Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/April-2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MattWade (talk | contribs) at 02:03, 8 April 2009 (+2 promoted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured picture tools

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

Older Archive
Miscellaneous Archive
2004: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2025: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


Macroxiphus sp cricket

Original - A 4mm Macroxiphus sp. katydid nymph mimics an ant to ward off predators. Pictured in Dar es Salaam. Tanzania
Reason
Looks like an ant? Look again. A 4mm katydid mimicking an ant, because ants are of the most feared insects. Good quality and EV. For such a small subject, DOF is also quite good.
Articles this image appears in
Mimicry, Tettigoniidae, Macroxiphus
Creator
Muhammad

Subject is small in the image, but image is of high quality and while DOF is an issue, head and thorax (and hind legs) are almost entirely in focus. Supports offer good arguments. Consensus is nearly met (depending on how you define "weak" in numbers). Therefore: Promoted Image:Macroxiphus sp cricket.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Horseshoes, Yuma

Original - Horseshoe pitching contest at the annual field day of the FSA farmworkers community, Yuma, Arizona (1942)
Not for voting - Unrestored original
Reason
The young boys' eyes captivated me. And also: encyclopedic picture of a game of horseshoes at a field day in Yuma, Arizona in 1942. And no, the horizon is not straight. I'm assuming that Russell Lee knew what he was doing when he shot this for the FSA. Restoration included dust and scratchs and dealing with a particularly nastily faded original.
Articles this image appears in
Horseshoes, Field day
Creator
Russell Lee, photographer. Restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

No consensus. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 06:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Scott Monument, Edinburgh

Original - The Scott Monument, Edinburgh, as seen from the first level.
Reason
Fulfils criteria for featured picture; shows high level of detail; is interesting; is aesthetically pleasing
Articles this image appears in
Edinburgh, Scott Monument
Creator
George Gastin

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 06:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Frances Densmore recording Mountain Chief

