Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/January-2011
| Featured picture tools |
|---|
Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2011 at 05:01:15 (UTC)
- Reason
- The two images I've presented here receive a lot of use. Lets do better. I'm thinking here of a typical household tree, not something like the $11m Abu Dhabi tree.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Lots
- Season's Greetings as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Good challenge choice. Too bad I don't have a Christmas tree :( Kaldari (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral on the first and Oppose the second.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's a challenge; a "we must be able to beat these, surely?" J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I don't have a big Christmas tree either but flickr is replete with free images such as this. Most of them are not much better than the two pictures shown, however. Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- But I do have a tiny Christmas tree.Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I quite like the composition on that small one. You still get a barnstar if you find the winner on flickr. I took File:Christmas Tree NS.jpg if all else fails (kind of wish that there was something more plain than the curtains though). Noodle snacks (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your Christmas tree photo is quite impressive! I think you should put it in more articles, and replace some other pictures with it. Meanwhile, I also found this interesting white tree on flickr. Purpy Pupple (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- PP, your little tree is adorable. Noodle snacks, that's an impressive looking thing. J Milburn (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, those are all great! Kaldari (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- PP, your little tree is adorable. Noodle snacks, that's an impressive looking thing. J Milburn (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Your Christmas tree photo is quite impressive! I think you should put it in more articles, and replace some other pictures with it. Meanwhile, I also found this interesting white tree on flickr. Purpy Pupple (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I quite like the composition on that small one. You still get a barnstar if you find the winner on flickr. I took File:Christmas Tree NS.jpg if all else fails (kind of wish that there was something more plain than the curtains though). Noodle snacks (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- But I do have a tiny Christmas tree.Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Gallery created below. I uploaded two images from Flickr (entrants three and four). Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Gallery of Entrants
[edit] |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Votes
[edit]Please restrict yourself to two votes or less. Voice any concerns here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpy Pupple (talk • contribs) 08:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Vote Numero 2 and numero 5!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support 5 or 6 1 and 2 are too small etc. Three has high key lighting and is atypical because no presents. Four is nice, but white isn't typical, and the lack of room lighting is more artistic than illustrative. I'm kind of biased about five. Six is pretty (but no presents). It was all rights reserved on the flickr page yesterday, but the Author fixed it. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support 5 I agree with Noodle Snacks about the atypicality of 3 and 4. Number 5 also clearly has the best image quality. However, it seems that the white balance makes it appear more yellow than it should... but I'm not sure. Number 6 has strange artifacts near the top edge. Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- The curtains aren't white, maybe it is a little warm, but not excessively so imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support 5 I would have choosen 6 as well, but its nominated for deletion. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, now that the copyright issue is resolved, it is almost certain that it NOT be deleted. Indeed, Noodle Snacks, who nominated it for deletion, is now supporting it above. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, It had the wrong copyright status yesterday on flickr, all is well now. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, now that the copyright issue is resolved, it is almost certain that it NOT be deleted. Indeed, Noodle Snacks, who nominated it for deletion, is now supporting it above. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support 5: Think it's excellent and traditional. Maedin\talk 19:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support 5 or 6. Tough call between those two. I think 6 is cropped too tight on the bottom, but I like the less distracting background. 2 has a good composition, but is just too small. Kaldari (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support 4 or 5 - 4 has a nice exposure and composition, but 5 is more common of a sight to see in a typical Christian house. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose first six nominees If we're to judge these to the same technical standard as other images, I think we should be honest that none of them make the cut for FP. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Five easily meets the technical standard (otherwise is for you to decide). Noodle snacks (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Framing is a bit too tight, and you've commented on the curtains, so there's really nothing left to say. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Five easily meets the technical standard (otherwise is for you to decide). Noodle snacks (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose all Per Papa Lima Whiskey. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The thing with photographing Christmas Trees is that if photographed how they normally appear, there will be a mess of colors, too much happening, and the whole image would be too distracting. If you try to photograph anything other than this for a Christmas Tree, you aren't photographing something that fits the "true" criteria. Just because the lighting is uniform, there isn't any distractions, etc, doesn't mean that the photo truly represents the typical Christmas Tree. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think I've got to agree with PLW. For something that so frequently looks so impressive, I think we'd need a fantastic picture. The lighting and back ground on NS's picture is not ideal, to my eyes. J Milburn (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Good efforts, but still oppose per PLW and J Milburn. Valuable additions but not quite FP in terms of framing and backdrop. The curtains and the top triangle thing in 5 kill it for me, sorry... Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose first six per PLW. --Avenue (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose the concept I don't think this is a topic that should have an FP since everybody's viewpoint on this is going to be so different. The "typical" Christmas tree is will be all over the place, especially since this is an international project. upstateNYer 03:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Also, if you want a representative photo of a Christmas tree (and this is from a guy who's had fake trees most of his life), don't you want the photo to be of a real tree? upstateNYer 03:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support 6. More pleasant background. Twilightchill t 08:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2011 at 06:09:42 (UTC)
- Reason
- Pretty amazing portrait of Einstein and at over 8 mp I think the quality is there. A crop of this was nominated in 2008 which failed, but appeared to have a sock puppet issue.. not sure what went on then.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Albert Einstein, Wormholes in fiction, List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
- Creator
- Ferdinand Schmutzer
- Support as nominator --— raekyt 06:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Conditional support. Needs some dusts/scratches removal, but otherwise the composition (the background, the posture) is excellent. Twilightchill t 11:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support, but from the opposite perspective as twilightchill. I think as a historical image, dust and scratches are forgivable, and to remove them wouldn't add to the image all that much. Anoldtreeok (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support, however, I would like to see some removal of dust and scratches, especially dust that arises from scanning the image, not from the image itself. The presence of dust and scratches is distracting. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per above issues. Jó Kritika (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
*Note: Someone uploaded a new tweaked version over the original at 14:01, 29 December 2010, I reverted it, it should be uploaded as a separate file and listed as an alt... — raekyt 17:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. A very charismatic picture, but it's technically a little lacking. J Milburn (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per J Milburn. This looks like it's an issue with the scan more so than the actual photo. For example, it looks like there's aberration between the fingers of Einstein's left hand, but that couldn't have come from the original photo... upstateNYer 00:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2011 at 16:31:57 (UTC)
- Reason
- nice light, good quality, interesting view
- Articles in which this image appears
- Großbottwar
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Felix König
- Support as nominator ---- Felix König ✉ 16:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
'Oppose'Weak SupportSupporttoo small for a FP. Sorry.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)- Please be a little more specific. If by 'small', you're talking about resolution, the image is 1,450 × 2,700, which is well above minimum FP requirements (1000px on longest side). Jujutacular talk 18:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I also don't understand. I think a resolution of 4MP is enough for FP and a lot bigger than the requirement. -- Felix König ✉ 17:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think GreatOrangePumpkin is talking about the size of the article. The article itself doesn't seem like the photo would have very much EV. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any issues, why the perspective of this image should not be normal, not edgewise. And yes, forgot to mention, that this pic has too less EV, showing only a mansion somewhere in a district, somewhere in Ludwigsburg, somewhere in Germany, somwhere in Europe, somewhere in the Earth. This is my oppinion. Sorry again. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)- Sorry to change my comment so much. But I support now. The reason for the changing is, that my computer spinned yesterday and two days ago: If I clicked this picture double times, the size was the same as in wikipedia. But now I see, that it is very large and absolutely OK to become FP. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please be a little more specific. If by 'small', you're talking about resolution, the image is 1,450 × 2,700, which is well above minimum FP requirements (1000px on longest side). Jujutacular talk 18:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll Support, but there does need to be more information on the page it's from to show it has good EV. I do like the picture though. Anoldtreeok (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support iff article is significantly expanded with translation from corresponding german article. The picture itself is quite good, with a lot of intriguing detail. I couldn't tell if the bird on the left side of the round clock is real or not. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've got very little time at the moment. I tried to expand the article a bit, and it is now twice as long as before ;-) But I know it's still not very much. -- Felix König ✉ 11:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- The article has recently been considerably expanded [1], and I would interpret this as satisfying your request unless we hear from you again on this matter. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not quite sure about the contrast here. It seems a little bit on the dark side to me. – SMasters (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Contrast is fine to avoid overexposure of white inserts. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Prefer edit. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments on the edit, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Prefer edit. Purpy Pupple (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Edit better lightning-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Rathaus Großbottwar neu edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2011 at 01:12:26 (UTC)
- Reason
- After I placed the picture up for peer review, I believe that this meets Featured picture criteria.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Disembowelment, Seppuku
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
- Creator
- Waiapo
- Support as nominator --GamerPro64 (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose A bit small. The dark line along the left is undesirable, results from when the edge of the page curves towards the binding. Higher quality examples exist: [2] [3], though they would need some restoration. Jujutacular talk 01:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Juju. Jó Kritika (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2011 at 15:13:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very good resolution and image quality. Shows some features typical of the Maasai culture, including a shaved head, stretched earlobes, beadwork, and tartan shúkà (cloth draped around the body).
- Articles in which this image appears
- Maasai people
- FP category for this image
- People/Traditional
- Creator
- William Warby
- Support as nominator --Maedin\talk 15:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom, I'm not an expert as far as what to expect in the picture EV wise though. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Good portrait. As the best photograph in the article, it could be placed higher, but there's no doubt its EV is highest in the body modification section. Chick Bowen 07:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. J Milburn (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - a fine image. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support there is a National Geographicesque quality about this image. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Question: Has she consented to appearing on the wikipedia front page? --Billpg (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Such consent is not necessary, either legally or ethically, as long as the photograph is taken in a public place and is not demeaning or intrusive, which this image is not. See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Chick Bowen 16:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Was it a public place? (Not saying it wasn't. Just checking.) --Billpg (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Appears to be outside, so for MOST purposes all outdoors is public space... so we assume it is until we get more detailed information to contradict that assumption. — raekyt 01:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Was it a public place? (Not saying it wasn't. Just checking.) --Billpg (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Such consent is not necessary, either legally or ethically, as long as the photograph is taken in a public place and is not demeaning or intrusive, which this image is not. See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Chick Bowen 16:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose A great portrait, but the real focus in this image should be the jewellery and all that jazz. And the beads are out of focus and hugely overexposed. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support The main focus is her face, not the beads, and I think it's an excellent portrait. — raekyt 01:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. SMasters (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Maasai woman with stretched ears.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2011 at 15:48:11 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- I think this is one of the best fish images we have - perfect encyclopaedic composition, good technicals.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Orange-lined triggerfish, List of marine aquarium fish species
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Fish
- Creator
- Hans Hillewaert (photograph), Papa Lima Whiskey (edit)
- Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Looks almost like the Humuhumunukunukuapua'a! --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Twilightchill t 09:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose It is pretty soft. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Looks crisp enough to me even at 1200, but it will tolerate a minor sharpening if that's what it takes to convince you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't crisp at all at 1667 wide. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's water which makes the image soft. Twilightchill t 11:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- And all fish are covered in mucus. I remember the problems we used to have with promoting pictures of molluscs, especially terrestrial, because they're soft-tissued and mucus-covered. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's water which makes the image soft. Twilightchill t 11:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't crisp at all at 1667 wide. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Looks crisp enough to me even at 1200, but it will tolerate a minor sharpening if that's what it takes to convince you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Noodle snacks. Jó Kritika (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Judged at 1000 pixels in the larger dimension, this is a perfectly sharp image, and that's what the criteria stipulate. Extra pixels are a bonus and could never be a valid reason for a nomination not succeeding. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not true. That's a lower limit; something could still be larger but not big enough, if the subject matter demands a large image. For instance, we would be unlikely to promote a 1000/1000 square satellite image. It's entirely possible this is too noisy at larger res, too small at smaller res. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Is this relevant to this nomination? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- It could well be, no opinion from me at this time. I'm just pointing out that you can't argue that it looks fine at 1000px, and so everything is completely ok. Your assertion that "extra pixels ... could never be a valid reason for a nomination not succeeding" is just plain wrong. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're completely making that up. There is absolutely nothing in the criteria that I can see that could be interpreted in that way. This is not a panorama. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Bollocks. The criteria state that images must be "among Wikipedia's best work", must be "of a high technical standard", and, obviously, it must have significant EV. We could oppose on any one of these grounds ("this is nowhere near the standard we expect for this kind of photo", "a technically strong photo of this subject would be larger", "major details are omitted/I can't see x as well as I would like to") because the image is too small, even if it happens to be over the (rather low) 1000 px line in the sand. You can't pooh-pooh any oppose on size grounds just because the image happens to be 1000px. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're completely making that up. There is absolutely nothing in the criteria that I can see that could be interpreted in that way. This is not a panorama. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- It could well be, no opinion from me at this time. I'm just pointing out that you can't argue that it looks fine at 1000px, and so everything is completely ok. Your assertion that "extra pixels ... could never be a valid reason for a nomination not succeeding" is just plain wrong. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Is this relevant to this nomination? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not true. That's a lower limit; something could still be larger but not big enough, if the subject matter demands a large image. For instance, we would be unlikely to promote a 1000/1000 square satellite image. It's entirely possible this is too noisy at larger res, too small at smaller res. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose although it has good composition and colours, it is too soft! Even at 1000 px as Papa Lima Whiskey showed, I can still clearly see that the nose of the fish, its belly, and so forth, are blurry to something like two or three pixels in radius. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I can see some very fine lines there, which would suggest you're wrong. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm gunna support it. Sure the res is not mindblowing, but it's an
