffers from noise and artefacting rather than the smudging of the edit (except in the RHS red highlighted area which looks really odd). True you can get high res images of trees and stuff, but that doesn't excuse the failings of these components - as I mentioned earlier even pure gradients like in the grasshopper image I linked need to be free of noise, artefacting etc (in short of high technical quality). The trees are part of the scene and must be judged as such. Cropping might remove some of this, but will destroy the composition. --Fir0002 11:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative, i supported this on Commons and i will here, too. I honestly can't see any of the problems mentioned by the opposers - the noise, which was a problem in the original is mostly gone in the edit. The grass in the foreground doesn't look very nice, i agree, but the crop in the edit makes the grass area less dominating. I like the composition a lot, and love the HDR/tone-mapping effect. --Aqwis 12:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose original and edit Looking at the article now and with the old image [2], I actually prefer the article with the old image. I think it's the fact that, in the thumbnail, there is more contrast in the dome itself than the new night shot. This by itself wouldn't be enough to get me to oppose the image (as Fcb981's image really is of much higher resolution and really does show more detail than the daytime shot), but the ghostly trees and lack of contrast between the outer column and the building do really kill it for me. Enuja (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a shame, as it's obviously taken a lot of work, but I can't see a version which doesn't look over-processed and artificial. At first, I thought this was only in the foliage, but I've just discovered that the dome is actually spotlit stone, not backlit glass as it first appeared... I love mapping but it's way too easy to go OTT with, and I'm afraid this is an example of exactly that. --mikaultalk 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Progression of World War Two

File:Ww2 allied axis.gif
Original
Reason
Crisp informative and shows the progression of the war very well
Proposed caption
World War II or the Second World War, often abbreviated as WWII or WW2, was a worldwide military conflict; the amalgamation of two separate conflicts, one beginning in Asia in 1937 as the Second Sino-Japanese War, and the other beginning in Europe in 1939 with the invasion of Poland. It is regarded as the historical successor to World War I.

This global conflict split a majority of the world's nations into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. Spanning much of the globe, World War II resulted in the deaths of over 70 million people, making it the deadliest conflict in human history.

World War II was the most widespread war in history, and countries involved mobilized more than 100 million military personnel. Total war erased the distinction between civil and military resources and saw the complete activation of a nation's economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities for the purposes of the war effort; nearly two-thirds of those killed in the war were civilians. For example, nearly 11 million of the civilian casualties were victims of the Holocaust, which was conducted by Nazi Germany, largely in Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union.

The conflict ended in an Allied victory. As a result, the United States and Soviet Union emerged as the world's two leading superpowers, setting the stage for the Cold War for the next 45 years. The United Nations was founded in the hopes of preventing another such conflict, and self determination gave rise to decolonization/independence movements in Asia and Africa, while Europe itself began traveling the road leading to integration

Articles this image appears in
Allies of World War II
Creator
Astrokey44 i think

Not promoted MER-C 02:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Alanya Panorama

Original
Full edit with girl
Edit 1
Reason
A great panorama that shows all the important elements of this city including: The Taurus mountains, the peninsula the city is on, the citadel in the foreground (important as Alanya has been a military stronghold), the busy tourist district and beaches. Awesome encyclopedic work and a great visual look.
Proposed caption
Alanya is a seaside resort in the Mediterranean region of Turkey. Because of its natural strategic position on a small peninsula into the Mediterranean Sea below the Taurus Mountains, Alanya has been a local stronghold for many Mediterranean based cultures, including the Ptolemaic, Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman Empires. The relatively moderate Mediterranean climate, natural attractions, and historic heritage makes Alanya a popular destination for tourists.
Articles this image appears in
Alanya, Geography of Turkey, Turkish riviera
Creator
User:Patrickneil
I would like to, only this panorama was taken so long ago, I've lost the original left and right most images, and only have the middle. I've been working from a Photoshop file, which I can send along if you think it will help get a better image. Regardless, I am happy with my image and proud to have it nominated; I understand the featured system on Wikipedia is simply a reward for technique.--Patrick Ѻ 23:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. FWIW, I love this. If you ever go back do be sure to shoot it again, maybe using the camera in portrait format to overcome the distortion which seems to be screwing up the stitch, and also to give a bit more foreground detail, which is noticably lacking. --mikaultalk 18:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The late careers of Gilbert and Sullivan in the Entr'acte.