Original - Frances Densmore at the Smithsonian Institution in 1916 during a recording session with Blackfoot chief Mountain Chief for the Bureau of American Ethnology.
Not for voting - Unrestored image for comparison.
Reason
Quite encyclopedic image of ethnographer Frances Densmore in the actual process of preserving Native American language and culture. The picture shows Densmore with Mountain Chief, a Blackfoot chief she was recording for the Bureau of American Ethnology.
Articles this image appears in
Blackfoot, Frances Densmore, Bureau of American Ethnology, Ethnomusicology
Creator
Unknown photographer, part of the Library of Congress' National Photo Company Collection. Restored by Michel Vuijlsteke
Google to the rescue[1]! I came across the picture completely by accident on the Library of Congress site, but apparently, in the words of National Geographic[2]:
This 1916 image of Frances Densmore and Blackfoot leader Mountain Chief listening to a cylinder recording has become a symbol of the early songcatcher era.
He's most probably not listening, of course: Densmore is recording onto a wax cylinder. The picture was published in Mickey Hart, K.M. Kostyal, Songcatchers: In Search of the World's Music, National Geographic, 2003 (ISBN 079224107X). Weird restoration on the NG site, by the way. :D -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except this now raises an issue with accuracy - see Criterion 6. NatGeo are saying they're listening, the image page description, presumably generated from the LoC notes, are saying they're recording. I've had issues with the accuracy of LoC information before (see the recent Heckler nom below for one example), and would be inclined to believe NatGeo. Is there a way to distinguish whether this is a recording or listening device (and how much does that then verge on OR)? --jjron (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was wrong. But neither LoC nor NatGeo are wrong: Densmore was most probably "recording Mountain Chief", i.e. Mountain Chief was there to be recorded, had been recorded or was about to be recorded (the date of the photo coincides with recordings of Mountain Chief[3]). This picture however is not of a recording: the listening horn is on the device.
This photo, taken in Washington, D.C., reflects the special aims and conditions not of the "oral poetry act" but rather of what might be called the "photography act." For the benefit of the photographer and posterity, Mountain Chief has donned his ceremonial native dress (his own?). At his side are emblems of the vanishing Native American culture that Densmore was doing her best to document. The collector adopts a non-assuming pose, eyes lowered on the machine. Mountain Chief gestures as if declaiming, although any sound that he is uttering at this moment would not be registered, for he is seated before the listening horn of the machine, not the recording horn. [4]
-- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realise it's a different picture? Admittedly the device looks to be the same, but accuracy and EV are sliding IMO. And shouldn't captions and image page be changed if it's not a recording? (Not to mention filename, etc). --jjron (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's overstating the case a bit. It's a series of pictures taken on the same day. I found at least one picture in the series (this one) where Densmore has her eyes lowered on the machine, but at least one other (the one in the link above) doesn't. Some have Mountain Chief gesturing (cf. link above), some don't (cf. this image). I can't rename the picture, but I've modified the caption. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not overstating anything. I don't know how you know that these images were taken on the same day - I can see no date associated with the one at [5], certainly the background is completely different, the chair the chief is on is different, and while that image is pretty low res, either his pants are different or he's got something hanging over his knee, and Densmore's hair also looks to be different. Regardless, there seems to be a lot of guessing going on here from all parties. You even accidentally misquoted the image caption from the above link which in fact says "...Mountain Chief has donned ceremonial dress (his own, or someone else's?)..." - so even that caption is guessing at what's going on, and they're unsure whether the ceremonial dress is genuine, i.e., it might not even be his. BTW you can get files renamed I believe, or upload under a new name and request a deletion. --jjron (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urgh. I really should check things before I reply. I was wrong (again), but the sources can be reconciled, and both the proposed caption and the original reason is correct. You can't be a 100% sure, I agree. But then again, you can't be sure of *anything*. Al you can go by is the sources. Here's a couple of different versions of the images I found:
    1. LoC: "Piegan Indian, Mountain Chief, having his voice recorded by ethnologist Frances Densmore", dated "1916" [6] (scanned photographic print) and "Blackfoot Chief, Mountain Chief making phonographic record at Smithsonian, 2/9/1916" [7] (scanned glass negative)
    2. LoC: "Frances Densmore using wax cylinder phonograph to record Mountain Chief, a Blackfoot Indian", dated "1916" [8]. Location is different: stone wall and stairs in background instead of dark cloth screen. Densmore is dressed the same but looks dark-haired, not gray; Mountain Chief is dressed differently.
    3. Niles, Homo Narrans, 1999: "Frances Densmore, collector, with Mountain Chief of the Blackfoot Tribe, 1906. [...] donned ceremonial dress (his own, or someone else's?)" [9]. Dated 1906 in caption. Probably same session but slightly different from (2): same paraphernalia in front of Mountain Chief but Densmore looks up, not down. (Note that the missing "or someone else's" in my quotation above was not an accidental misquote: I didn't feel like retyping everything and copy-pasted from [10])
    4. NatGeo: "This 1916 image of Frances Densmore and Blackfoot leader Mountain Chief listening to a cylinder recording has become a symbol of the early songcatcher era." [11] = retouched version of (1)
    5. Smithsonian: CD cover, "Healing Songs of the American Indian" [12] = cropped version of (2)
    6. Nettl and Bohlman, Comparative Musicology and Anthropology of Music, 1991: "Frances Densmore, ethnomudicologist, with Mountain Chief, a Blackfoot Indian, who is interpreting in sign language a song being played on a phonograph" [13] = version of (3), but dated 1916
    7. Becker, Selling tradition, 1998: "Ethnomusicologist Frances Densmore and Mountain Chief of the Blackfoot tribe listen to a cylinder recording in 1906. [...] This photograph was taken outside the Smithsonian in Washington." [14] = version of (3)
    8. Adolf Hungry-Wolf, The Blackfoot Papers: "Mountain Chief, having some of his songs recorded on wax cylinders [...] during a visit he made to Washington, D.C. around 1915. He has on his intertribal outfit, with Sioux headdress and fringed backskin suit" [15] dated around 1915 = version of (1)
There are more sources on Google Book Search. With a heavy dose of Occam's razor: there were two photo sessions, one in 1906 (at least once misreported as 1916) and one ca. 1916 (sources say 1914, ca. 1915, 1916). Both were staged. The sources seem to agree that Mountain Chief is not in the process of being recorded but rather listening, in both photos. Mountain Chief was however recorded by Frances Densmore: all sources agree that he was. The more recent photo (1) is dated quite precisely "2/9/1916" at the LoC; there is a recording of Mountain Chief dated quite precisely 2/16/1916 [16].
Conclusions? This picture is beyond any reasonable doubt a picture of Frances Densmore and Mountain Chief. According to the sources, the picture was taken in February 1916; Frances Densmore recorded Mountain Chief; recordings of Mountain Chief in February 1916 survive. "Frances Densmore recording Mountain Chief" is a reasonable image name; "Frances Densmore at the Smithsonian Institution in 1916 where she was recording Blackfoot chief Mountain Chief for the Bureau of American Ethnology. In this picture, Mountain Chief is listening to a recording." is a reasonable image caption. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation about the caption is legitimate, but easily solved by making the caption more vague. I also quoted both captions at the Commons image page. When two very trustworthy sources disagree, might as well just make it vague because Wikipedians can't determine which is right. Otherwise, this is has obvious support. Promoted Image:Frances Densmore recording Mountain Chief2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 19:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. There's a fine solution for lack of EV - just make the supposed information in captions etc vaguer! :-) --jjron (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photo shows a RECORDING session. If nothing else, the recording attachment (special arm and horn) clearly visible proves it. The tonearm and horn for listening on this type of machine look very different. We can even determine the exact moment of the photo shoot: Densmore has just started the machine and is lowering the recorder onto the blank wax - during actual recording OR playback her hand would have not been touching the tonearm! - and Mountain Chief is visibly concentrating, ready to launch his song or speech as soon as she gives the sign that the phonograph is running.