underwateraquarium shot, and the background, composition and colours are spot on. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC) - Support Fantastic shot, in my opinion -- mcshadypl TC 05:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Jesstalk|edits 07:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support: I think it's acceptably sharp and agree with Aaadddaaammm. Maedin\talk 07:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Though, it isn't an underwater shot, but an aquarium one. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I should have clarified, sorry, I wasn't referring to that part of his statement. Maedin\talk 08:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Though, it isn't an underwater shot, but an aquarium one. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Balistapus undulatus (Nausicaä).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 01:35:49 (UTC)
- Reason
- The best available image of this species. It was actually pouring with rain, this is the source of the lines in the background.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Grey Shrikethrush
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Support the image quality is, as usual, stellar. However, I'm not terribly fond of the angle, which showcases the rear end of the bird rather than the more agreeable front end. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support per Purpy Purple. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Beak noisy, incomplete differentiation from background, and pixels on subject are not huge compared to other recently opposed images. That in combination with the noise make this a lesser candidate. (More or less like the nominee above it...) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy indeed. Probably because the background was brighter and the editor attempted to brighten an underexposed subject, or just an unfortunate flaw. Either way, not the quality I'd expect. Jó Kritika (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Sorry, I'm not convinced this one is quite there. J Milburn (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Weak support Not particularly eye catching, but still a good photo of a bird in difficult conditions. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Fewer than five support votes. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 01:38:25 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very few available images for this species. The shells give good context.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Red-necked Stint
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Great capture of the species, the feet are slightly obscured by the shells but not enough to worry about. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 21:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support as per Fallschirmjäger. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- I'm seeing a bit of chromatic aberration on the beak, but am happy to support anyway. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Lack of contrast at the breast, no differentiation from background, significant noise on beak and feathers. I'll also note, by the by, that resolution on subject is less than other currently opposed images. It would be nice to have some consistency. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Particularly with regard to application of the criteria. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry the "lack of contrast at the breast" is the killer for me. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Calidris ruficollis 2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 01:40:43 (UTC)
- Reason
- Another attempt at getting the crop right. It isn't overexposed either.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Hoary-headed Grebe, Poliocephalus
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- Very nice, good work on the crop. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support technically excellent. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral Something about the background I don't like, but otherwise good. Jó Kritika (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Good quality and ev. SpencerT♦C 01:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Conditional support The background looks really funky. Have you cloned something out? Also is that fuzz in its mouth, or something optical? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- No and fuzz. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Nice quality and EV. SMasters (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Poliocephalus poliocephalus RB.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 13:47:30 (UTC)
- Reason
- Despite its technical shortcomings, the encylopedic value of the image is absolutely exceptional. It is the only occasion on which MLK and Malcolm X met, for around one minute. A photographer was fortunately at hand to document it.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Civil Rights Act of 1964
- FP category for this image
- People/Political
- Creator
- Marion S. Trikosko
- Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I think the image can be improved by some editing. Nergaal (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose some dust are still present and contrast can be improved partially in the upper left. Jó Kritika (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - issues with the photo are forgivable due to age, and I don't think it needs to be cleaned up, it is perfectly clear what is happening. The EV of the picture is high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoldtreeok (talk • contribs) 23:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, I'm not convinced the EV is high enough to ignore the technical shortcomings. The meeting itself is only mentioned in one article, and, even then, it pretty much says "there was a photo op". J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose It's just not an exceptional photo from a technical standpoint. -- mcshadypl TC 05:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 11:03:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- This one may be a little controversial. Yes, the quality is not sky-high, but this is one of those cases where we should be happy with slightly substandard quality- this species is extinct. We're never going to get another photo of it, and this is by far the best one online, never mind the best free one. I think this comfortably meets the featured picture criteria.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Golden toad, Bufo, Decline in amphibian populations, frog, extinction, holocene extinction, amphibian, others. It is used in hundreds of articles because of presence in templates.
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
- Creator
- Charles H. Smith
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support I thought I saw Attenborough say that a few specimens were captured, which would make them extinct in the wild only, but it must have been a related frog. Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment This has been upsampled ("vergrößert") - there is no information on how much. The source link is broken. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strangely, the USFWS site doesn't seem to have the image in their image database any more, at least not under any of the obvious search terms. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- We could update the source to another page. This page, for instance, notes the original source, author and copyright info, as well as providing a very high resolution version. J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- In fact, it looks like all of their images from 2001 to 2004 are missing. Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- We could update the source to another page. This page, for instance, notes the original source, author and copyright info, as well as providing a very high resolution version. J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strangely, the USFWS site doesn't seem to have the image in their image database any more, at least not under any of the obvious search terms. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. There seems to be a film or scanning artifact near the eye. Kaldari (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
OpposeI like the composition of this striking image, but most regrettably, the picture is not very sharp, and a high amount of image noise (esp. in the shadows) is present. There also seem to be many specks of dust here and there, especially on the leaf. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)- I am aware of the technical shortcomings- did you read the nomination statement? Surely, we can let these go? J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support edit I am ashamed of myself for rashly failing to read the nomination statement carefully :(. I have created an Edited version with dust and scanning artifacts removed, including, most notably, the circular artifact on the toad's eye. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am aware of the technical shortcomings- did you read the nomination statement? Surely, we can let these go? J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support edit only Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I like the colours of the first, but agree that that scanning artefact needs to be got rid of. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The edit has exactly the same colours as the original, a fact which Papa Lima Whiskey corroborated (see file history). Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, my bad. Eyes playing tricks on me. Support edit then. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The edit has exactly the same colours as the original, a fact which Papa Lima Whiskey corroborated (see file history). Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support edit SMasters (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Bufo periglenes2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2011 at 08:22:30 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV, no other high resolution/quality photos available in Wikipedia. This is the next contribution for my fruit series. Common names for the fruit include wax apple and (my favorite) love apple.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Syzygium samarangense, Myrtaceae and Syzygium
- FP category for this image
- Plants/Fruits
- Creator
- SMasters
- Support as nominator --SMasters (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's upside-down, yea? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not upside down. The stem is at the top. SMasters (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure? The other pictures in the article seem very strongly to suggest the big bit is not the stem attachment... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Not upside down, but I don't like how there two sources of light for each side of the right sample. Most importantly, it is too small and I would expect a larger resolution considering that they are both conjoined images of the same fruit. Jó Kritika (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The size is within the requirements for an FP. It's a small fruit. How big should it be? SMasters (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Big enough to see a bit more detail. 4 cm not that small. Jó Kritika (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)reply
- It's already bigger than File:Sugar apple with cross section.jpg. SMasters (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- My concern is actually the insufficient detail. Take a look at File:Rambutan white background alt.jpg. Even something that small has better detail than this. Maybe not bright enough to see the texture. Jó Kritika (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I understand what you are saying, but the rambutan has a lot of interesting features, and this just has a waxy surface, with the inside looking exactly like what you would see if you had the fruit in your hand. Not anything more than what is already shown. SMasters (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- My concern is actually the insufficient detail. Take a look at File:Rambutan white background alt.jpg. Even something that small has better detail than this. Maybe not bright enough to see the texture. Jó Kritika (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's already bigger than File:Sugar apple with cross section.jpg. SMasters (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Big enough to see a bit more detail. 4 cm not that small. Jó Kritika (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)reply
- Oppose Yes, my monitor is adjusted just fine. But I find the left-hand (red colored) half to be too dark and there is too much white space in the cropping that unnecessarily crowds out detail that otherwise could appear with this size of image. Beyond that, the caption should specify that this is a fruit (easy correction). Anyway, I think the lighting here is simply too top-heavy and it needed a fill light down low to punch up the waist of the fruit. Sorry; that’s my reasoning. While it is an interesting fruit, I’m not seeing that his is excellent photography. Greg L (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Added fruit to the caption. Not sure how else to crop it. SMasters (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- All the other images in the article appear to strongly suggest that this fruit is upside down. The colour is also a lot darker in this picture, for some reason. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Question: If a fruit or vegetable is no longer attached to a plant, how can there be a “right-side up”? Two of the three bananas in this picture are *sideways* by that measure. Would those orientations have created a problem in their own right if that picture had come here for consideration as an FP? Besides, it looks to me like the stem here in this fruit is at top, making it *right-side up* in the context of its natural orientation on the plant. Greg L (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I strongly agree that it's upside down. Imagine a picture of an apple with the stem facing down. Why carefully balance this fruit upside down? It's bordering on decieving the viewer, as illustrated by the fact that most people here believe that the stem attaches at the upper part in this picture. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Question: If a fruit or vegetable is no longer attached to a plant, how can there be a “right-side up”? Two of the three bananas in this picture are *sideways* by that measure. Would those orientations have created a problem in their own right if that picture had come here for consideration as an FP? Besides, it looks to me like the stem here in this fruit is at top, making it *right-side up* in the context of its natural orientation on the plant. Greg L (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Bless you, bless you for including the scale. I believe that all photos of this type should include them. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you are right Adam. It is upside down. They packaged it the way I took the shot, and that confused me. Wonder why they do that! Maybe it looks better. Anyway, regretfully, I will have to withdraw this nomination and will have to shoot it again another time. :-( SMasters (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh… I thought that was a remnant of the stem at top. Indeed; orienting the fruit this way for the shot is deceiving and does a disservice to our readership. It is certainly not a fatal shortcoming for using this picture in an article on that fruit (though caption might also explain that the blossom remnant is at top and the stem is hidden at bottom). But, IMO, it is another strike against this image so far as it being considered for FP status. Greg L (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 21:52:53 (UTC)
_portrait_(restored).jpg)
- Reason
- High Ev as lead image also Featured on Commons
- Articles in which this image appears
- Santiago Ramón y Cajal, El Español de la Historia,Long-term potentiation, List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine,List of Spaniards
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
- Creator
- Anonymous but Restoration by Garrondo
- Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I think that the picture should be cropped and separated from the signature and border; and the signature should be uploaded in a separate file. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Just seems unremarkable, there's nothing to it. J Milburn (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2011 at 20:27:31 (UTC)
- Reason
- High encyclopedic value, high quality representation of The Main Entrance to one of the major landmarks in the Bulgarian Capital.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Sofia
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- MrPanyGoff
- Support as nominator --MrPanyGoff (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't show complete building, not that illustrative of mineral baths, the actual baths would be more illustrative, and is just used in a gallery on the listed page which dosnt meet FP criteria. — raekyt 05:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment wherefore is the sky such a sickly colour? Perhaps a polarizing filter was used? I'd much prefer a shade that's not so dark. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Raeky gazhiley.co.uk 12:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, as above. J Milburn (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the sky, but agree on the EV and also think that the perspective is not ideal, and the detail is not so stellar. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Raeky. SMasters (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2011 at 23:45:11 (UTC)
- Reason
- An interesting video clip of a carrier landing for an FA/18
- Articles in which this image appears
- Aircraft carrier, Landing
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
- Creator
- Robert Scoble
- Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 23:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Can't see any wires... Sorry, but that's kinda critical to the nom for me...gazhiley.co.uk 12:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)- The one the plane grabs is easily visible in the full-size version. --Golbez (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Support Forgot about the full-size version... I like it now ta... gazhiley.co.uk 08:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- The one the plane grabs is easily visible in the full-size version. --Golbez (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose No offense, but to me it just seems like a normal landing. Sorry. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose The exposure is exceedingly poor with the camera automatically stopped down due to the bright sky to such an extent that the foreground is too dark. It’s too bad this suffers from technical shortcomings to such an extent because video of a carrier landing is dramatic and a bit rare. Greg L (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Question Videos are allowed here?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, although the only place I could find that made explicit was the Main Page FAQ. Makeemlighter (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- They are, yes, and appear fairly regularly too... However it is extremely difficult for them to pass for some reason and the majority don't... gazhiley.co.uk 10:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Today’s FP came from Howcheng’s queue–Group 20. One day in the future, in a galaxy far far away, Howcheng will get to Group 24, which includes my own NURBs animation. That gallery dates to our ‘Birds, Bugs, & Flowers’ days, and it appears the NURBS might well be the only animation there. Indeed, not many animations make it through for some reason. Greg L (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I never vote on videos cos I feel I'm not qualified to judge them (despite being no more qualified to judge photos!) Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- You certainly are too qualified, Aaadddaaammm. I use the term “stop, stare, and click” for FPCs. If the animation is self-running and you stop and stare and read the caption—and are satisfied you did so when it’s over, then it’s a winner. If the animation is one of those Theora-type ones you have to click to make it run (like this one), then you should be satisfied after the “stop, stare, and click” process. This FPC was a no-brainer for me; my reaction at the end of it was “Meh.” Greg L (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I never vote on videos cos I feel I'm not qualified to judge them (despite being no more qualified to judge photos!) Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, although the only place I could find that made explicit was the Main Page FAQ. Makeemlighter (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support I learnt something, I had no idea this was how planes could land on a carrier! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- That was a good point about an important aspect of Encyclopedic Value… and a splendid demonstration of why FPC benefits from wide and diverse viewpoints. Greg L (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, underwhelming. Does not feel professional quality. Lacks that edge. J Milburn (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 03:44:54 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is a photo of a bio-luminescent fungi. It has great EV for the articles it appears on. This photo was nominated once before, but failed to earn the promotion because of a lack of votes.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Panellus stipticus, Bioluminescence, Foxfire (bioluminescence), List of light sources, Medicinal mushrooms
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Fungi
- Creator
- Ylem
- Support as nominator --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Eye-catching, one of the few truly interesting mushrooms. The background is grainy and initially I wanted to weak support this, but the background doesn't matter here actually. Twilightchill t 08:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Conditional weak support Same concerns I had when it was listed in PPR (link). Conditional on that description lists exposure information. And week because for a 21.1 mp camera the uploaded image has been downsized to less than 1 mp. — raekyt 17:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks eye-catching in thumbnail. I was dissapointed at full size that I couldn't see the close up detail due to the small size. Jó Kritika (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I'm in the process of getting the larger photo from the photographer. When found, it will replace the current one. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support, though I disagree that the highest EV is in bioluminescence, where it's just another example. The highest EV seems to be in Panellus stipticus (a featured article) where it alone illustrates an important section. (Also, shame on you Twilight Chill, there are very few boring mushrooms :P) J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Bioluminescence is a rare subject for FPC. This image is very eye-catching and interesting and has high EV. It is a good showcase for for FPs. Greg L (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support yay wonderful glowing mushrooms! It reminds me of Avatar. I hope, AmericanXplorer13, that you will succeed in finding the larger resolution from the photographer. A certainly valuable addition to Wikipedia! Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I contacted the photographer and have the higher resolution. Unfortunately, the photographer didn't have the correct kit for taking any closer of a shot. The high resolution photo just adds more unnecessary space to the composure. The fungus isn't any higher of a resolution. When I get home in a few days, I'll examine the photos more in Photoshop. I'm limited with the iPhone. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, what were your conclusions from examinations in Photoshop? Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I contacted the photographer and have the higher resolution. Unfortunately, the photographer didn't have the correct kit for taking any closer of a shot. The high resolution photo just adds more unnecessary space to the composure. The fungus isn't any higher of a resolution. When I get home in a few days, I'll examine the photos more in Photoshop. I'm limited with the iPhone. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral Small, noisy and frankly the wrong lens was used for the job. However it is also the best example for bioluminescence in fungi I could find. It is pretty weak in Bioluminescence, there are stronger images available there. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed; the EV seems highest in the species article to me. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support It's fantastic, guys. I don't get the opposes at all! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is the subject or the photo fantastic? Jó Kritika (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support A good shot, technically well thought out. A true macro shot may have been more disappointing not least because here we have it in good context and scale. I would be proud if it was my shot Velella Velella Talk 23:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The photo wouldn't superficially appear different with a macro lens, but it'd have many more pixels on target. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think the problem was that it was far up in a tree, and he couldn't get closer and didn't have anything in his kit to zoom in further, which was unfortunate. — raekyt 01:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The photo wouldn't superficially appear different with a macro lens, but it'd have many more pixels on target. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Interesting, although a higher res version with less noise in the background would be better. SMasters (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Jó Kritika. P. S. Burton (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:PanellusStipticusAug12 2009.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 22:53:07 (UTC)
- Reason
- High-res, high quality scan of renowned illustrator's work, perfectly suits taxobox use in two articles. Looks like it will pass on Commons, too.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Philippine Frogmouth, Batrachostomus
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Joseph Smit
- Support alt edit 1 only --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Original looks over saturated. Border of the original "blob" background can clearly be seen in the alt edit (should be fixable though). Kaldari (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Can we talk about the background? The ungeometrically shaped background seems to be a trademark of sorts of the artist; compare File:Smit.cercopithecus.denti.jpg. I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer the original. Chick Bowen 01:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- But compare with [4] - I'd be surprised if that version had been cleaned up, but here's a restoration where the background is also absent: [5]. I couldn't find a separate copy of the monkey images - archive.org has back copies of PZS, but they are very poorly indexed, often omitting the year. And mostly scanned by Google fwtiw. If we can determine that the artist really did the background in that style, I would support such a version. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- You may well be right. I've been looking, but cannot find more evidence than what you have. Some of the images of Smit's work have the blob-like backgrounds and some don't, without evident reasons for which is which. Chick Bowen 01:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- But compare with [4] - I'd be surprised if that version had been cleaned up, but here's a restoration where the background is also absent: [5]. I couldn't find a separate copy of the monkey images - archive.org has back copies of PZS, but they are very poorly indexed, often omitting the year. And mostly scanned by Google fwtiw. If we can determine that the artist really did the background in that style, I would support such a version. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support I based myself on this one that seems more faithful to the work of Joseph Smit ; that is to say, beautiful colors.--Citron (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kaldari -- mcshadypl TC 05:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 03:11:16 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality, resolution and thus EV, depicts trichomes, red hairs, and other characteristics with scientific quality.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cannabis (drug)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants
- Support as nominator --Garretttaggs55 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The picture has decent lighting. And the picture, overall, is… *decent*. However, the depth of field here is far too limited, IMHO, to merit being considered an example of fine, exemplary photography. Greg L (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I can understand why this would be an issue, though keep in mind what is in focus is of good quality, and there's "enough" in focus I'd say to demonstrate the hairs, trichomes, and other structures present throughout the many amorphous specimens available. In other words, marijuana buds all look different and this shows a decent amount on one plane to be sufficiently demonstrative of the subject matter. Garretttaggs55 (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is an example of where you would use focus stacking. — raekyt 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I can understand why this would be an issue, though keep in mind what is in focus is of good quality, and there's "enough" in focus I'd say to demonstrate the hairs, trichomes, and other structures present throughout the many amorphous specimens available. In other words, marijuana buds all look different and this shows a decent amount on one plane to be sufficiently demonstrative of the subject matter. Garretttaggs55 (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per greg, but also as subject is cut off on LHS gazhiley.co.uk 13:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per greg too. Staggering resolution, but DOF just too low, sorry. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per greg. — raekyt 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose ill submit a better photo once I have the chance. Trimming it to have a consistent side profile should help with the DOF issue. Thanks. Garretttaggs55 (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- CombineZP is free focus stacking software. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Suggest Speedy Close per Garretttaggs55's suggestion that he will submit a new picture... gazhiley.co.uk 15:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular talk 07:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Considering the nominator's comment above a withdrawal. Feel free to open a new nomination when concerns have been addressed. Jujutacular talk 07:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2011 at 15:08:25 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good illustration of a major Königsberg fortification (and currently the best one available imho). Recently transcluded to Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Königsberg fortifications
- FP category for this image
- History
- Creator
- Digr
- Support as nominator --Twilightchill t 15:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Completely blown sky, quite dull to look at. J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose as per J Milburn. Purpy Pupple (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Lighting just not there. And it's a building, so it's not going anywhere before someone else can reshoot it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose as per above -- mcshadypl TC 05:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose the right hand part of the building is cut off, and I want to know what's on top as this angle doesn't show that... A more elevated shot would show more of the building especially as the higher wall seems to be part of it, but at this angle it just dissapears into the roof... gazhiley.co.uk 13:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2011 at 10:38:34 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very high technical standard image, using specialized filters on the flash to make the industrial sterilized environment of the clean room seem more dynamic and interesting than it would of if it was shot with natural light. This image is taking during the production of the mirrors for the James Webb Space Telescope before the final gold coating and just before the cryogenic testing. This is the second attempt at nomination, the first attempt failed to get the required number of votes.
- Articles in which this image appears
- James Webb Space Telescope
- FP category for this image
- Aeronautics and aviation/Space
- Creator
- NASA/MSFC/David Higginbotham/Emmett Given
- Support as nominator --— raekyt 10:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. I always liked high-res astronomical images. Twilightchill t 15:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. I like high-res astronomical images too. As well as high-res images of any remarkable feat of engineering. Purpy Pupple (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Soewinhan (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support It is an interesting angle of an interesting subject, with unusual visual elements (big mirror), and has unusual lighting. Eye-catching and encyclopedic. And it isn’t bugs, birds, Chicago, and flowers, which helps to make for more eclectic FPs on the Main Page. Greg L (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hear, hear! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Why not? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Very deserving FP. SMasters (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. The people in the image provide a helpful sense of scale. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Person... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The mirror is so good that the reflection counts too! Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Person... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Definitely, as per Greg L. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 13:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Support per last time. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the inaccurate colours don't really matter because the mirror itself doesn't really have a colour anyway. Purpy Pupple (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:James Webb Space Telescope Mirror37.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2011 at 17:54:53 (UTC)
- Reason
- Commons FP giving comprehensive views of a shell. High res and satisfactory image quality imo. Note that there is currently a backlog of a further four Commons FPs by the same creator, also depicting various snail shells.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Turbinella pyrum
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Molluscs
- Creator
- H. Zell
- Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom.Soewinhan (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Purpy Pupple (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Support Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)- Withdraw support pending Spikebrennan's question... I didn't read it closely enough. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK OK, support. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Withdraw support pending Spikebrennan's question... I didn't read it closely enough. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. SMasters (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Very encylopedic. NauticaShades 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. The image description says: "the pictured specimen is outstanding by its orange coloured aperture". Does this mean that this specimen is not typical for this species? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Colourings and shapes of Turbinella pyrum are variable. There are several local races from different geographic regions, and the sea environment and condition of the sea bed also influences their shape and colour, as far as I understand. The variable appearance is further confused due to the brown markings on the exterior fading with age, so newer shells may have many and older shells may have none at all. Some types of Turbinella pyrum have brick-red apertures and others pure white, and there are shades in between. Based on this information, I would suggest that there is no reason not to consider this representative of the species. It may be that the type shown here is less predominant than shells of other colours, but I may be wrong and one could always ask the creator to clarify his comment. Maedin\talk 19:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Turbinella pyrum 01.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2011 at 20:46:29 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution and high quality photo of Waverley Abbey. The highlights of the photo are perfect with the swan in the corner being timed perfectly. Everything comes out well.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Waverley Abbey
- FP category for this image
- Landscape architecture in England
- Creator
- Jaguar
- Support as nominator --Jaguar (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry. The actual subject of the picture isn't that obvious; Waverley Abbey itself is obscured by the trees, and nothing seems to be in complete focus. The swan is completely blown. J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose for the same reasons I said in the PPR ages ago, Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/River_Wey_by_Waverley_Abbey — raekyt 01:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per Milburn's. Soewinhan (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose very poor composition and dynamic range. Purpy Pupple (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, per Mr(s) Milburn. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've always assumed Mr but I could be wrong... gazhiley.co.uk 13:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Mr :) J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've always assumed Mr but I could be wrong... gazhiley.co.uk 13:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per MR Milburn... ;-) gazhiley.co.uk 13:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per Mrs. Milburn-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2011 at 17:00:53 (UTC)
- Reason
- Was promoted on Commons a while ago, and I found it today and added it to its en article. Same quality work as we're used to from Llez.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tonna galea
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Molluscs
- Creator
- H. Zell
- Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Purpy Pupple (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. SMasters (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Alt edit 1 --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support: Prefer edit 1. Gorgeous shell! Maedin\talk 21:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1. Per nom. NauticaShades 22:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Early voters: which one? Makeemlighter (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support alt I am not an early voter, but I take this anyway.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support alt aspect ratio is closer to the Golden Ratio; more symmetric. Purpy Pupple (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Tonna galea 02.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Alt has it. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2011 at 08:26:57 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good image for the white form of this alpine plant. This is the second nomination, the first nomination did not get enough votes to pass.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Richea scoparia
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Plants/Flowers
- Creator
- Noodle snacks with some saturation tweaks done by raeky.