Original 1
Original 2
Original 3
Reason
I'm doing this as a group because commons:Category:Entr'acte - which I uploaded in a day - has many images of this quality, and it seemed better to do it in small, themed groups than to nominate 20-something images individually. These are lovely drawings, but very rare nowadays as the magazine they're from was pretty much just for London theatricals and those with a strong interest in them. I'm batch-nominating for convenience - I think the quality is similar, so...
Proposed caption
Gilbert and Sullivan created fourteen comic operas, including H.M.S. Pinafore, The Pirates of Penzance, and The Mikado, many of which are still frequently performed today. However, events around their 1889 collaboration, The Gondoliers, led to an argument and a law suit dividing the two.

With the exception of their first opera, Richard D'Oyly Carte produced every Gilbert and Sullivan opera, and had even built the Savoy Theatre, just for productions of their shows. However, in 1890, W. S. Gilbert discovered that maintenance expenses for the the theatre, including a new £500 carpet for the front lobby of the theatre, were being charged to the partnership instead of borne by Carte. Gilbert had trained and briefly practised as a lawyer, and, knowing this was not appropriate, stormed into D'Oyly Carte's office to put this right.

The confrontation did not go well. Gilbert was furious, and, as reported in a letter from Helen D'Oyly Carte (Richard's wife and business partner), addressed Richard "in a way that I should not have thought you would have used to an offending menial." Things soon degraded, a legal hearing was held, and Arthur Sullivan supported Carte in the hearing, testifying that: there were outstanding legal expenses from a battle Gilbert had with Lillian Russell; and while there were some outstanding expenses, they were small. Gilbert, however, thought Sullivan had been manipulated and asked him to say he was mistaken. Sullivan refused, and, despite both desiring to reconcile, Gilbert felt it was a moral issue, and could not look past it.

Sullivan felt Gilbert was questioning his good faith, and in any event, Sullivan had other reasons to stay in Carte's good graces. Carte had put into motion plans to build a new opera house, Carte's Royal English Opera House to produce Sullivan's Ivanhoe. This was Sullivan's only grand opera, and it had a consecutive run of 155 performances - unheard of for a grand opera - but did not recoup the production expenses, and Carte had no opera ready to replace it. The opera house closed until André Messager's La Basoche was eventually prepared, and this alternated with Ivanhoe, but two operas were not enough to make the company viable: it failed in early 1892.

While Sullivan was busy with grand opera, the Savoy Theatre put on a show by Edward Solomon called The Nautch Girl, which proved reasonably successful. However, in 1891, Jessie Bond and Rutland Barrington, two of the starts of the Savoy and creators of many roles for Gilbert and Sullivan, took a leave of absence from the show, and went on a tour of the provinces, presenting a series of sketches by Barrington which Solomon set to music. Both returned for the end of Nautch Girl's run, but left the company thereafter, and only Barrington would return for the final two Gilbert and Sullivan operas.

Gilbert and Sullivan were finally reunited through the efforts of Tom Chappell, who published the sheet music to their operas. In 1893, they produced their penultimate collaboration, Utopia, Limited. Its large cast and multiple costume changes prevented it from being as successful as their previous operas, but it had a reasonable run, and the public were very glad to finally have Gilbert and Sullivan back together, as Alfred Bryan's cartoon for the Entr'acte expressed. However, after Utopia, it would be some time before they collaborated again, on The Grand Duke, and when that show proved a failure, the two would never collaborate again.

(By the way, the main source I checked with for this is Jane Stedman's W. S. Gilbert: A Classic Victorian and his Theatre, roughly pages 270-280. A few things came from elsewhere, but all those are dealt with in detail in the various articles already on Wikipedia. I don't think we cover the Carpet Quarrel in as much detail as we might, though, so there's probably some new information here.)