Here's a period illustration (from the original user's manual of the Edison machine) showing the _recording_ arm and horn: https://www.technogallerie.com/wp-content/uploads/1a-23.jpg

and here's a photo of Densmore's machine set up for playback. Note how the much larger playback horn sits on top of the back bracket, and there is an angled tonearm with the reproducer hanging vertically over the cylinder, while the recorder is placed at an oblique angle with the horn directly protruding from it. https://scontent.flej1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/307684032_1148534619202358_3479030545063488219_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=ntMGnpdaDr8AX8VQ7EH&_nc_oc=AQknQRQNgEshUbqauJN95IgPwkl8yZq0n_2Zb4tZZKNG9DEYrF4xRp6xucMehMRFYLQ&_nc_ht=scontent.flej1-1.fna&oh=00_AT9GcCAdPiPjj3aGjC36HYm1pn6PkI0xMCSdodUGy4Za-A&oe=6332B7A7

One obvious nonsense in the Smithsonian description is of course that he "interprets a song in Plains Indian sign language". One could record SIGN LANGUAGE on a movie camera I suppose, but we have an AUDIO recording session here so he must be reciting or singing. At any rate, "interpreting" is clearly not used in the sense of "translating" or "explaining", but means "performing" (like a pianist "interprets" a Chopin piece by playing it, and an actor "interprets" a role by speaking the words. 91.65.175.94 (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Dresden

Original - Image of Dresden, Germany during the 1890s before World War II damage.
Reason
The German Wikimedia chapter made an announcement yesterday that the University of Dresden library has agreed to release 250,000 images from its collection directly to Wikimedia Commons. This restoration is a way of saying thank you: a high resolution view of the city before very extensive damage during World War II. Here's hoping it passes the exacting standards of FPC. Restored version of Image:Dresden photochrom.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
Bombing of Dresden in World War II, Dresden
Creator
Detroit Publishing Co.

Promoted Image:Dresden photochrom2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 20:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Toronto panorama

Original - 360-degree panorama of Toronto, Canada, as seen from the CN Tower, altitude 447 m (1,465 ft).
Reason
High-quality panorama.
Articles this image appears in
Toronto
Creator
Sunshine87

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 20:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Hftj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.9.125 (65luhtalk) 05:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

=Funny smiley

Original - Hilarious smiley
Reason
Um, it's just hilarious.
Articles this imas in
User:Majorly etc
Creator
I don't think sockpuppets are eligible for voting... --ZooFari, today's top vandal. (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can't add sillyness into articles. This is just a fun clip art used for User pages and other non-article stuff. If icons were elegible though, half of the ones in Commons would be FP. --ZooFari, today's top vandal. (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This guy's got yellow fever. I will support a healthy version --Muhammad(talk) 04:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refreshingly strong support Let's not be quite so serious here guys. It's a fun image and also there's bound to some articles on smileys, cyber culture, memes etc. to which it could contribute.

April Fools! Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been funnier if you closed as promote. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 02:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O

.

Chewing Gum

Original - A piece of crushed gum. Note the hard coating and soft interior. Place your nose close enough to your computer screen and you will smell its minty freshness
Edit 1 - Removed dust and scratches, removed grain from background. Selective sharpening.
Edit 2 - Downsampled to 10x6 to improve sharpness, (then upsampled again as was too small to be visible)
Alt 1
Reason
Ultra high quality, really tasty, the composition bests the like of Ansel Adams
Articles this image appears in
Chewing Gum
Creator
Noodle snacks
It's Kermit does Kansas. Mfield (Oi!) 02:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Comment. Needs size reference. I also suggest inverting, or possibly uploading the back of this photograph. Spikebrennan (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support if it lacks Miss Piggy. Can anybody identify her? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 03:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She's there alright, it's a positional (and thus compositional) thing. Maybe it could be reshot from a different angle at which point we could delist and replace. Mfield (Oi!) 03:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice B&W restoration. Think you may have got a bit carried away with the clone tool though. Mfield (Oi!) 04:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools! Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 02:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



$100,000 bill

Original - Woodrow Wilson, arguably our most boring president EVA!
Reason
The economy's hurting everyone and featuring this image will allow us to remember when it was worth something.
Articles this image appears in
give it time
Creator
Woodrow Wilson's parents (bow-chicka-wow-wow!)

April Fools! Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 02:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Riveting team

Original - Man and woman riveting team working on the cockpit shell of a C-47 transport at the plant of North American Aviation. Office of War Information photo by Alfred T. Palmer, 1942.
Reason
Riveting team working on the cockpit shell of a C-47 transport at the plant of North American Aviation, Inc., Inglewood, California. Office of War Information photo (1942) by Alfred T. Palmer. Encyclopedic and arresting.
Articles this image appears in
Rivet (to ilustrate process needing two people), Rosie the Riveter (as an accent image for the "unequal pay" line), United States Office of War Information, United States home front during World War II
Creator
Alfred T. Palmer, photographer.