- Support as nominator --— raekyt 08:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It's got a weird noise signature on parts of the background - can we get that smoothened out, maybe? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I did some noise reduction. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Noodle snacks (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Purpy Pupple (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 10:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support But I would have liked to see a bit more of the plant... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just for reference there is a whole bush in this picture commons:File:Mt Anne from High Shelf Camp.jpg (I link to commons since you may not have annotations turned on). Noodle snacks (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Can you fix the noisy portions of the image, particularly the very bottom where the leaves are? Jó Kritika (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per no. SMasters (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Richea Scoparia-2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2011 at 08:22:50 (UTC)
- Reason
- A compelling high-resolution portrait of a California Slender Salamander to illustrate the morphology section (which mentions the shape of the head)
- Articles in which this image appears
- California Slender Salamander#Morphology
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Amphibians
- Creator
- Kaldari
- Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure because of 2 reasons: it's only its head hurts the EV; and you get no sense of scale in the image, the other (awful) photos in the article surprised me when I realised how small it is. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose If it is meant to illustrate just the head, then I want to see the whole head in focus. Here only the eye is, and it is hazed up. Jó Kritika (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by hazed up. That's what the eye looks like. Kaldari (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not the eye in particular. The whole portion that's in focus is glowing white, and actually extends to the region that's out of focus as well. Jó Kritika (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure I know exactly what you mean. Are you referring to the specular highlights or something else? If you're referring to the specular highlights, the image was taken at 1:1 magnification, which is quite difficult to do without using a flash. Guess I need one of those homemade macro diffusers. Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not the specular highlights. The image looks cloudy, maybe because of the intensity of the highlights? I'm not sure if the lens caused it or it just lacks contrast, but it is not clear. If you still don't understand, then just ignore. The focus range is more important reason for my opposition. Jó Kritika (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I think I know what you mean. I noticed this "cloudiness" as well. At first I thought I wasn't focusing properly but then I noticed that it only affected the salamander's skin, not the surrounding moss and leaves. I think this is just an optical characteristic of the skin—that it is highly diffusive. Might have something to do with the salamander's ability to breathe through it's skin, i.e. at a microscopic level it is highly porous. I agree the depth of field is somewhat shallow. The ideal magnification for this shot (to get good depth of field and sharpness) would have probably been something like 1:1.5, but unfortunately I didn't have the right macro lens with me since I was actually hunting jumping spiders at the time :( Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not the specular highlights. The image looks cloudy, maybe because of the intensity of the highlights? I'm not sure if the lens caused it or it just lacks contrast, but it is not clear. If you still don't understand, then just ignore. The focus range is more important reason for my opposition. Jó Kritika (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure I know exactly what you mean. Are you referring to the specular highlights or something else? If you're referring to the specular highlights, the image was taken at 1:1 magnification, which is quite difficult to do without using a flash. Guess I need one of those homemade macro diffusers. Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not the eye in particular. The whole portion that's in focus is glowing white, and actually extends to the region that's out of focus as well. Jó Kritika (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by hazed up. That's what the eye looks like. Kaldari (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'd agree with Jó that the depth-of-field in this case is slightly too shallow. NauticaShades 15:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose does not scream featured. Nergaal (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 07:17:03 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality scan, restoration, good EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Century of Progress
- FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/OthersWikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle- Creator
- Weimer Pursell, restored by Jujutacular
- Support as nominator --Jujutacular talk 07:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Has a definite art deco feel to it. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Wonderful art, great quality. NauticaShades 22:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Per above comments. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support, though I don't think this has EV as artwork in its own right; I'd say it belongs in culture and lifestyle. J Milburn (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me, I've made the change. Jujutacular talk 01:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support strong artistic merit and historical value. Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Great picture. Secret Saturdays (talk to me)what's new? 17:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Good restoration work. Well done! SMasters (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Chicago world's fair, a century of progress, expo poster, 1933, 2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 20:57:26 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is a simple raytraced image illustrating a key (and therefore encyclopaedically valuable) limitation in the 3D-model texturing technique known as bump mapping. See the caption and the very detailed description on the image page itself for more, or have a look at the bump mapping article itself.
- One guarded positive comment to an early version was made at Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/Archives/Oct-Dec_2010#Bump_map_vs_isosurface which I should respond to: there are certainly better examples of raytracing available on Wikipedia (some of them are featured already), but that is not what this image is representing - it is representing a specific technique in raytracing using an arguably compelling "spot the difference" approach. There is nothing else which adequately illustrates this limitation so it is wikipedia's finest from that respect.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Bump mapping (an older version of the image)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Mathematics (since it graphically represents a mathematical modelling technique)
- Creator
- GDallimore (Talk)
- Support as nominator --GDallimore (Talk) 20:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Version 2. Very well done! Indubitably strong EV about isosurfaces vs bump maps. However, maybe it would be better to use a longer focal length to mitigate perspective distortion of the spheres. Purpy Pupple (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, arse. Well spotted. Yes, I did have the camera at a pretty wide angle. Given that it's a 24-ish hour render, I won't produce a new version just yet, but will see if there are any other suggestions for improvements. GDallimore (Talk) 23:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I can do a low quality render for comments. Will upload soon. GDallimore (Talk) 23:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- What processor are you using? Maybe there would be other Wikipedia members with vastly superior hardware who can use your POV-ray code to render better versions, since the software is free. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- If anyone wants to volunteer, the code is all on the image page. Let's see what other comments there are first. GDallimore (Talk) 01:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also, the test render is pretty good. It seems that turning off global illumination (which seems like what you did) actually improved the image because in the original picture, the low number of GI samples caused the floor to appear cloudy. The lack of anti-aliasing and the presence of JPG artifacts is not good though. Purpy Pupple (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The cloudy floor is totally intentional to give a sense of depth and a bit more interest to the image overall. It is achieved by a turbulent, light-absorbing fog, and is not a result of a radiosity/global illumination artifact - radiosity is only used minimally to lose some harsh shadows around the bottom of each sphere. If you think I should leave the fog off in a final render, let me know. Same for the depth-of-field blur: better with or without? GDallimore (Talk) 17:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Removing the fog a focal blur (which was on a really high setting) cut the render time down to 40 minutes! I think I prefer it without the fog, although I miss the focal blur. Comments? GDallimore (Talk) 18:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Version 2 looks good. I think it is better without the focal blur as it makes the edge of the sphere sharper, thereby emphasizing the differences in the two rendering techniques.
However, the shadows in Version 2 look wonky (looks like there are many point light sources).Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)- Thanks. In response to your now deleted comment, the area lighting setting were quite low but that is easily fixed. GDallimore (Talk) 20:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Final version of "Version 2" uploaded with slightly improved area lighting, but otherwise essentially identical. GDallimore (Talk) 21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. In response to your now deleted comment, the area lighting setting were quite low but that is easily fixed. GDallimore (Talk) 20:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Version 2 looks good. I think it is better without the focal blur as it makes the edge of the sphere sharper, thereby emphasizing the differences in the two rendering techniques.
- Removing the fog a focal blur (which was on a really high setting) cut the render time down to 40 minutes! I think I prefer it without the fog, although I miss the focal blur. Comments? GDallimore (Talk) 18:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The cloudy floor is totally intentional to give a sense of depth and a bit more interest to the image overall. It is achieved by a turbulent, light-absorbing fog, and is not a result of a radiosity/global illumination artifact - radiosity is only used minimally to lose some harsh shadows around the bottom of each sphere. If you think I should leave the fog off in a final render, let me know. Same for the depth-of-field blur: better with or without? GDallimore (Talk) 17:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- What processor are you using? Maybe there would be other Wikipedia members with vastly superior hardware who can use your POV-ray code to render better versions, since the software is free. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I can do a low quality render for comments. Will upload soon. GDallimore (Talk) 23:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, arse. Well spotted. Yes, I did have the camera at a pretty wide angle. Given that it's a 24-ish hour render, I won't produce a new version just yet, but will see if there are any other suggestions for improvements. GDallimore (Talk) 23:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Why are there no chocolate chips visible? Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe because the picture depicts this and not a chocolate chip cookie? lol. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I was worried it was slightly dung like and actually fiddled with the shades of brown for ages to try to steer away from that! On another light note, I almost made the floor checkered in honour of raytracing cliche of reflective spheres over checkered planes, but it distracted from the shadows. GDallimore (Talk) 23:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe because the picture depicts this and not a chocolate chip cookie? lol. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. I can't tell what the difference is between the two balls. The caption seems to be discussing a difference but then the images look alike. Also, although I am not a mathematician, I think I should probably be able to understand most technical explanations if an effort is made to make them accessible. But this one baffled me. Consider writing the caption to make it discuss the features of the images (or make the images look more different). And write the caption so that it is not so dependent on out of article link clicking. Maybe it is impossible, but give it a shot. Can you convey the "so what", more clearly?TCO (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I reread it and understand the concept now. One way has a perfect circle, the other doesn't. Consider making it simpler or quicker to understand though. The other thing is part of the caption discusses "changing the actual surface" in a manner that suggest physical actions. But the whole thing is a model. So this wording could be improved (common issue with modelers).TCO (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not pushing this, but maybe if you had some red dashed line or the like for the outline, it would help make it clear faster for blockheads like me, what the key point is. Other than that thee bumps look great and so the shadows.TCO (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree it's hard to spot some of the key differences in the thumbnail, but I don't agree that it's difficult in the full-size or even preview versions. The differences are always going to be quite subtle, since bump-mapping is a pretty good technique despite its limitations, so I don't think there's any way to really make the differences stand out in the thumb version without really pushing the technique to its limits so that the bump-mapped sphere just looked terrible. I don't think the lines and circles you suggest adding would help. I'll have a final think about the blurb - I tried to be pretty careful about the whole "modelling" thing, but see a couple of places it can be improved, so thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 20:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not pushing this, but maybe if you had some red dashed line or the like for the outline, it would help make it clear faster for blockheads like me, what the key point is. Other than that thee bumps look great and so the shadows.TCO (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I reread it and understand the concept now. One way has a perfect circle, the other doesn't. Consider making it simpler or quicker to understand though. The other thing is part of the caption discusses "changing the actual surface" in a manner that suggest physical actions. But the whole thing is a model. So this wording could be improved (common issue with modelers).TCO (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Friend, just fix the blurb and it is copacetic (and I will support you). I agree the red dashed lines would be bafugly. And yeah, I can easily see "it" when I know what to look for. But weeding through all that spinach about the programs and all makes it hard to get the key aha right away. Look how simply I expressed it when I finally understood it was circle verus non-circle. I would not write a caption like that even in a formal science paper, nor would I do it in Wikipedia (although oddly sometimes Wiki acts more technical than real technical articles). I remember reading something on "how to write science papers" (some book or such) that figure captions are some of the most high value text you have in your entire manuscript, so hone them. I think you can actually keep all the detail, but just say something at the very front to the effect of "Bal on the left has a perfectly circular outline while the one on the right has a bumped outline." (then still include all the stuff about the programs and all in later sentences). But call the reader attention to the key visual aspect of the picture first, rather than making him read through all that stuff, think, look, think, look. Also, I think referring to the surface as if it were an actual physical object is confusing (and wrong, there was a great review paper done on how mathematical modeller's language of discussing things as reality can actually affect their work negatively.) Anyhow. Good luck, man. It's really no big deal, just sharing in case it helps.TCO (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry if my reply came across as suggesting you were being unhelpful. That really wasn't the intention and my "thanks" were meant honestly. And the suggestion to get the main point across early is a great one. GDallimore (Talk) 21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support I've thought quite a bit about this image the past couple days. I really like the educational value of the image; it definitely adds a huge understanding of the concept to a layman. That said, it's hard for me to fully support the image for FP, as it doesn't seem particularly "eye-catching". I've tried to think of a way to really make the image grab you a bit more, and let the viewer understand the concept without close inspection, but I haven't come up with anything. Great work though. Jujutacular talk 20:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's why I tried the fog in the original version. The problem is, do anything more to make it more eye-catching and you lose the point of the image. Amusingly, with the plain white background, it now looks like one of those dissected fruit photos! GDallimore (Talk) 20:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, the original red colouring I used is a bit more eye-catching, but I though it was too much and went for muddy realism. What do you think of this? GDallimore (Talk) 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's why I tried the fog in the original version. The problem is, do anything more to make it more eye-catching and you lose the point of the image. Amusingly, with the plain white background, it now looks like one of those dissected fruit photos! GDallimore (Talk) 20:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not enough support. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2011 at 01:12:07 (UTC)
- Reason
- Noted picture of a remarkable and important woman. This more medieval style isn't something we see a lot at FPC- we have featured pictures of her great-grandchildren, but even they are noticably more modern. Very high quality reproduction, obvious EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Lady Margaret Beaufort, List of Manx consorts
- FP category for this image
- People/Royalty
- Creator
- Unknown
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Interesting medieval portrait. Is it possible to get information on the crest and words at the top in the image's description? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The crest is her family crest (House_of_Beaufort). No idea about the phrase. While I'm here I may as well support it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Borrowed from St John's College, Cambridge- "The College motto is souvent me souvient, supplied by Lady Margaret Beaufort, and written in Mediaeval French. It is inscribed over gates, lintels and within tympana throughout the college, functioning as a triple pun. It means 'I often remember', 'think of me often' and, when spoken (exploiting the homonym souvent me sous vient), 'I often pass beneath it' (referring to the inscriptions). The college shares its motto with Christ's College, Cambridge and Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford". I seem to remember reading somewhere about her telling Henry to "think of me often". J Milburn (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Expanded on the issue in the caption and on the image page. J Milburn (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- More detail than I thought would be available, good work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Expanded on the issue in the caption and on the image page. J Milburn (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Borrowed from St John's College, Cambridge- "The College motto is souvent me souvient, supplied by Lady Margaret Beaufort, and written in Mediaeval French. It is inscribed over gates, lintels and within tympana throughout the college, functioning as a triple pun. It means 'I often remember', 'think of me often' and, when spoken (exploiting the homonym souvent me sous vient), 'I often pass beneath it' (referring to the inscriptions). The college shares its motto with Christ's College, Cambridge and Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford". I seem to remember reading somewhere about her telling Henry to "think of me often". J Milburn (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The crest is her family crest (House_of_Beaufort). No idea about the phrase. While I'm here I may as well support it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support: Very good. Maedin\talk 19:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. SMasters (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Lady Margaret Beaufort from NPG.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2011 at 03:43:37 (UTC)
- Reason
- After looking through hundreds of images in Commons categories, this one caught my eye for the interesting pose of Gorman (the first Miss America) and her pet Greyhound. This is my first effort at attempting to restore an image beyond the basic dust and scratches, which made for a fun and challenging endeavor. The 1920s image is high-quality and provides a great representation of several topics.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Margaret Gorman, Greyhound, Pet
- FP category for this image
- Culture & Lifestyle
- Creator
- National Photo Company Collection