Articles this image appears in
Glad to See You Together: Gilbert and Sullivan, Utopia, Limited; Gilbert and Ivanhoe: Ivanhoe (opera), Bond and Barrington On the Road in 1891: Jessie Bond, Rutland Barrington.
Creator
Alfred Bryan

Weak Oppose Hate to say it but personally I don't see anything really special in these. I mean the technical quality is good but since there are 20 or so images which are very similar there is nothing in these examples which shine out to make them worthy of being FP. Sorry! --Fir0002 11:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As it seems likely this will be promoted even though it hasn't attracted a lot of votes, can I suggest that per the comments of a number of those that have supported that this is in someway promoted as a set. I don't object to one being promoted (or 'the set' promoted as one), in fact I'd probably support if I thought we had 'the best' one, but I can see little point in whacking twenty of these through FPC. (Also that caption is way too long!) --jjron (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Witholding support for now. (see below) I've been holding off until I made my mind up about the "featured set" idea, and I do now think it has to be a set. I was keen on a gallery-based article to house them all and elect one image to represent them on WP:FP. However, it may be difficult to avoid an AfD in this format, as gallery pages are discouraged per WP:NOT. An alternative is to use a list format like this, which I quite like. It completely avoids the gallery page stigma and allows a short caption for each image.
    Something like The Entr'acte (illustrations) would do as a page title. I did, having said that, set up Alfred Bryan (Illustrator) for this purpose, but it may be that the single source of the images warrants something more specific.
    Furthermore, it could be that these Featured sets need a new category of FP, or at least the representative thumb on the FP page should just say something like "part of a featured set" and link to the gallery/list page.
    Maybe this needs discussing elsewhere first, and it's possible that a re-nomination might be required once it was all set up. Either way, it all seems a bit premature to promote this and then scurry off and find a home for them. Note that there's an upcoming FPC which could probably do with its own volcanic eruptions page, so this isn't quite the ad hoc proposal it might seem. --mikaultalk 10:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know: grouping them all as a set in that way seems to ignore that they have vastly different content - One's cricket, one's a political cartoon, others are on G&S, etc. in favour of lumping by artist. Is the artist really the most notable thing about these? I mean, if this was a complete set of the drawings from the Entr'acte annuals for years 18XX-18YY, sure, but this is, in fact, a selection. Vanished user talk 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Entr'acte is the most notable connection between them. AFAIK there's little more than a stub's worth of info available on it, but we know enough about the context of each image to fill in the details. Why is "a selection" a bad thing, especially if it's a "best of"?--mikaultalk 18:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing wrong with a selection, but my entry criteria were very subjective: If I particularly liked it, or if I knew incidents or people were important to Victorian theatre, I chose it. Since this was one day's rifling through of the limited number of volumes available, it's quite possible that I missed things that should've been included due simply to lack of knowledge.
        • In other words, I'm a little uncomfortable being considered the arbiter of the best of the Entr'acte. Vanished user talk 22:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wouldn't worry too much about that. NASA is regularly farmed for what are – in someones opinion – FP candidate images. Oddly enough I was just wondering about compiling a list, like the Oz books one, of Hubble images, the page being amended (entries promoted/delisted) as & when via the FPC page. Maybe I'm missing something; it might prove a little more complicated than people are prepared to tolerate, for example. In any event there's nothing wrong with being selective! FWIW you seem to me to have pretty good taste :) --mikaultalk 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, what should I promote here? All three images? Or just one, in which case please specify the image to be promoted. MER-C 12:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that depends.. can you think of a way of promoting a featured set? It seems a popular enough idea but I don't believe there's a precedent for it. Then there's