Not promoted MER-C 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Eupeodes corollae

Original - A male hoverfly of the Eupeodes corollae species. Male hoverflies are easily recognized by the holoptic eyes, touching at the top of the head. This species is very common in Europe, where it has been used experimentally to control the population of aphids. Though adults are vegetarian, feeding on pollen, larvae feed on aphids.
Reason
high quality depiction of a common species showing characteristic feature of males
Articles this image appears in
Eupeodes corollae, Eupeodes
Creator
Alvesgaspar (talk)

Promoted File:Hoverfly January 2008-6.jpg MER-C 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Feijoa sellowiana Flower

Original - Feijoa sellowiana Flower in Tasmania, Australia
Edit - Also completely not blown, but did some highlight reduction in some areas
Reason
Clear, detailed, sharp, isolated subject
Articles this image appears in
Feijoa
Creator
Noodle snacks

Promoted File:Feijoa sellowiana edit.jpg MER-C 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Pig's Ear

Original - Pig's Ear Flower (Cotyledon orbiculata)
Reason
High quality image of a fairly small flower.
Articles this image appears in
Cotyledon orbiculata, Crassulaceae, Cotyledon (plant)
Creator
Noodle snacks

Promoted File:Cotyledon orbiculata 3.jpg MER-C 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Little trout bay, Lake superior, at sunrise

Original - A view over Little trout bay, Lake Superior, Ontario
Reason
I think it's a beautiful image, meeting the criteria
Articles this image appears in
Little trout bay
Creator
Chzz


Not promoted MER-C 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Araucaria seeds

Original - Araucaria seeds
Reason
It is a good image of araucaria seeds, and I noticed none were present at the Araucaria page. Also, the image quality is good and eye-catching, IMO.
Articles this image appears in
Araucaria
Creator
rodrigomorante

Not promoted MER-C 01:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Saint Irene, Istanbul

Original - Hagia Irene in Istanbul (late 19th century)
Reason
High resolution encyclopedic picture of the first Christian church built in Constantinople. More recent pictures have more trees and, erm, stuff around the church and don't give as clear a view of the building.
Articles this image appears in
Constantine I and Christianity, Hagia Eirene
Creator
Sébah & Joaillier, photographers. Restored by Michel Vuijlsteke.

Not promoted MER-C 01:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Asilidae Stichopogon sp.

Original - A 4mm long Stichopogon sp, Robber fly. Pictured in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Edit alt Highlights recovered and exposure decreased. Edit of File:Asilidae Stichopogon sp2.jpg
Reason
Good quality, composition and EV. The fly was only 4mm long.
Articles this image appears in
Asilidae, Stichopogon, Dasypogoninae
Creator
Muhammad

No consensus. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 02:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Jelly Bean Plant

Original - Jelly Bean Plant (Sedum rubrotinctum)
Reason
Has enc for both the species and houseplants. This species reproduces by dropping jellybean's which form clones, which is quite interesting.
Articles this image appears in
Sedum rubrotinctum, Houseplant
Creator
Noodle snacks

Promoted Image:Sedum rubrotinctum.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Karnac

Original - Karnak, as it appeared in 1838. From a tinted lithograph by Louis Hahge, 1806-1885. Restored from File:Karnacs.jpg.
Reason
Wikipedia ought to feature dozens of scenes from ancient Egypt. Not everything important is available in high resolution format yet; here we have a start: the ruins at Karnac, as recorded in 1838. Very high resolution file; smaller courtesy copy available at File:Karnacs2 couresy copy.jpg. Unrestored version at File:Karnacs.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
Karnak
Creator
Louis Hahge (1806-1885)

Promoted Image:Karnacs2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Worker at carbon black plant

Original - Worker at a carbon black plant in Sunray, Texas, United States
Reason
Iconic image, and if it isn't it should be. A worker in a carbon black plant in Sunray, Texas (dated 1942).
Articles this image appears in
Carbon (illustrating "precautions", which talks about working in/with carbon black), Sunray, Texas, Carbon black, John Vachon
Creator
John Vachon
  • Agree with you, Makeemlighter, this has artistic value but it's not illustrating the articles. The picture hints at possibly harsh working conditions and long-term damage, but that isn't the subject of the articles it is in. Maedin\talk 17:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 07:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Nazi campaign poster