- Support as nominator --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Surprisingly high EV for Greyhound, given the size reference. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not really convinced about the EV here. It's not the most useful portrait of her, and I don't really see what it is adding to the other two articles. If we want a size reference for a greyhound, I'm sure a modern picture could do a much better job. J Milburn (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, for size reference, she was pretty short (5' 1") so I don't know if that impacts the view of the size of the dog in relation to an average size person. Although the image doesn't fill one specific EV as say something like the File:Poliocephalus poliocephalus RB.jpg or File:Vexi Salmi.jpg (chosen at random), I would say that its focus on several elements provides context, allowing for EV in more than one area. Surprisingly, the other images of her that I've found do not really have great poses or have the detail as this one. The use in the Greyhound article helps to illustrate the history of the popularity of the breed as a pet, and the Pet article details the owner-pet relationship (outside the more common images on that article of the pets by themselves). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2011 at 09:19:25 (UTC)
- Reason
- Featured on Commons, high quality, good EV, used in other national Wiki.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tutufa bufo, Tutufa
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others
- Creator
- George Chernilevsky
- Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky talk 09:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. High quality, encyclopedic. NauticaShades 17:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd add that I think the lighting issues are minimal here, and don't overly detract from the EV. NauticaShades 11:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Size reference, or scale, or description of the size on the image page would be helpful. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, added (101 mm) --George Chernilevsky talk 20:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose uneven lighting in comparison of both samples. Jó Kritika (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose A bit hasty with the photoshopping? The lefthand shell is horrifically cut out. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The lighting leaves quite a bit to be desired. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy close??? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy closes cause too much controversy. They only happen when the uploader requests a withdrawal. J Milburn (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also, you should only invoke speedy close if there is absolutely no question that everyone is going to oppose. However, Nautica above clearly supports it; so speedy close is especially inapposite. Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, i agree with speedy close and withdraw this nomination. Thanks to all for review --George Chernilevsky talk 11:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2011 at 18:05:08 (UTC)
- Reason
- It is a high quality image of the official White house painting of the former US president and is highly encyclopedic
- Articles in which this image appears
- links to the article/s that use this image, in order of where the image has highest encyclopaedic value
- FP category for this image
- People, Artwork
- Creator
- Original artist of the painting was Joseph Henry Bush, uploader was Scewing
- Support as nominator --Kumioko (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support - High EV for being a presidential portrait, and the way the in which it embodies Taylor as "Old Rough and Ready". P. S. Burton (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, feels like "just another picture" on the article. It's not illustrating anything in particular. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. Quality image, but as J Milburn points out, the encyclopedic value of how it's currently used in the article leaves much to be desired. --KFP (contact | edits) 20:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2011 at 22:23:31 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality, restored version of an historic image of a notable Russian political figure.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Maxim Gorky, List of Russian language novelists, List of Russian people
- FP category for this image
- People, History
- Creator
- Herman Mishkin, N.Y. Restoration by Fallschirmjäger
- Support as nominator --Fallschirmjäger ✉ 22:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Weak oppose The photo looks overblown on the subject's face. I'd suggest trying to adjust this. -- mcshadypl TC 06:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a new version with reduced exposure on his face. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 16:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support either Noodle snacks (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support edit, weak support origAaadddaaammm (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support either Can't decide.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Edit. Good EV, and the quality is sufficient. NauticaShades 15:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support edit, nice. Belongs in the appropriate people category. J Milburn (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Maxim Gorky LOC Restored edit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2011 at 18:58:07 (UTC)
- Reason
- Top-notch reproduction of a lovely painting of a notable subject by a notable artist. What more could you want? I believe this would be our first FP of a bishop.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Henry Compton (bishop)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
- Creator
- Godfrey Kneller
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support a nice portrait. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support JJ Harrison (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Purpy Pupple (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Spongie555 (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Henry Compton by Sir Godfrey Kneller, Bt.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2011 at 00:30:02 (UTC)
- Reason
- Unlike previous images, this recent one has no black gap near "iris" and is literally eye-catching.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Fomalhaut
- FP category for this image
- Looking out
- Creator
- NASA/Hubble
- Support as nominator --Twilightchill t 00:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support this is a very impressive real image of the fictional one. Nergaal (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: What's going on with the black on the edges? J Milburn (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- You mean the 10% on the left and right? Nergaal (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is the original crop, other versions also seem a bit trimmed. Twilightchill t 01:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- You mean the 10% on the left and right? Nergaal (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Support alternateLOL the first thing I thought was the Eye of Sauron too! Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)- Retracting support because the image does not seem significantly better than File:Fomalhaut_with_Disk_Ring_and_extrasolar_planet_b.jpg; is only used in one article (the last time I checked), and does not significantly add to the article beyond what is already achieved in the aforementioned picture. Purpy Pupple (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Re-adding support for Alternate, which I believe is more encyclopedic. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Retracting support for Alternate because of low resolution. Purpy Pupple (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Hubble does an exemplary job of this stuff compared to my Nikon. There is no better way to illustrate “debris disk” than a photo of one. Greg L (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Alternate Eye of Sauron!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Certainly illustrative, yet unexceptional ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Support I dissagree entirely with Anetode's comment of unexeptional - hardly a regular sight to the average human so therefore by defenition an exception ergo exceptional... HOWEVER only weak support as the edges being cut annoy me slightly as subject is cut off... But not as if we can exactly just take another picture of it... gazhiley.co.uk 14:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
OpposeNo caption. What am I looking at? --Sean 17:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)- "Debris disk around Fomalhaut, featuring small spot of Fomalhaut b in the center" just under the picture is this caption... not sure where you are looking... gazhiley.co.uk 17:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- On the other hand, the caption is not accurate because Fomalhaut b is a planet orbiting Fomalhaut, and that small spot which is in the center is Fomalhaut and not Fomalhaut b. cf. coronagraph of Fomalhaut.
- Fixed, thanks. Twilightchill t 18:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I was looking for it on the actual image page. Thanks. It's still a far cry from "descriptive, informative and complete" for those who don't already know what they're looking at, but I'll rescind my opposition. --Sean 19:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- On the other hand, the caption is not accurate because Fomalhaut b is a planet orbiting Fomalhaut, and that small spot which is in the center is Fomalhaut and not Fomalhaut b. cf. coronagraph of Fomalhaut.
- "Debris disk around Fomalhaut, featuring small spot of Fomalhaut b in the center" just under the picture is this caption... not sure where you are looking... gazhiley.co.uk 17:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Question Why this one and not File:Fomalhaut with Disk Ring and extrasolar planet b.jpg? It's the lead at Fomalhaut and Debris disk. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, that image has a black gap above the center. Putting it here anyway for preferences. Twilightchill t 01:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that the version nominated here also has a chunk in the middle missing or taken from significantly different exposures (hence the dark "pupil" in center of the "eye"), presumably because it would not be possible to photograph the debris disk without covering up the star Fomalhaut (or else the star would overpower everything else). So missing chunks near the center is in fact commonplace. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment original has much much much higher resolution than the alt. Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. The alt is smaller than it could be, while the original has that strange crop/border. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- But that's how most astrophysics pictures are taken. They try to minimize the exposure for things outside of the object of interest. Have you seen Family Portrait (Voyager)? Nergaal (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support < 5. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2011 at 15:40:24 (UTC)
- Reason
- nice view and weather
- Articles in which this image appears
- Saalfelden
- FP category for this image
- link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)
- Creator
- Felix König
- Support as nominator ---- Felix König ✉ 15:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I think it would have been better if you stood directly in front rather than the shift to the left to avoid perspective issues... Jó Kritika (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose due to angle the picture is taken from. Sorry, Matthewedwards : Chat 05:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition and angle are pretty uninspiring. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The angle. Why was it shot from this position?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice picture, decent lighting and colour but the perspective lets it down. Would support if it were centrally framed. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 14:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose while it is a fine and interesting building, the oblique angle is an unfortunate flaw. Also, there seems to be a faint but slightly annoying halo in the sky around the roofs, esp. on the right side (while a darker but faint "shadow" is around the tower on the left). Purpy Pupple (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2011 at 11:55:27 (UTC)
- Reason
- This image complements the other available image regarding gastric acid secretion in that it includes the pharmacological targets.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Gastric acid
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
- Creator
- Adam L. VanWert, Pharm.D., Ph.D.
- Support as nominator Vanwa71 (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
OpposeNot only because you can't even follow the instructions and I spent useless time to do that, this is a file in png-format, so you need to convert it.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)- Support now. Nice work!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please relax a little. Posting on here is very new to me. Please explain why .png is not acceptable.Vanwa71
- Hey there. Diagrams of this sort can more usefully be displayed in svg format, which has a number of advantages- it's scalable, easy to modify, etc. GreatOrangePumpkin, that was a little sharp, please don't bite the newbies. J Milburn (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Because it is a vector graphic and they should be all in .svg format, like File:Euro Construction.svg or File:Airfield traffic pattern.svg. Also it is too much cropped; D-Cell or the Enteric Nervous System are too much cropped. And please delete
[[User:Vanwa71|Vanwa71]]after *'''Support as nominator''' and sign with four tildes. Also provide a good caption, so that we all now what it is. Actually I thought it was a map for a shopping center, but now I know what it is.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)- You're being a bit unnecessarily rude there. I agree with the sentiment of the nominator and J Milburn. It might help to express yourself in terms of opinions rather than statements and demands. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support iff converted to SVG. The graphic is well-made and educational. It is not every day that an expert contributes high-quality images to Wikipedia, and I am deeply appreciative of this. Purpy Pupple (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
*Weak oppose It is a well made educational diagram, but as an image, I feel it's not eye catching and aesthetic enough to promote to FP status. Maybe you could break the image down so it's a bit less busy? Regardless, please please PLEASE continue to create images like this for WP - even if they're not FP material! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose (and strongly too). I’ve made the point here before and I’ll make it again with regard to to this nomination. Check out how this graphic is used in Gastric acid. That graphic does not convey usable information at the placed size of 350 pixels in the article. I just tested an experiment at 500 pixels and it still wasn’t usable; which is to say, it was undecipherable and conveyed precious little usable information. One must first click on the graphic and (at least on a Mac) click on the link to see the image using the full width of the window. I’ve created plenty of graphics and I take care to make them thoroughly usable in the size as placed in the article. IMO, not only is this nom undeserving of being considered as exemplary work that should be featured on the Main Page for a day, it really should be revised so it is usable in the article in its placed size. If it can’t be made to work in—say—500 pixels of thumb width, then it is too complex and needs to be simplified (like the problem-solving flowchart) or broken up into multiple graphics. Greg L (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Rebuttal. Thanks for the comments. I realize that the image is full of information, and may seem overwhelming, but I believe simplifying it would be an in justice to many observers(e.g., physiology students, pharmacy students, etc.) In my opinion there is nothing wrong with requiring viewers to click on the image in order to see the details. This is the most thorough image available that combines acid secretion physiology and pharmacology (and that includes well established texts). My students always give very positive feedback on this image, as it is invaluable for helping them put everything together. It may not be easily interpreted by every audience, but that's not the intention. Again, thanks for this opportunity. Vanwa71 (talk)
- The issue, Dr. VanWert, isn’t whether the graphic is instructional; it clearly is. My point is that to be fairly regarded as an exemplary showcase of the art of graphic-making and implementation on Wikipedia (worthy of being considered a Featured Picture), the reader shouldn’t have to click the graphic to begin getting value from it. For instance, the graph showing the stability of the International Prototype Kilogram is one such graphic that is fully usable by looking at it as placed in the article. No, that one isn’t an FP candidate, but it illustrates the principle of usability. Yours isn’t the first FP nomination that had to be clicked on to even begin fathoming what was in it. Greg L (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- 1. Is it possible to just change the image size so that it spans the page? Like a panorama or some such? 2. It's a great diagram. 3. I do wonder if it is appropriate for the article. Perhaps writing an article on production of gastric acid or protein digestion (if a better choice does not exist)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 06:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article is on gastric acid, and that is exactly what the diagram is about. The purpose of gastric acid is partly to enhance protein digestion, so I don't believe that should be a separate article at all. I'm sure I can make the image larger, but not sure how well that would be received. I still see nothing wrong with clicking on it. There is a very extensive figure legend once you click on it, so how exactly does the fact that it must be clicked on reduce its value? I don't want to dominate the page with a large picture. --Vanwa71 (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support (I myself used this image while learning GI physiology and pharmacology. It was extremely helpful! I disagree with those who have said the image is too busy; it’s comprehensive. That’s what makes it a valuable educational tool. ) Tkhockeygal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
- I suppose a vote is a vote. But your opinion and reasoning might have more influence on others if you had not created an account and made this vote your one and only contribution to Wikipedia. It’s called being a single-purpose account, which means a certain thing on Wikipedia. And, yes, I agree (again) with your stated reasoning that the graphic is educational. That’s a separate matter as to whether teeny tiny little graphic elements amount to an outstanding, exemplary work. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Changed to .SVG but not sure how to remove .png from the heading without making a new discussion. Vanwa71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
- I put a speedy deletion tag per F1, even if format is not the same.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support provided there isn't some factual error with the diagram. Some things are inherently complicated and don't fit within 350x350 or even 500x500. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Response. I greatly appreciate your statement. The information supporting this diagram can be found in major physiology and pharmacology texts (e.g., Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics). Many texts have helpful images, but after looking at many of them, I felt that none of them were good enough for combining pharmacology and physiology. Yes, some things are extremely complicated, and I encourage the viewer to focus on particular regions of the diagram before attempting to understand it as a whole. Vanwa71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
- Support.I don't think the images is busy at all. Clicking on it does not bother me, either. I think you need to see it large in order to appreciate it. Great work Dr. VanWert! 71.173.6.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
- Comment I'm a bit confused. While the file is an SVG, I'm not sure it's an SVG proper. It's just a PNG saved as an SVG, isn't it? Makeemlighter (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. This is not an SVG vector image. It is just an embedded PNG in an SVG file. You need to trace the original image to vector format for proper SVG conversion aka. vectorization. Now it is technically just a 1/3 larger base64 encoded PNG. --hydrox (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)The image still has some embedded raster components, but moving to right direction with vectorisation of fonts etc. --hydrox (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Question Do we have a policy regarding single-purpose editors and single-purpose I.P.s whose one and only contribution to Wikipedia is to vote on a particular picture here? Do their votes count? This sort of thing could even lead to a room-full of students—anxious to curry favor with a college instructor—coming here to game the system and complement the instructor responsible for this graphic. Greg L (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets." It's at the top of this page! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- D’oH! Thanks. Greg L (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, this one could be awkward to close. J Milburn (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- D’oH! Thanks. Greg L (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets." It's at the top of this page! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- One of the last supports was my student, but is no longer my student, and the other was never my student. I do not know what else needs to be done with the image. I believe its resolution is more than adequate. Yes I took the .png image and converted it to .svg. That's all I know how to do at this point. Please advise. Ultimately, I put a lot of work into the image, paying particular attention to its accuracy. If it never gets voted in then so be it. All I know is that I'm done contributing to Wikipedia at this point. Vanwa71 (talk)
- FYI: I downloaded Inkscape to convert to .svg because its free. Can I use the program to make it true .svg? Vanwa71 (talk)
- Thanks for your persistence,because now I understand what vectorization is, and its awesome! I figured out how to do it on Inkscape, uploading soon. Vanwa71 (talk)
- Well I'm having trouble on Inkscape making it true vector without seriously ruining the colors and resolution. I'm in way over my head. Please help.Vanwa71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC).