those upcoming volcano images.. Personally, I favour the featured set idea but suggest we select a 'key' image to represent all howevermany others on some yet-to-be-created page. If you promote all three, there are a dozen more of similar quality which deserve the same recognition, is all. --mikaultalk 14:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think all three can be promoted separately (honestly, for a nom that's received the bare minimum of support to be promoted, could that possibly be justified?). In my opinion one gets promoted as representative of the set as Mick suggests; the caption on the image page can be changed to link to the others and point out it was promoted as representative of the featured set or something like that (perhaps Adam could do that as he probably knows most about it). Which one? I'd say Original 3 which shows Gilbert and Sullivan and looks to be the most interesting. --jjron (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I might suggest: Why don't we put these on hold for now, go through the other Entr'acte pictures, then when we're done, we can discuss what to do. Vanished user talk 11:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on hold, or (better) withdraw and renominate once there's a proper home for them. As I said earlier, a list-formatted Entr'acte article would do, either for a featured set or to promote one or two of the very best examples from, or else they belong in disparate parts of the encyclopedia and the "set" idea is harder to gel. In any event, if a set is favoured, we'd better decide what a featured set is before that volcano nom comes along. --mikaultalk 15:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, this is turning out to be such a headache, and all because I wanted to share some neat stuff I found. Tell you what. Settle what to do among yourselves, then let me know. Vanished user talk 15:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to vote oppose if it will help move this along pending a renomination once all the issues are sorted out. It should really have been sorted before the nomination. I hate these things that sit unresolved at the bottom of the page for weeks and months getting nowhere. --jjron 08:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought they had been. Then people started making new suggestions for how to divide them up, and, frankly, turned this into such a headache that I find it impossible to know how to move on. So, unless someone makes a specific proposal for what to do with them, there's not a chance I'm going through this pointlessness again with a renom. But I would still be rather annoyed to have my research work rejected because noone could be bothered to decide how to deal with it. Vanished user talk 07:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it. Support -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I haven't seen any argument that these are of Featured Picture quality. Sure they're rare, and they are an interesting glimpse into a bygone era, but compared with other contemporaneous drawings, they are not top-drawer. Oscar (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I guess I'm butting in here, as I didn't participate in the original discussion, but could we close this nom with no consensus and renominate on an individual basis, clearly detailing the enc. relevance? For example, there is one that I believe, although a caricature, applies excellently to G. and S. reconciliating. Several others could apply to different actors (caricatures, after all, have their enc. and importance too) and maybe certain plays (or is it operas?). I never warmed to the idea of a featured set, esp. one of 20 images, as it implies a certain specialness that I'm not sure is there. From the looks of it, it doesn't really seem feasible either (at least not in this case). And as it turns out, this inert languishing here on FPC is more hassle than necessary IMO.--Malachirality (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original 3 I guess the best way out of this is to forget featured sets for now. As Adam pointed out, the only thing they have in common – the Entr'acte – is too obscure to base even a stub on, so they (technically) have no enc value as a set. They do have individual enc value and the third one here is a really good, slick illustration depicting a unique event (noticeably better than the first one, I think) and is representative of the quality of the others. Assuming earlier supporters agree (and waverers like me finally make their minds up ;o)) I think there may be consensus enough to promote this one. --mikaultalk 09:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Glad to See You Together.png MER-C 02:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