File:Vote number 1b.jpg
Original - Political poster for the November 1932 Reichstag election. "Das Volk wählt Liste 1 Nationalsozialisten Reichstagswahl." Translation: "The people are voting for list 1, the Nazis, at the Reischstag election."
Reason
Possibly the most offensive featured content candidate we could run, but highly encyclopedic. Restored version of File:Vote number 1.jpg. Uploaded locally (where admins tend to be draconian about deleting images that aren't used in article space); will supply a smaller courtesy version upon request.
Articles this image appears in
Nazi Party, Early timeline of Nazism, Adolf Hitler's rise to power
Creator
Rehse-Archiv für Zeitgeschichte und Publizistik
There is a Nazi symbol - the digit 1 is standing on top of a swastika. File:Nazi Swastika.svg —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's there, but it could be used much more distastefully. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 04:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an image is offensive to you personally doesn't make it any less historically important or of any lower quality. We cannot let personal feelings inform our opinions on whether this is a significant, quality image - The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wadester doesn't seem to be calling it personally offensive, or opposing it. Fwiw what bothers me more than many other Nazi images is that it actually is a technically meritorious example of graphic design. It puts a public face on a repulsive bit of history and almost makes it palatable. The Nazis were media-savvy (they had to be good at something in order to rise to power), and this is an example of why not to place uncritical trust a well-packaged media appeal. DurovaCharge! 04:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some possible shortcomings of the original file. The circles might make it a little hard to see the white stripes; if so look at the indicated areas in the original.
Actually, upon a closer look I decided to hold my support for the moment. The top of the "1" and the a few parts of the swastika have some pretty annoying white stripes (see image to the left). Are they the result of the restoration process? If so, I think it would be better if they were removed. Diego_pmc Talk 22:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No white stripes were visible on my monitor at 100% resolution. What resolution did you see stripes? And what orientation did the stripes have? The original artwork did have some uneven patches in black on the number, most of which appeared to have been segments where black ink had been applied slightly unevenly. If that isn't what you're referring to (and it doesn't seem to be) then I'm a little confused; maybe it's a monitor issue? DurovaCharge! 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My resolution is 1280x1024. I don't know if they are more obvious because of my monitor, but I can see them quite clearly. But they're surely from the image, they're not the type of things that could result from a misconfiguration of the monitor. They're more like patches of color that are wither than the rest of the color around them, not stripes. It's most visible in the lower corner of the arm of the swastika from center of the image (the one closest to the viewer). Diego_pmc Talk 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean less black? That might be the uneven ink distribution. I'll get to work on that. :) DurovaCharge! 23:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They do appear to be in the original, if not so obvious - they appear to be small wrinkles in the paper combined with some printing artefacts. I'm kind of neutral about this restoration, though: I'd kind of prefer a little more of the original's lightly-aged paper tone, rather than pure white. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suspended pending this. MER-C 08:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great EV. — neuro(talk)(review) 04:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose adds little to the articles it's present in in terms of illuminating the text, "list 1" mentioned in the caption isn't mentioned anywhere in any of the articles and the the large "1" is the main focus of the poster's design. Guest9999 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • List 1 refers to the placement of the party's candidates on a ballot. Ballot format itself is rarely important enough to discuss in article text, unless it's the Palm Beach County, Florida butterfly ballot of the 2000 elections. What this image demonstrates is part of how the Nazis gained power: by presenting a simple mnemonic in a visually compelling manner to make it as easy as possible for voters to remember and support them. DurovaCharge! 20:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That does not appear to be discussed in the articles either, if it was and this poster was shown to be a good example of the phenomenon I would probably support. Sorry for the list 1 confusion I think I misread "at" as "and". Guest9999 (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it verges on OR to express that much. With most campaign posters relevance is implied in an article that discusses an election or a political career (two posters from the US presidential election of 1864 are recent examples). At Adolf Hitler's rise to power this replaced a fair use image that had been stable at the article for some time. DurovaCharge! 22:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very interesting, small issues as seen above, but overall positive Kennedy (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have uploaded proposed changes over the existing file. Although it's possible to go even farther, there's a line to be drawn between restoring old graphic art and improving upon the original. It really wouldn't be right to make Nazi propaganda look better than it actually was. DurovaCharge! 22:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsuspended. Returning to nomination list for a quick check that nothing went wrong. :) MER-C 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Vote number 1b.jpg MER-C 07:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Steroidogenesis

Original (.png) - Enzymes, their cellular location, substrates and products in human steroidogenesis, including synthesis of testosterone, estrogen, progesterone and cortisol.
Reason
Large, lots of important information, useful in multiple important articles. The colors make it look less boring than depictions in black-and-white, if not to say even beautiful.
Articles this image appears in
svg-version - borders added to boxes were missing and expanded explanation added to description pages.
Creator
User:Slashme and User:Mikael Häggström
MediaWiki renders svg-images imperfectly, requiring them to first be converted to a raster format to avoid ugly flaws. Because this version looks better in Wikipedia, I nominated it. Perhaps both versions should be nominated, but I'm not sure that's allowed. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I am qualified to vote for the image, so I abstain. --Muhammad(talk) 18:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - For now. Being in so many articles it is certainly useful, but I'm not able to assess if it deserves FP status. For example, the meaning of the labels is not clear. In the box, it refers to cellular location, but in the figure it appears to indicate some kind of transformation (green) or enzime (red). The type of the colored areas (some of them with a border line, other without) isn't clear either. Let's wait for further opinions and enlightment -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enzymes have both a cellular localization (e.g. mitochindria or endoplasmic reticulum) as well as a function. I'm not sure, however, that it needs to be specifically stated. As to borders, there is no strict border between e.g. glucocorticoids (green area) and mineralocorticoids (purple area), since they partly overlap. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - on comparison of the two versions I don't see any encyclopaedic inaccuracies in the SVG render, only a couple of sub-10px-difference text aligment issues. When we actually have a very good SVG already uploaded, not having to find someone to create one, I can't support the PNG. If the SVG was nominated, you'd have my support, as all other criteria are completely satisfied. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the svg version. The small changes made to it can be made to the next png-derivative later, when we now there are no more changes to be made for now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the addition of the SVG version and a few corrections to it, I change my vote to Support SVG. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as original contributor: I created the black-and-white diagram, and I feel that it's greatly improved by the addition of colour: not only does it make the diagram clearer, but it illustrates the overlap between the functions of the illustrated steroids. I'd also like to note that this is a great example of the multiple-authorship model of Wikipedia! --Slashme (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! I made a little gallery on the image page, giving a brief flashback of the evolution of the image. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very nice and hugely useful. Another good svg. |→ Spaully₪† 23:57, 31 March 2009 (GMT)
  • Nice. I suggest to rotate the enzyme names 180 degrees so they read in the same orientation as the "Androgens (19 corbons)" and "Estrogens (21 carbons)" labels at the left. Less strain people's necks :-) . --İnfoCan (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing it! I corrected it, but I found it was better to turn the "Androgens" and "Estrogens" instead, avoiding having to read from bottom to top. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted File:Steroidogenesis.svg MER-C 07:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Boeing Chinook, Birmingham, UK