- Hang in there, man. I have no idea how to help you, but have experienced similar feelings on this sort of thing.TCO (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well I thought you vectorized it before.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hang in there, man. I have no idea how to help you, but have experienced similar feelings on this sort of thing.TCO (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think I have it nailed! Unfortunately I had to remove the color gradients because of annoying lines between shades. New image coming very soon. --Vanwa71 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok it's finally true SVG. I did my best while teaching myself on the fly. I hope this is acceptable.--Vanwa71 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- FYI: the other picture on the page is .png and low resolution at that, but it was selected as a featured picture. Just saying ;) --Vanwa71 (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please visit the Gastric Acid page to see the image placement and size. I have moved it down to regulation and increased the size. --Vanwa71 (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Note (from Greg L): I made a page-flow edit so the text flows like this at Gastric acid. I see that User:Vanwa71 (Dr. VanWert) increased this graphic to 700 pixels but left the thumb with right-placement, which forces text to the left of it. I like that general concept (making the graphic actually usable as placed in the article). However, the trouble with that (shown HERE) is it leaves text to the left of the graphic crowded beyond all comprehension for readers with low-resolution monitors (1280 and below).
Webmasters nowadays optimize page layout assuming a minimum monitor size of 1024 pixels; below that, horizontal scroll bars will appear on your browser window and you have to scroll left & right to see all the content. For an example of this, see MSNBC.com. Shrink the window until the horizontal scroll bar appears. That occurs at about 1012 pixels. By centering the graphic and forcing text below it with the {{-}} template, we can even enlarge the graphic a bit more and ensure no text is crowded. I’ll noodle now about changing my vote since I can now concentrate on its EV (encyclopedic value) and its quality.
I am much inclined to change to “support” since Wikipedia desperately needs contributions from experts in their fields (rather than the wet-behind-the-ears novices we usually get). Most Ph.D.s I’ve encountered (many) while researching articles are totally baffled at how I am willing to A) devote time to Wikipedia without attribution, and B) put up with the frustration of less-knowledgeable 8th graders who can revert what you write. Greg L (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- That didn’t take long for noodling since something immediately jumped out at me. I could conditionally support this graphic. I think it is absolutely imperative that the text below it (not in the caption) take the reader by the hand and guide the reader through the graphic step-by-step—complete with numbered steps. New paragraphs beginning with the # pound sign will automatically number paragraphs in the manner customary on Wikipedia. Though the graphic is informative, it is complex and technical and Wikipedia is directed to a general-interest readership. This material can greatly benefit from a simple re-write of the verbiage below it to make the graphic more accessible to a general-interest readership interested in learning more about this subject. Greg L (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Conditional support: It's a great detailed graphic. My issue was the integration with the article (why I wanted an article on gastric acid production). If the nominator will edit the text below so that it actually goes through the process and explains the process, than I would support. Right now, that discussion does not even refer to the non-pariteal cells, so the reader has a "huh" factor going on when moving from image to text. I would certainly expect that inline text in a bio or medicine text would go into more detail of the process. I'm not just copying GregL, it's just a common sense response. If you don't change the text, than the diagram is overkill and too complicated in regards to the article. I think doing a subpage on gastric acid production or regulation might be the way to go. Because you go into way more detail on this aspect. Also because it will be a lot more technical than the rest of that article. That said, I could be OK with a longish section as well as long as it explains the process and the diagram. I also want to motivate the nom to prevail and share his frustration with teh wiki, and have a (non-medical) technical background.TCO (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm gunna change my vote to SUPPORT!, maybe largely due to the creators passion, and the extraordinary EV of the image. Keep it up! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well… darn! I feel all stupid now because apparently Aaadddaaammm completely understands the regulation of gastric acid and sees EV in the graphic unsupported by any improvements in the current text. I’m a medical researcher (engineer, not a physician) and just spent a month in a medical trial on animals using the SmartPill system, in which little 13 mm-diameter radio transmitters are swallowed and which transmits gastric pH, temperature, and pressure to a receiver. Actually, the SmartPills transmit the data from stem to stern. We went through some two dozen pills and I analyzed the data for every one. I was keenly focused on intragastric pressures so pH was more of an assistive tool to help discern when the pill transited the pyloric sphincter. I nevertheless noticed the pH went down below 1.0 in the fasted condition in some of the animals.
And here we are, at a general-interest online encyclopedia, and without some step-by-step guidance, I’m finding the graphic to be too complex to understand the interrelationships and dependencies of each numbered step. Interestingly, 20 feet behind me on the shelf as I type this is some simulated gastric acid I mixed up for material testing. It is 0.1 molar HCl (pH 1.0) and 0.2% NaCl. Sure wish I was smart enough to understand what’s going on in the graphic… Greg L (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well… darn! I feel all stupid now because apparently Aaadddaaammm completely understands the regulation of gastric acid and sees EV in the graphic unsupported by any improvements in the current text. I’m a medical researcher (engineer, not a physician) and just spent a month in a medical trial on animals using the SmartPill system, in which little 13 mm-diameter radio transmitters are swallowed and which transmits gastric pH, temperature, and pressure to a receiver. Actually, the SmartPills transmit the data from stem to stern. We went through some two dozen pills and I analyzed the data for every one. I was keenly focused on intragastric pressures so pH was more of an assistive tool to help discern when the pill transited the pyloric sphincter. I nevertheless noticed the pH went down below 1.0 in the fasted condition in some of the animals.
- Comment All the words are path right now. They should be converted to web-safe fonts. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I added an edit which takes care of the fonts. It looks better at 2000px but thumbs poorly. The original image was poorly vectorized, I think. I'll fiddle with it some more to see if I can fix it. Even if it's not perfect, at least it cuts the file size down substantially. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- No matter what, this whole exercise was worth it just to learn about SVG. Now I feel like becoming a graphics artist. I have indeed been considering the fact that the article was written by someone else, and will thus necessarily not blend seamlessly with my image. My caption is pretty thorough, but I realize that being buried even one layer below the main page may be too deep. Therefore, I am going to seriously consider these suggestions over the next day or so, and adapt accordingly. I will most likely leave it on the page and revise that section of the text. It is already informative, but I will fill in any gaps, and attempt to hold the reader's hand through the image. Go svg! Oh btw, I'm going to correct all that messy text on the image, as some of it was gummied up in translation. It will be crisp ASAP. Thanks again. Adam (--Vanwa71 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC))
- Good job man, keep after it!TCO (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're awesome. Just thought you should know that. NauticaShades 17:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I've fixed the fonts, and made some detail edits. Please look on the Gastric acid Wikipedia page to see the final image. For some reason, on the page here the thumbnail image has large numbers all over it on my monitor. On the main page I don't see any issues at all. Please check that out before commenting on the new image. Thanks for helping with the text, but I had already finished working on it when I saw your edit. I think it's basically near perfect. Next is to consider the placement on Wikipedia. Thanks for saying I'm awesome. I'm generally a fairly determined person. Thanks everyone for your help. --Vanwa71 (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your persistence. The new upload is looking a little unwell in Chrome though. I don't know enough about svg to comment. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh no! Now the image is messed up on both pages. If you click on it it's fine, but before you click on it there are numbers all over it. I have no idea why. Can someone please fix the thumbnail? Thanks!! --Vanwa71 (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Got it! Man my persistence is tiring. I wised up and chose to convert all fonts to outlines in order to preserve my exact preferred style. Boy was that a good move, if I say so myself. --Vanwa71 (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Something wonderful has happened. Really exploiting this trial version of Adobe Illustrator. --Vanwa71 (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are you intent on tackling a rewrite of the text that follows the picture and caption so this complex subject is clearly explained to a general-interest readership? Greg L (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I do plan on doing that. The semester is starting tomorrow, so I won't be able to work on it as soon as I would like to, but It's definitely on my list. --Vanwa71 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to sound like a hardass, but I think it really needs that before it can be voted on as an FP. People are looking for beautiful, well-done images. But they also want some strong illustrative value. As is, that thing is just way too complicated and does not fit with the as-written article. If you wrote an article (or rewrote the current article, whatever makes sense) to show number by number how the process works, then that would make the image meaningful. I know you have been busting your butt on the format and all (which I have no clue on), but I think it needs to be part of an article that really uses it, or else it really doesn't even belong and should get pulled from the gastric acid article. I would say the exact same thing were I viewing a medicine textbook or the like. Or chemical engineerin, or mechE. I don't want you to lose heart, and I do want to squeeze article work out of you too. But I don't see this thing passing until the article fits the image.TCO (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Understood. May the votes fall where they fall. I'm going to get this done as soon as I can. If I had your perspective I might have similar feelings. I might have a more technical section, and a section for the general readership. --Vanwa71 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with User:TCO. The EV of this graphic is questionable in the Gastric acid article (not to mention being a Featured Picture) if it is not followed by exceedingly well crafted verbiage explaining what it means. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, which states that “A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field.” This graphic—standing by itself without excellent hand-holding to step the reader through it—is simply not accessible to a general-interest readership.