USP .45

Original
Reason
Very sharp and clear- basically IMO this is the best possible picture we could reasonably expect of this weapon, and it's under a free license! Ergo the FPC nom. It's a nice big shot of a deadly weapon, obviously machined to perfection with its sleek, modern composite materials and rubbery texturing.. pretty scary! (oh and if one of our masters could play with the white balance I think it could look a little better)
Proposed caption
H&K USP .45 Full Size with a Surefire X200A light attached via a Picatinny rail adaptor. The gun also has a Hogue rubber grip. The gun is equipped with Trijicon night sites and is surrounded by .45 caliber Hornady TAP (+P) jacketed hollow point rounds.
Articles this image appears in
Firearm, Heckler & Koch USP
Creator
User:Bobbfwed
It really can offend someone? Doublesupport!--Svetovid 17:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 02:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

five-seven

Original
Reason
Very sharp and clear- basically IMO this is the best possible picture we could reasonably expect of this weapon, and it's under a free license! Ergo the FPC nom. (same reason)
Proposed caption
Photo of a Five-seveN USG model. It also has attached a Surefire X200a light, and is surrounded by 5.7x28mm cartridges.
Articles this image appears in
FN Five-seven
Creator
User:Bobbfwed
  • Support as nominator ffroth 06:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, sharp and encylopaedic. --Aqwis 12:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose jpeg artifacty. de Bivort 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Prominent jpeg artefacts. -- Chris.B • talk 14:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Same as above. It doesn't illustrate the subject in a compelling way with the awkward background. Also, it could be argued that a picture of a gun will fail neutrality due to the issues surrounding gun ownership and the deaths caused by guns. There are some images that by themselves will provoke a reaction - a gun is one of them. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Will provoke a reaction" is an argument for featuring a picture, not against. A good picture should provoke a reaction. This is meant to be a comprehensive encyclopedia which means the subjects of some articles will bother some people. These articles should have FP-quality images whenever possible. The image is neutral if it accurately and fairly depicts its subject which this image does. --D. Monack | talk 14:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I indicate above - this process of selecting images to feature on the landing page is not part of creating an encyclopedia, it's part of the process of promoting Wikipedia. Arguments which relate to creating the contents of a comprehensive encyclopedia won't always relate to the Landing page of an online encyclopedia which is intended to promote certain aspects of that encyclopedia. It's a different thing. You are not creating an encylopedia by !voting for images to appear on the landing page, you are creating a marketing tool to promote certain favoured aspects of the encyclopedia. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have it totally wrong. Featured content is identified to certify wikipedia content as our best work, and to reward the contributors who make it happen. The main page thing is tacked on to the process. (though it wouldn't surprise me if content "featured" on the front page predates actual Featured Content) --ffroth 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • ffroth is right. This isn't a discussion about what should go on the front page but a decision about what is Wikipedia's best work. "Provokes a reaction" is a factor that should count in the image's favor. As an aside, if we were deciding what goes on the front page, I see no problem with this image. Is a picture of a gun lying on a table more disturbing than much of what goes in the "current events" section which right now, for example, includes a headline and photo of Cyclone Sidr which has killed at least 1,100 people. Anyone shocked by this image of a gun is probably too emotionally fragile to be perusing the Internet at all. --D. Monack | talk 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!

Nominations in this category are older than seven days and are soon to be closed. Votes will still be accepted until closing of the nomination.

Older nominations requiring additional input from voters

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

Closing procedure

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

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

When promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~ [[Category:Ended featured picture nominations]]
    • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
    Promoted Image:FILENAME.JPG
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the November archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  3. Add the image to Template:Announcements/New featured pages - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 10 are listed at all times
  4. Add the image to Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom
  5. Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
    Don't forget to update the count too.
  6. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian) - newest on bottom
    The caption should for a Wikipedian should read "Description at Article, by Photographer". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the photographer (or organization) does not have an article, use an external link. Additionally, the description is optional -- if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Photographer". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
  7. Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top
  8. Update the picture's tag, replacing {{FPC}} with {{FeaturedPicture |image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/image_name), and remove {{FPC}} from alternatives of the promoted image. If the alternatives were on Commons, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
  9. If an alternate version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
  10. Notify the nominator by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|Image:file_name.xxx}} on the nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}
  11. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|Image:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}

Nomination for delisting

Shortcut

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

For delisting, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis.

  • Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s.

Use the tool below to nominate for delisting.

  • Please use Keep, Delist, or Delist and Replace to summarise your opinion.

Arc Triomphe Replace

Original
Edit 1

It's a great image and all, but I just feel that the edit improves it quite a bit. See if other people agree...

Kept MER-C 04:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Newt

Eastern Newt, promoted version
Reason
A bit of a formality, really. I realise this is a recent promotion, but shorthly aftewards the photographer raised some issues with the colour balance of this, the promoted edit, leading to a lengthy discussion on the FPC talk page. The upshot is a pending re-submission with a compromise edit, so the current version needs to be delisted. For ref purposes, the image desciption talk page has all current uploaded versions.
Nominator
mikaultalk

Replaced with Image:Notophthalmus viridescensPCCA20040816-3983A.jpg MER-C 02:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended nominations

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

The Taj Mahal from the river side. (Samuel Bourne 1865).