Original - A Boeing Chinook of the RAF taking off during a cadet training exercise at a school in Birmingham
Reason
This image was taken during a cadet training exercise at a school in Birmingham. I think it is compositionally very unique and pleasing: the featureless expanse of grass counterpoints the helicopter quite dramatically, and the line of trees draws the eye upwards. The bright sky outlines the helicopter well and also makes visible the dirt and grass blown out by the downdraft. On a more practical note, I notice that the Wikipedia page on the Boeing Chinook (which is the the RAF version as opposed to the American CH-47 version) lacks any other similar image or indeed any other image in which the whole aircraft including rotors is composed.
Articles this image appears in
Boeing Chinook (UK variants)
Creator
Azonixmaestro
  • Support as nominator --Azonixmaestro (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is a nicely composed image, however it falls on a few points: There are flecks that are either dirt from some form of scan or debris from the wash; the darkness of the image and low light conditions mean it is not very informative about the subject; the low light also means at full size it is fairly unfocussed and noisy. Together these negatives make this an oppose vote, although I do like the photo, sorry. |→ Spaully₪† 23:51, 31 March 2009 (GMT)
  • Oppose Really bad lighting. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The contrast is bad, but good photo for creativity. ZooFari 04:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Azonixmaestro I think "really bad" is a little abrupt. Surely that's a matter of opinion? Also those flecks are indeed from the downdraft; no dodgy scanning involved. It could perhaps be said that they enhance the picture by illustrating the downdraft. Plus with a correctly calibrated monitor, detail can be resolved along pretty much the whole of the left flank so it's not a complete contrejour.
  • Oppose I really like many aspects of this photo; it's well framed and the helicopter looks great against the sky. That said, it falls down technically for a number of reasons. Whilst detail can be resolved along its side, it's incredibly noisy there, and being the subject of the photo that's really not great. The photo is at a wide angle too, which means that the trees (and the street lights on the Bristol Road) are not perpendicular to the ground. Both of these aspects detract from the Enc. Value of the photo, which is of great importance to an FPC. At least it settles an argument, I was giving a tutorial to some first year students 300 metres away at the time, a few foolishly claiming that it was landing at The Guild. bad_germ 09:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Didn't check the edit history to see if it was removed, but right now this isn't in any articles. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Idi Amin

Original - Idi Amin, ruler of Uganda from 1971 to 1979. Caricature by Edmund S. Valtman.
Reason
Edmund S. Valtman was a Pulitzer Prize winning political cartoonist who donated a portion of his work to the public domain. This example is a caricature of Idi Amin, Ugandan military dictator and the president of Uganda from 1971 to 1979. Restored version of File:Idi Amin caricature.jpg. Scanned from original artist's sketch; pencil lines made by the artist before inking have been retained (most visible at chin and shoulders).
Articles this image appears in
Edmund S. Valtman, Idi Amin
Creator
Edmund S. Valtman
We use a pale blue background for non-mainspace pages, in Photoshop it's surrounded by grey and I think Commons is white. The perception of color is dependent on the surrounding colors. MER-C 02:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to try another edit if you can achieve a better balance. The uncompressed TIFF file is linked from the image hosting page. DurovaCharge! 17:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Idi Amin caricature2.jpg MER-C 07:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Albert Einstein Headshot

Jaakobou cleanup - Albert Einstein
Cropped - Albert Einstein
Reason
High-quality portraiture of Albert Einstein, a well known historical figure. Image is a rare portrait shot of Einstein at the old age of 68.
Articles this image appears in
Albert Einstein
Creator
Photograph by Oren Jack Turner, Princeton, N.J (File:Albert Einstein 1947.jpg)).
Original image cleaned/leveled by User:Jaakobou.