Thank you, Dr. VanWert, for your expert contribution; I wish it would have received a better reception here by the community. As I wrote above, Wikipedia has a dearth of contributions from true experts in their respective fields. As I’ve discovered from intensely researched articles I was working on and corresponded with the original Ph.D. researchers who published their papers, trying to capture their thoughts and accurately paraphrase it into plain-speak accessible to a general-interest readership is no small feat. Greg L (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would just do a "subpage" and host the image on there and then go into detail. There are some comments on wiki that we can have different versions of articles, some more technical than others. Also, I just think people will excuse more technical detail in a subpage. And it's just the easy way instead of worrying about integrating into that other article. Also, even for an expert technical audience presenting an image of a process that complicated and then not discussing it is not sound proper educational methodolgy. People benefit from multiple forms of cognition. So even if I create a wonderful image of the inside of a clock, I need discussion of how the catchement and all that sort of stuff works. Same with a nuclear power plant. And even for very qualified audiences.TCO (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with User:TCO. The EV of this graphic is questionable in the Gastric acid article (not to mention being a Featured Picture) if it is not followed by exceedingly well crafted verbiage explaining what it means. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, which states that “A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field.” This graphic—standing by itself without excellent hand-holding to step the reader through it—is simply not accessible to a general-interest readership.
- Understood. May the votes fall where they fall. I'm going to get this done as soon as I can. If I had your perspective I might have similar feelings. I might have a more technical section, and a section for the general readership. --Vanwa71 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to sound like a hardass, but I think it really needs that before it can be voted on as an FP. People are looking for beautiful, well-done images. But they also want some strong illustrative value. As is, that thing is just way too complicated and does not fit with the as-written article. If you wrote an article (or rewrote the current article, whatever makes sense) to show number by number how the process works, then that would make the image meaningful. I know you have been busting your butt on the format and all (which I have no clue on), but I think it needs to be part of an article that really uses it, or else it really doesn't even belong and should get pulled from the gastric acid article. I would say the exact same thing were I viewing a medicine textbook or the like. Or chemical engineerin, or mechE. I don't want you to lose heart, and I do want to squeeze article work out of you too. But I don't see this thing passing until the article fits the image.TCO (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I do plan on doing that. The semester is starting tomorrow, so I won't be able to work on it as soon as I would like to, but It's definitely on my list. --Vanwa71 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are you intent on tackling a rewrite of the text that follows the picture and caption so this complex subject is clearly explained to a general-interest readership? Greg L (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I think a subpage might work. I've never created a page let alone a subpage, so I might need some advice. I just don't want to break any rules. --Vanwa71 (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since you are relatively new to Wikipedia, I think the most logical and fuss-free way to approach this would be for you to use your Vanwa71 user page as a sandbox. There, you can build and revise to your heart’s content without other editors second-guessing you in real-time. When you think you’ve got prose that is ready for prime time that steps the reader through that graphic and it is A) actually accessible to a general-interest readership, and B) maintains scientific rigor, I would suggest going to the Gastric acid talk page and leaving a post there. Or you can bookmark this nom page and contact me, TCO, or someone else who was active in this discussion. There are little niggling details like putting ‘category’ tags that you shouldn’t have to worry about; there are plenty of other editors here who can sweat those details. I think this approach gives us more flexibility because we can sit back and decide whether your explanatory text has a sufficiently ‘plain-speak’ nature to it that it can go into the current Gastric acid article or should be forked to a more advanced sub-page. In the mean time, I suggest that you withdraw this nomination and nominate it again when the graphic and accompanying explanatory text are in a state that truly adds value to a general-interest encyclopedia. To withdraw this nom, just make a post here stating as much. Best of luck… Greg L (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't help myself and worked on the lead in that article a bit. The whole article is a bluelinked mess. I bet it would be easier to understand even reading a completely technical source. Seems like ZERO effort was made to really explain to even a general science educated person, what is really going on. TCO (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawn. --Vanwa71 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2011 at 04:45:39 (UTC)
- Reason
- Beautiful picture of a human looking at the Earth from space. Both the plain-clothed human and the round Earth are more identifiable that the usual image of a human in a space suit or a straight-down view from Earth orbit. Greatly enhances the Cupola article by demonstrating the module's unique value.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cupola (ISS module), Tracy Caldwell Dyson, International Space Station
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking back
- Creator
- NASA/Douglas Wheelock
- Support as nominator --Bp0 (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strong support I find this to be a simply amazing, eye-catching image. It looks like something Hollywood would have made. I also motion that we suggest to Howcheng that he have this picture jump the 1-year-plus queue and feature this within a month or two after (when / if) it is promoted. Greg L (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support with both hands and legs. Stunning composition. Agree with Greg L about queue jump. Twilightchill t 12:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per Greg... I however don't agree with the queue jump - Howcheng should be left to decide things like that himself... It's a great picture yes, but so are others that get promoted... I don't understand the urgency of promoting this to the head of the queue... gazhiley.co.uk 13:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- My motion is just to pass along the *suggestion* to Howcheng. Wikipedia is a hobby for everyone and somewhat of a club for many—with great latitude to do as we please for maximum fun. Nothing is forcing us to behave on FPC as if the rod up our butts has a rod up it’s butt. Howcheng is always free to do what he will after the suggestion (or idea) is passed along from other club members. Greg L (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- True, but why push this over the rest? what makes this that special? gazhiley.co.uk 22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the first thing that makes it special is there are exceedingly few human beings who can go to this place to take such a picture. Since I’m a certified SCUBA diver, I could theoretically capture the fish pictures that appear here at FPC; not so with this shot. I think it looks so amazing surreal, it appears like a fabricated special effect from a 2001: A Space Odyssey. Greg L (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- True, but why push this over the rest? what makes this that special? gazhiley.co.uk 22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- My motion is just to pass along the *suggestion* to Howcheng. Wikipedia is a hobby for everyone and somewhat of a club for many—with great latitude to do as we please for maximum fun. Nothing is forcing us to behave on FPC as if the rod up our butts has a rod up it’s butt. Howcheng is always free to do what he will after the suggestion (or idea) is passed along from other club members. Greg L (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support too bad it's noisy, but since it was taken by an astronaut, and given the
original lighting conditions, that's fine. Purpy Pupple (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)- See my comment below about EXIF regarding original lighting conditions. Purpy Pupple (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support, though I can't say I'm as excited as Greg :P J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Weak EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose I should elaborate, although it doesn't much matter at this point. Tracy Caldwell Dyson already has a far superior image with better EV. Cupola (ISS module) doesn't have any great images, but all of them show what a cupola is better than this one. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Love this image - it shows the wonder of exploration. 19:52 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Images with better EV are available for both the Astronaut and the Cupola. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- In the articles for the astronaut and the cupola, this image seems to be the only one that actually shows an astronaut inside the cupola, giving it more EV than either an image showing just the astronaut, or an image showing just the cupola. Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. That was my reaction to this picture: I had no idea the windows afforded such a panoramic view through each pane. Now I understand much better the value of the Cupola. Greg L (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support According to the definition, 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. This picture is most definitely eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying articles. -- Lando-SpacePimp 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Mmealling (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Compelling, well executed and high EV in my opinion. The angle and the inclusion of the astronaut in the shot makes it more EV then the others. A shot from outside the station or the other shot that just shows like bland ground through the windows is not nearly as powerful as showing the curvature of the earth clearly indicating a much wider view through the windows. — raekyt 02:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Very high EV, in my opinion. -- mcshadypl TC 06:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support, I assumed this was a screen cap from a sci-fi film donated to us when I first saw it! Great stuff! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Gorgeous image, really illustrates the point of the Cupola. Colds7ream (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support But they need better low-light cameras in space. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Would this not reduce the visual appearance of the earth though? To me what makes this picture so striking is the colour and clarity of the earth poking through the darkness of the Cupola... gazhiley.co.uk 14:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment According to EXIF of the original image, it was taken with a Nikon D2Xs with exposure time of 1/1600s, f/4.5, with a 16mm lens, at ISO 200 - so it isn't exactly "low light". The exposure time should have been set to 1/800s instead for more correct exposure (I presume such a professional camera would have enough dynamic range to still capture the Earth without clipping); but whatever... it was taken by an astronaut, not a photographer! Purpy Pupple (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It seems that Smalljim's retouched version, uploaded over the original version, has too aggressive JPG compression (filesize is smaller, for instance); and has scrubbed all EXIF data! Don't you think it would be better to revert the overwrite and upload the retouched version as a separate file? Purpy Pupple (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Edited version is just fine, the original one is excessively dark and I can barely see anything there. Twilightchill t 19:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, the retouched version is ugly, particularly when you look at it at full size. The poor technicals really stand out. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per above-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Tracy Caldwell Dyson in Cupola ISS.jpg --Maedin\talk 19:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 21:49:01 (UTC)
- Reason
- The image:
- is of high technical standard and resolution;
- has considerable encyclopedic and historical value as the original promotional poster for the Mantra-Rock Dance, called by historians "the ultimate high" and the "the major spiritual event" of the San Francisco hippie era;
- is of interest as an intriguing illustration of the unlikely fusion between the Western rebellious counterculture icons, including Allen Ginsberg and leading rock groups of the time, and the Indian Vaishnava spirituality steeped in ancient tradition;
- serves to add value to a few important articles related to the counterculture of the 60's (see below).
- has been released under free license by the original author;
- is one of the very few, if any, works of art related to the topic and available on Wikipedia under free license;
- is aesthetically pleasing (even though this is not required :).
- Articles in which this image appears
- Mantra-Rock Dance, Allen Ginsberg, Janis Joplin, Grateful Dead, Moby Grape, Big Brother and the Holding Company, Avalon Ballroom.
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle and/or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
- Creator
- Harvey W.Cohen
- Support as nominator --Cinosaur (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not an expert on copyright (paging J Milburn), but don't we need something a little stronger than an assertion that this has been released under a free license? I don't see this particular image on the source website, so it's unclear how it was obtained. If the creator released it , doesn't it need to go through OTRS? Makeemlighter (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- It did go through OTRS on Commons. See here. Cinosaur (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm...I'm sure none of that was there when I checked. Oh well. Looks good. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- It did go through OTRS on Commons. See here. Cinosaur (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Su-bloody-port. Copyright looks legit (although, next time, please forward the email rather than just copy-pasting it!) so does the transfer to Commons, and so I have deleted the local copy per CSD#F8. Great image, something we should be chuffed to have. For what it's worth, I think this belongs in culture and lifestyle. J Milburn (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks J Milburn. I am learning as I go. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose If this is judged as being an excellent scan or photograph of the original poster, then I’m not seeing it; it is fine but not exceptional as a photograph. If this is judged based on the content of the poster itself (the graphic arts), it looks weird and low-quality to me and the text darn-near gives me a headache. While *interesting*, I’m not seeing how this graphic is exemplary and fine in any particular regard. Greg L (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Response A few points to address Greg's concerns:
- the image has high EV as the only known extant image (or any media) pertaining to the Mantra-Rock Dance, a significant event in the history of the hippie movement. It has already added EV to 7 articles and counting. That is, it is "among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer";
- the original poster is a historical artifact that cannot be replaced, enhanced, or reproduced;
- 43 years after the event, good originals are pretty rare, but this scan is crisp, clear, of sufficient resolution, and taken off a well-preserved original;
- per WP:WIAFP, such historical images do not have to be (a) of the highest quality, (b) of the highest resolution, or (c) "classically beautiful at all" to qualify as WP:FP.
- As for the headache – I'm sorry, but you've got to watch out: it's a psychedelic poster, after all. :) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment funnily enough, for such a significant poster, the designers managed to commit the common error of reversing the ampersand twice. Purpy Pupple (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Again, could that be part of its being a psychedelic poster? Otherwise I can check with the author if it's not too late to fix it. :) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dunno if this is a sarcasm over the Internet thing, but I'm pretty damn sure that's deliberate... J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Again, could that be part of its being a psychedelic poster? Otherwise I can check with the author if it's not too late to fix it. :) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support the image certainly has a great historical value. Plus, as Cinosaur already pointed out, it's the only known extant image pertaining to the Mantra-Rock Dance.Gaura79 (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Mostly per Cinosaur. I had some doubts about whether the image was FP material but he/she brings up some good points on the historical value of the image and it definitely is pretty good for it's age. Cat-five - talk 19:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Like, cool, man. (per nom; meets FPC criteria) Sasata (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Looks good. Wikidas© 14:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:1967 Mantra-Rock Dance Avalon poster.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 03:39:07 (UTC)
- Reason
- I did nominate and successfully pass another image of this species, but the breeding plumage is different. A bird field guide would have images of both, so should we. I'd suggest showing them together if it comes to POTD.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Red-capped Plover
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. So that is why it's a red-capped plover. However, there needs to be more mention of this difference in plumage in the article, otherwise the EV would be really bad. Purpy Pupple (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support, agree with your reasoning for two pictures, and agree with treating this as something of a set. However, I also agree with PP that an explanation of the differences in plumages would be a helpful addition to the article. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Added something, though I may change the reference to a book when I get home. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Wonderful shot, plenty of EV. NauticaShades 15:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. --KFP (contact | edits) 13:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support with comment this species exhibits sexual dimorphism in its plumage, this (good) illustration is of a breeding male. The books I have make telling the non-breeding male and the breeding (or non-breeding) female hard to separate, so I am not sure what the other FP File:Charadrius ruficapillus.jpg represents (given the time of year I'd speculate breeding female). I should be able to find out in the library but if not I'll throw it open to WP:BIRD (Unless JJ is certain its a non-breeding). Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Suggest you throw it. Given a similar time of year it might be a breeding female. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Have done. Only one response, a tentative "breeding female", which is what I was thinking too. It is amazing how useless the books are though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just went on my field guide, but there wasn't much detail in it at all. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Have done. Only one response, a tentative "breeding female", which is what I was thinking too. It is amazing how useless the books are though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Suggest you throw it. Given a similar time of year it might be a breeding female. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Charadrius ruficapillus Breeding Plumage.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 03:41:43 (UTC)
- Reason
- Commons is thin for this species too (one other image).