Photograph of the Taj Mahal from the Yamuna river in Agra, taken by Samuel Bourne in 1865. Albumen print from wet collodion-on-glass negative. Original scanned version with blemishes.
Photograph of the Taj Mahal from the Yamuna river in Agra, taken by Samuel Bourne in 1865. Albumen print from wet collodion-on-glass negative. Cleaned up version, but compressed further.
Compare the river today (taken from another angle) and notice the "park" between the Taj and the river.
Edit 02. removed artifacts, converted to greyscale and saved with as least compression as possible.
Reason
Historic photograph of the Taj Mahal from an unusual angle. Samuel Bourne, one of the earliest photographers of British India, lived and photographed widely in India from 1863 to 1869. Along with Charles Shepherd, one of the pioneers of albumin printing, he founded the Bourne and Shephard studios in Simla, Calcutta, and Bombay. The studios continues to operate in Calcutta (Kolkata) today. Note that the river today does not flow as close to the Taj; from this angle today all you will see is the grass and sand of a "park." (See third photo, for comparison.) (See: Sampson, Gary D. 2000. "Photographer of the Picturesque: Samuel Bourne," in Vidya Deheja (ed.), India through the Lens. Photography 1840-1911. Washington, D. C., Smithsonian Institution, pp. 163-197. Also, Gordon, Sophie. 2000. The Imperial Gaze. The Photography of Samuel Bourne (1863-1870). New York, Sepia International.)
Articles this image appears in
potentially India and Taj Mahal
Creator
Samuel Bourne
  • Support as nominator — Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Weak Support One of the precious and historical photographs. Low Resolution should not be considered as factor due to historical significance as per Point 2 of Featured pictures criteria. I will prefer copyright issues to be resolved without any ambiguity. Collect Britain web page give hints that it could be copyrighted--Indianstar 03:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This may need to be sorted out at the Wikipedia Powers-that-be Level. See discussion here for similar problems at Getty Museum I don't know if the Morven there is the Morven of Wikipedia, but I'll ask him. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awful photograph! But they say it is copyrighted. Bad that a photo 147 years old should still be copyrighted. How did you remove that copyright tag? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.91.253.39 (talk • contribs). at 03:04, 4 June 2007
I downloaded it in November 2005, when there was no British Library tag on it! I don't think they are copyrighted. All they have done is to scan a Bourne image. In 2006, I wrote to BL asking them if I could put the picture on Wikipedia, but they never replied. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS I can't imagine it could be copyrighted, since there were many prints made and sold by Bourne and Shephard Studios in the 19th century, and the British Library has only one of those prints (from which it made the scans). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realize that in cleaning up the picture, I compressed it further. I have now included the original scanned version with the orginal marks and blemishes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super strong SUPPORT: It is an excellent detailed picture of the historical Taj Mahal (one of the seven wonders of the world). Also, instead of the usual front view of the architectural structure, it shows a different yet equally amazing view of the marvelous building. Also, in terms of imagery, it has a good resolution and everything else. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 16:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What wonders would that be?--Svetovid 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by your comment? Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He probably was noting that the Taj Mahal is not one of the definitive seven wonders of the ancient world: the Pyramid of Giza, Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Temple of Artemis, Statue of Zeus, tomb of Mausolus, Colossus of Rhodes, and Lighthouse of Alexandria. J Are you green? 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not one of the seven ancient wonders (and it can't be one either because it was built around the sixteenth century, which is way after what ancient is), but it is one of the seven tourist travel wonders of the world. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 11:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't heard that one, but I doubt a difinitive list of ultimate tourist destinations exists, and if it does, my guess is that it's a gimmick. J Are you green? 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - cant see anything special in this photograph except that its claimed to be very old. And the 'historic' pitch is moot because this photo doesnt show anything about the Taj that we cant see today. Sarvagnya 22:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What is special about this picture is that it shows a different yet equally beautiful view of the Taj, one that is different from the normal cliched one. Also, in this view, the picture is taken from a distance which also reveals the beauty of the nature (e.g. the river, soil, etc.) around the Taj while still succeeding in maintaining the focus on the Taj. Also, its historical value should be appreciated. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 12:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose *weak supportprobably a low quality digitization of the original, and actual building hasn't been destroyed, damaged or changed much since this photograph was taken Bleh999 00:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote to weak support of edit .02 in light of the information about the river, also I removed the color image of the taj mahal, because it's not a fair comparisonBleh999 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The river doesn't flow as close to the Taj any more. From this angle today, all you will see is the grass and sand of a "park." See third photograph above for comparison. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An unnecessarily poor version of a beautiful photograph. At first I thought the worst of it was the fogged upper half of the original print, but the scan is just too small to proprly appreciate the image in almost any respect. You get an idea of the exquisite detail of the original print here, where the "zoom" facility lets you see a small portion at a time of what appears to be the print at 100%. Stunning. The below-par submission here should not be promoted without a proper attempt to acquire a better scan. mikaultalk 10:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until a better version is uploaded. I'd be happy to attempt to contact the source and get hold of it, assuming no-one has recently done so of course. mikaultalk 10:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent, fingers crossed, chances fat :/ mikaultalk 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just received a reply promising a decision by next Tuesday. mikaultalk 22:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Have my fingers crossed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So...did you hear back? Jumping cheese 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mick Stephenson did hear from them. He is currently talking to the BL people to work some kind of an arrangement for the image. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of arrangement? Mike is not gonna have to pay for them to scan a high res copy is he? The license seems alright, so I'm assuming you don't need permission to use a high res version. Jumping cheese 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Neutral about the candidacy, but the OR about the changing distance between Yamuna and the Taj Mahal doesn't make much sense given the overwhelming temporal non-uniformness of precipitation in the Indian subcontinent -- On an average 90-odd days of flood and practically no rain for the remaining 275 days in the year. If you go there often in different seasons, you'll know that the "distance" depends upon the time of the year. A good rain for a couple of days, that the river comes all the way on the Taj. deeptrivia (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose The quality of the picture (both the photograph and this version) is just not good enough. Sure it's old, and what can you expect, but I don't think this should be featured. Althepal 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose low res scan of old picture does not make a featured picture. Stefan 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are waiting for the high res version. See Mick Stephenson's (Mikaul) post above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In all fairness, I think we've waited long enough and I think this nom ought to be closed. Mikaul should re-nom it if and whewhen he is able to get permission for the hi res version. Sarvagnya 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that, assuming the original nominator is too. I had hoped to have a result by now, but these things seem to take time :o/ mikaultalk 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not OK with it. Mick Stephenson (Mikaul), a professional photographer, has made a big effort to talk to the people at British Library. There is no reason why we can't wait, since Mick's chances of success are quite good, and his effort promises other bounties for Wikipedia. Besides the wait doesn't involve any active effort on anyone else's part. Mick can certainly take over as the nominator when the high res image arrives, but I'd prefer to have the history of the nomination in one place rather than two. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this should be closed, anyway we have this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sambourneagra1860s.jpg on commons, which is a much higher resolution and better photo of the Taj Mahal by Samuel Bourne even if it doesn't show the river, the related problem is that this image doesn't even appear in any articles Bleh999 07:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment: The reason why it hadn't been added to the Taj Mahal page and the Samuel Bourne page is that I was waiting for the better version from Mick. I have now added the image to both pages. As for the other image, the reason why we are waiting for Mick to get the high-res version is that it is much better (both in composition and resolution) than the image you mention above. I wonder if Mick has any comments. Did you hear anything else from BL, Mick? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to prejudice anything, but the British Library have made noises to the effect that they might be "interested in working with Wikipedia" with regard to some of their photographic collection(s). Release of a high-res version of the Bourne image, which was my original line of inquiry, is kind of tied up in these negotiations, which in turn have been hampered somewhat by the BL's need to do things by conventional mail. I'm still on the case, as it were, and optimistic though I am, it will probably take a while longer before I can shed any light on the Bourne image. If/when we get a suitable license, I'm hopeful it will open up access to more quality historical images, so it's kind of worth being patient a little while longer. mikaultalk 09:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Digital images and snail mail! Now there's a new one, but par for the course for libraries, who (it seems) have been dragged kicking and screaming into internet age. Thanks for pursuing this, Mick. I know it is slow and frustrating work, but as you said yourself somewhere, the payoff could be substantial. As for this nomination, I'm happy to wait; if, however, at any time in the future, you feel that the nomination is "stuck" and it is time to pull the plug, please let us know. You are pretty much calling the shots on this. Thanks again, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In short: this is not WP's best. Puddyglum 18:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why are we using an old black and white from the 1800s? Isn't the Taj Mahal still standing? --ffroth 19:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the nom, and the additional image uploaded to illustrate. The river no longer runs alongside. I actually think it has wider enc value, but it looks as if it'll have to wait until a future nomination anyway. I'm still hopeful of a high res version but if nothing transpires by the end of next week I'm going to suggest a close on this one, it's been around way too long. --mikaultalk 19:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw the nomination Since I heard from Mick Stephenson that the British Library is not coming through on this, in spite of his more than a dozen attempts (see here), I am now formally withdrawing the nomination. I am sure other lovers of the Bourne image will agree that Mick has done a stalwart job and deserves our collective thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=172217189"