Not promoted MER-C 07:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Sadat and Begin

Original - Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin at the Camp David Accords, 18 September 1978.
Cropped - Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin at the Camp David Accords, 18 September 1978.
Reason
Historically valuable and in good quality. Restored version of File:Sadat and Begin.jpg. Egypt was the first Arab country to recognize Israel, and this is the photo of the leaders of both countries when they finalized the agreement that made peace between them.
Articles this image appears in
Anwar El Sadat, Menachem Begin, Camp David Accords, Presidency of Jimmy Carter
Creator
Leffler, Warren K. , image restoration work by User:Jaakobou



Not promoted MER-C 07:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Frieze of Parnassus

Alternative. Collage of all four sides
South Face
East Face
North Face
West Face
Alt Edit 1 by jjron. Collage of all four sides without text and selective levels & shadows adjustment; article caption and image page description improved
Reason
My first 'image set' nomination. I've always been fairly happy with these images. Image quality and resolution is very good, allowing you to see all 169 historical composers, architects, poets, painters, and sculptors, probably in greater detail than can be seen by the naked eye, as a fence stops the public from getting too close. The set also shows all four sides of the frieze - something that (by the laws of physics) a single photo cannot. I am open to the idea of combining each of them into a single image, but that might require text within the image to annotate the set properly. An idea, anyway, if 4 separate images isn't to taste. For the record, yes I know the lighting isn't consistent for all four images, but that is to be expected when the sun isn't directly overhead. I've tried to take the same shots on an overcast day but found the relief looked a bit flat as a result.
Articles this image appears in
Frieze of Parnassus
Creator
User:Diliff
  • Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Before I automatically oppose a 'featured set' (yes, please combine into one image), can you comment on whether these have perspective distortion caused by shooting up, or whether that is the shape of the memorial? If distorted, would you be amenable to correcting for it? Another quibble, but assuming this is a square memorial, shouldn't all images be cropped identically, and thus be identical sizes? There's a fair bit of variation there in both the cropping and sizes. --jjron (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, well the reason why I kept them separate is that others may not want all four images (similar to the reason why we prefer to leave diagrams annotated in a particular language), but I suppose we can also have a combined image in addition to the component images. I'll do that tonight. I don't think it is distorted though. If you look at the full monument, you can see the angle that these images were taken from. It was near enough to impossible to get the exact dimensions identical for each image though, given the distance that these images were taken from (30 metres away or so) and the lack of a way to measure the distance accurately. I could downsample them to match more exactly, but I don't think that's really necessary when they're separate files (would be for the combined image, obviously). I don't think there is that much variation in cropping though. I made sure that each image was cropped in the same way, but it is inevitable that there will be slight differences. The fence rails might have been built to inexact tolerances, the grass that I took the image from may have been slightly higher or lower than the equivalent on other sides, etc. All these could contribute to minor variations, but I'd like to think that we're not so picky as to expect a FP photographer to also be a mathematician and surveyor. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if there's a reason for the sequence chosen, it looks odd starting with S, though it does match the table in the article - is that some sort of convention or was that a specific design sequence for the monument or something? Also I don't think the text is required (as you suggested above), I'd just use the image page description and/or the image caption, or at most number (or letter) them on the photo itself so as it's more usable across wikis (and why red text anyway?). Despite that, the collage is better - for example if done individually I'd probably say oppose the blown (or close to) sky in the north image, but that can be excused in the collage version IMO. --jjron (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the choices you mentioned regarding the collage were arbitrary, really. I just thought that red text contrasted better than black, and given that there is really no particular 'order' for compass directions (other than the oft-used clockwise NESW), I left it as it was in the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support de Bivort 21:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt Edit 1 or other collage versions. I have done an edit removing the text, and with some selective levels and shadow adjustments to try to even out the lighting a bit and bring out a bit more detail in some parts, and adding a far better text description to the image page. I also edited the article to show you how I think this would be better placed, including an improved caption (am happy for you to revert once you've had a look). If you want to edit back off the originals and replace my version would support that too. However oppose the featured set for reasons given above, and also because it only appears in a gallery in the article. --jjron (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral It would have looked a lot better if the weather was overcast and the lighting was even on all four faces. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the nominator commented in the original reason "I've tried to take the same shots on an overcast day but found the relief looked a bit flat as a result". Seems you can't have it all ways. --jjron (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't viewed full res due to large size but IMO EV is very good. For the closer, if the nomination does not receive enough supports for promotion, then count this as a support as quality must be good. Prefer alternative, then Alt edit1--Muhammad(talk) 05:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a composite, preferably Alt Edit 1.--ragesoss (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted File:Albert Memorial Friese Collage - May 2008-edit1.jpg MER-C 07:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Sunflower macro

Original - Close-up view of sunflower, Helianthus annus showing the disc florets. From the center of the flower head, inflorescence of small disc florets emerge in a spiral fashion followed by the larger yellow ray florets- parts of which are seen at the edges of the picture above
Reason
Good quality, DOF, and EV. The image has been in some of the articles for more than 2 months now.
Articles this image appears in
Asteraceae, Sunflower, Inflorescence
Creator
Muhammad

Promoted Image:Sunflower macro wide.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Photograph of a M777 howitzer in action

Original - An M777 Light Towed Howitzer in service with the 10th Mountain Division in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Charkh District, Logar Province, Afghanistan.
Reason
I find the quality of this photo superb and I think a picture at such a close range and with such good timing must be unusual.
Articles this image appears in
M777 howitzer
Creator
Jonathanmallard
  • I suggest you do, the current FP has higher encyclopaedic value and better composition. I doubt this would pass in contrast, however you can leave it to process if you wish, it's your decision. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well personally I support it, as quality is decent and EV seems great. It is a different howitzer than the above referenced M198, though admittedly of the same caliber. We don't have a "scope" concept here similar to the the Commons version of Valued Pictures, so it's possible to have more than one FP for similar subjects. The nom'd image is in a separate article as well so I'm not sure it's diluted too much by the existence of the other FP. Fletcher (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sophus Bie (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a copyright question. This image came from flickr and was licensed there under CC-BY. However, this was changed to PD-USGov-Military-Army. Is this right? There is no evidence that this photo was "made during the course of the person's official duties." The argument goes that I guess any private photos you take while during a tour of duty become PD? Is that correct, or should we revert the copyright tag back to CC-BY?-Andrew c [talk] 13:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked User:Terrillja to comment on this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:::Hi, the question here is was the image taken white the person was on duty. If it was an image of a bunch of soldiers playing football on base, I'd tend to agree that this would belong to the person who took the image. However, this image was taken by a soldier, during deployment, and is of an artillery piece in action, which would indicate to me that they were on duty, and that the image was taken while they were under the employment of the army. Since the image was taken while they were working for the army, the image becomes the property of their employer, similar to how a web designer does not own the copyright to work that they did for a company while they were working for that company. My tagging was based on some other images that I had seen which were also personal flickr images and were imported here: [17] and [18] Apparently the army has an account on flickr too. Go figure. If this was wrong, I will certainly offer my apology. --Terrillja talk 18:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC) per Fletcher below[reply]

I would say the question is more like, was the image taken as part of the person's official duties -- in other words, was the photographer employed by the army to take photographs? In contrast to someone taking a personal photo with their own camera during a tour of duty. The photographer's user page User:Jonathanmallard says he is a medic and the EXIF data indicates it was shot with a Canon Point & Shoot, not a professional SLR like you would expect a military photographer to use, so I tend to think this is a personal photo. I doubt soldiers' personal photos are required to be in the public domain. Fletcher (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Perhaps, without further hard evidence, since no one seems to know for sure, we should just defer to the license this user released the image on flickr? I'm not sure which is worse, releasing someones personal photo into the public domain or adding a CC-BY stipulation to an otherwise PD government image (assuming we choose the wrong license here)?-Andrew c [talk] 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to protect someone's rights that might not exist than to deny someone's rights that might really exist. I changed it back to the CC license. Maybe Jonathan can clarify it for us. Fletcher (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Note Someone should also check out this one, since it was taken by the same person and tagged pd-usgov-army by another user on commons. Perhaps this needs to be clarified somewhere what official duties entails. Does an image taken while on patrol count as "on duty" if you are not an army photographer? I mean you aren't employed as a photographer, but you are working on taxpayer time, so what is the deal there?--Terrillja talk 02:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC) per Fletcher below[reply]

This would seem to be the answer:

A "work of the United States Government," referred to in this document as a U.S. Government work, is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. (See 17 USC § 101, Definitions.56) [...]

An officer's or employee's official duties are the duties assigned to the individual as a result of employment. Generally, official duties would be described in a position description and include other incidental duties. Official duties do not include work done at a government officer's or employee's own volition, even if the subject matter is government work, so long as the work was not required as part of the individual's official duty. (S.REP. NO. 473, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 56-57) (1976) "A government official or employee should not be prevented from securing copyright in a work written at his own volition and outside his duties, even though the subject matter involves his government work or his professional field.") For further discussion, see Tresansky, John O. Copyright in Government Employee Authored Works. 57 30 Cath. L. Rev. 605 (1981).

So if his official duties as a medic do not include taking pictures of howitzers then the copyright still belongs to him. If he is taking pictures on taxpayer time that is a discipline issue, not a copyright issue. But I don't think we can assume even that much; maybe he is doing it on whatever free time he is given. And it's not like snapping a pic with a point and shoot is a big waste of time anyway. I could see your point if he was doing a long exposure on a view camera trying to be Ansel Adams of Afghanistan while someone is bleeding out on a gurney in the clinic, but I don't think that's what's happening here! :-) Fletcher (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some more input would be nice now that the copyright issue has been resolved by the copyright holder. I'll also point out that the user's Flickr gallery is quite fascinating. Check it out if you have some time (personal opinion, of course). Best of luck to our soldier overseas. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't know if the creator is still watching, but I don't quite get the dimensions on this image. It looks odd at this size when there's no apparent reason for the crop of the height (this camera takes fullsize images at 3648×2736) - in fact if there was more height then the smoke wouldn't have to be cutoff at the top. I'd like to hear an explanation, but the awkward looking crop along with other reasons given above, inclines me towards opposing. --jjron (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Outstanding image. Opposing on the grounds that we already have an existing FP of a different towed artillery piece is like opposing the next high quality image of an insect on the grounds that we already have a FP of a bug. --Leivick (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2009

Promoted Image:M777 Light Towed Howitzer 1.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 02:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Polemonium reptans

Original (fixed) - Creeping Jacob's Ladder (Polemonium reptans) is a wildflower native to the eastern United States and Canada.
Reason
Good lighting, decent DOF, very high res, sharp, good EV, and really pretty :)
Articles this image appears in
Polemonium reptans
Creator
Kaldari

Which version? MER-C 07:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Polemonium reptans 2009.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 02:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/April-2009&oldid=282471848"