- Articles in which this image appears
- Black-headed Honeyeater
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support it's not bad I think. Interesting how the bird seems to be looking at the camera. Purpy Pupple (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad composition. This species has many detail and color for it to be missing in this picture. And tell me the subject (head in particular) was not brightened up... Doesn't strike FP to me. Jó Kritika (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- It was not brightened up. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Cowtowner (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support — raekyt 02:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Melithreptus affinis Bruny.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 05:18:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- High Ev as lead image. very good for its time
- Articles in which this image appears
- Frederick Theodore Frelinghuysen, List of Secretaries of State of the United States, List of United States Senators from New Jersey, 1844 Whig National Convention,
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
- Creator
- Mathew Brady and Levin Corbin Handy
- Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, sorry. It's a bit ordinary, doesn't strike me as a particularly brilliant portrait. J Milburn (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This image and this one are of the same nature and both are featured. Spongie555 (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Granted, but I would honestly say those two are stronger. Both have slightly better compositions; they both draw you into the image, and say something about the subject. Frelinghuysen just looks bored. I also note that the DOF is stronger on both of them. I agree that, in practice, portrait FPs are a little odd, but I don't think this one has the umph. J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- He looks more serious then bored. Also probably beacause he had to sit still for a long time to pose he would look bored because I know I would(last part personal opinion). Spongie555 (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Granted, but I would honestly say those two are stronger. Both have slightly better compositions; they both draw you into the image, and say something about the subject. Frelinghuysen just looks bored. I also note that the DOF is stronger on both of them. I agree that, in practice, portrait FPs are a little odd, but I don't think this one has the umph. J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. I like the portrait, but unfortunately the low DOF removes much of the the thumbnail detail. NauticaShades 17:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 12:08:29 (UTC)
- Reason
- So many lovely portraits, so little time. A noticably more modern painting (again by a very notable artist) of a rather curious looking nobleman who is known for his political service and academic writings.
- Articles in which this image appears
- George Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll, Secretary of State for India
- FP category for this image
- People/Political
- Creator
- George Frederic Watts
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support High Ev and very nice portrait. Spongie555 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Quite striking. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Do I see JPEG artifacts, or do my eyes deceive me? NauticaShades 17:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think so; where are we looking? J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- The very bottom right corner, for instance? Whatever it is, it seems to be more prevalent in darker areas. NauticaShades 08:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's the painting itself, though I may be wrong. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, looks like minor artifacts all over the dark parts to me, though the quality is still pretty good. --KFP (contact | edits) 20:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's the painting itself, though I may be wrong. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- The very bottom right corner, for instance? Whatever it is, it seems to be more prevalent in darker areas. NauticaShades 08:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think so; where are we looking? J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have raised attention to this discussion here and here. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support < 5. Makeemlighter (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 15:05:34 (UTC)
- Reason
- why you think it meets the FPC criteria and should be featured (check criteria first)
- Articles in which this image appears
- Telde
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Felix König
- Support as nominator ---- Felix König ✉ 15:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support good perspective, good EV, worthy to be a FP.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Support I know that there will be plenty of people who like a close crop but I don't particularly see the crop as appealing. My opinion is that if you're going to show some sky (and I support that so you don't crop too close) then you shouldn't crop so close on the sides or it makes the whole image see out of proportion. I'm still weakly in support of this because it's otherwise a good shot and well done and of high encyclopedic value. Cat-five - talk 19:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I just think that the church was cropped far too closely. I feel like more of the background on both the left and right sides should be included. Razum2010 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support - I actually like the tightness of the crop. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment There seems to be some perspective distortion or something. One of the towers is higher than the other, for example. I tried making an edited version to fix this but I am not pleased with the Edit either. Purpy Pupple (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The picture wasn't taken from a place completely in front of the church because there was a monument; because of that I couldn't take the picture from the place I wanted. -- Felix König ✉ 19:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support both. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support only the edit --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Weakoppose. It doesn't blow me away in terms of being fantastic photography, and the fact the church itself doesn't have its own article... J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)- Felix, sorry, I just wanted to add that I hope this doesn't discourage you. It's a good picture, and I suspect you will be capable of producing featured quality pictures, it's just that the bar here is high. J Milburn (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Essentially per Milburn; the EV just isn't there and the quality is unremarkable. Cowtowner (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- +5.5 -3 Makeemlighter (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 17:46:58 (UTC)
- Reason
- The first nomination wasn't promoted due to lack of votes, but it is a high quality picture with lots of EV, not to mention that it was a featured picure on Wikimedia Commons and Turkish Wikipedia.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Liberty Leading the People, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, History of painting, Romanticism, and much more.
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
- Creator
- Eugène Delacroix
- Support as nominator --Secret Saturdays (talk to me)what's new? 17:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Original, Support Alternate. The original has been retouched to remove the crease, which is part of the canvas, as of official Louvre scan/photo shows. It also has visible JPEG artifacts. Full disclosure: I'm the original nominator. NauticaShades 18:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Was it not agreed that this was cropped far too closely? J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Both the Louvre and Google seem to indicate that this is the correct composition. NauticaShades 18:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actual picture. Nergaal (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support alt a faithful and accurate scan of a historic and famous painting. Resolution is reasonable, although not stellar. Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not entirely sold on this resolution: there's a limited amount of detail and given the size of the canvas and quality of our other FPs, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect more here. Cowtowner (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular talk 19:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support <5 Jujutacular talk 19:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 03:35:33 (UTC)
- Reason
- Best available image of species. I think File:Neophema chrysostoma mortimer.jpg is a juvenile. This is one of the more wary Tasmanian parrots.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Blue-winged Parrot
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support a handsome bird. Purpy Pupple (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed. Jó Kritika (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it's a light-coloured bird against a bright background. I think the exposure is fine since there's no clipping. The black point may be microscopically off though. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The parrot isn't over exposed, it is just a light background (overcast sky filtering through eucalyptus leaves) JJ Harrison (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it's a light-coloured bird against a bright background. I think the exposure is fine since there's no clipping. The black point may be microscopically off though. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's still too bright. The branch is overexposed, but perhaps just a slight decrease in brightness would make me change my mind (even though I don't favor the "stay-away-from-me" posture of the bird). Jó Kritika (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- No it isn't (overexposed). It is a dead eucalypt branch (1, 2 etc). I've posted an edit, burning the branch, but it'd be an edit for aesthetics, not accuracy, if anything. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's still too bright. The branch is overexposed, but perhaps just a slight decrease in brightness would make me change my mind (even though I don't favor the "stay-away-from-me" posture of the bird). Jó Kritika (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Either. EV is sufficient, and I'm not seeing the supposed overexposure. NauticaShades 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. J Milburn (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. — raekyt 01:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Which one? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd prefer the original... — raekyt 01:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Original, but I'm not that fussed. I'd gather Jó Kritika would prefer the alt (but not really support it). JJ Harrison (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Original, but there's not much in it. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Original, I don't know why the branch should be brighter; it's about the bird.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Neophema chrysostoma mortimer 2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2011 at 11:58:53 (UTC)
- Reason
- Surprise! Me again. ;-) Haven't had a lot of time for photography recently, but managed a trip up to Skye in Scotland and was spoilt by the lighting as I passed this castle. It's high resolution with (I think) a pleasing composition showing both the castle and the surrounding Highland landscape quite well.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Eilean Donan Castle
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
- Creator
- User:Diliff
- Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Wow. Shame about the people, in some ways, but that's a pretty brilliant shot. Good to see you back! J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support, nice! --KFP (contact | edits) 15:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Beautiful. I actually think the people help give the image a sense of scale. NauticaShades 17:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Great shot. This can be in the top 10 of the Photo of the Year in Commons.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support outstanding resolution. Purpy Pupple (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support This is clearly an outstanding, eye-catching picture with great lighting. Since the subject is “castle”, the crop could be tighter, but it still has the eye-catching quality. Greg L (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. And at 28.7 megapixels, it’s fun to scroll around in. Greg L (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support *grabs the passing bandwagon and holds on with both hands* Excellent picture, can't see any reason this shouldn't be promoted... gazhiley.co.uk 09:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Per everyone. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, I just showed my wife this picture and she said we saw it before. (Oh…) We spent a month in the British Isles with our extended family back in ‘77. We traveled the whole loop around England/Scotland/Wales and then did the same thing in Ireland. It got to the point that we’d be nodding off and someone would exclaim “Oh, look! There’s a castle!” I swear, one of us (it might have been me) responded “Well, that’s nothing special; it’s just another castle.” This was back when Starsky and Hutch was a big fav on British telly. British children, upon learning we were Americans invariably had two questions: 1) “Are you rich?” And, 2) “Have you seen many murders?” Greg L (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. The answers were “No” and “No.”
- BTW, I just showed my wife this picture and she said we saw it before. (Oh…) We spent a month in the British Isles with our extended family back in ‘77. We traveled the whole loop around England/Scotland/Wales and then did the same thing in Ireland. It got to the point that we’d be nodding off and someone would exclaim “Oh, look! There’s a castle!” I swear, one of us (it might have been me) responded “Well, that’s nothing special; it’s just another castle.” This was back when Starsky and Hutch was a big fav on British telly. British children, upon learning we were Americans invariably had two questions: 1) “Are you rich?” And, 2) “Have you seen many murders?” Greg L (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support The morning light is nice. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support - per Aaadddaaammm. Anoldtreeok (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support we should allow pics like these only if they provide a worth estimate of the castle. Nergaal (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Excellent overview of the ensemble and its location. --Elekhh (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. I'm not a qualified critic, but this thing is just stunning.TCO (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Brilliant shot. Booksworm Talk? 14:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support As per nom. Very nice! SMasters (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Wonderful. - Darwinek (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Great photography -- thank you! Neutralitytalk 22:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Eilean Donan Castle, Scotland - Jan 2011.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2011 at 00:30:44 (UTC)
- Reason
- Technical: The image was shot by a professional photographer and converted from plate to high resolution format. It is stored in the BYU Library special collections.
- Approval: CC-by-SA approval was obtained from the BYU Library special collections director.
- Usefulness: the image has three illustrative benefits for Wilmer W. Tanner: it shows the man, it shows his work (naturalist), and it shows his crowning acheivement (BYU Life Science Museum curator and building promoter).
- Art: The image is striking and has been used featured prominently in the past by BYU. It is black and white, but I think that is sort of "retro cool". Especially since the man shown is still alive (101!) and is a last living remnant of early 20th century naturalists. So B&W just kinda "fits". (Plus I find some variety of images, not all color photos, kind of dresses up pages.)
- Articles in which this image appears
- Wilmer W. Tanner, Taxidermy, BYU Life Sciences Museum
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
- Creator
- Creator was BYU official photographer. Uploaded by TCO. Image improvement assistance from Dschwen and Kaldari and Smalljim.
- Support as nominator --TCO (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- P.s. I am new to Featured Picture world, but have tried to follow the directions. Please excuse any mistakes and judge the image and help me. TCO (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- cleaned. (I think NYM does too, so that is four to one for the cleaned. I don't think everyone understands the need to pick the improved image. And even the oppose did not see the cleaned. Let me go see if that helps him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Mild Oppose I’m really not seeing that a black & white picture with lighting accomplished by a single flashbulb illustrates the subject Wilmer Tanner particularly well—at least not to the extent we’ve seen with other FP-award pictures, like this one of Charlton Heston. Nor do I see that this image is “eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article”. What I find rather interesting is that Mr. Tanner is 101 years old. To that extent, I suppose that this image is interesting in that working with tigers is not the risk factor to longevity one might think it would be. Greg L (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- The tiger was stuffed. Would not do that if it were mobile. ;-) Maybe you were joking though. Yeah, he's kind of fascinating as the whole article grew out of a ref from one tiny part of an FA was working on. Then found out more about the fellow, got French wiki page translated here, etc. There are these last links to pioneers of modern zoology still with us. His papers have been given to BYU Library, so he might be getting ready. However, I saw some publication of his as recent as 2008. TCO (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Conditional support if some of the worst scratches and dust spots removed - as well as the strange circular artefacts on the dark background. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway that someone here can help (can take credit for the FP if wanted). I am not a photographer.TCO (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- You might try asking at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Put in a request (learning all kinds of things, thanks). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- You might try asking at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway that someone here can help (can take credit for the FP if wanted). I am not a photographer.TCO (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a cleaned-up version per the request above. Removed a lot of blemishes, toned down some of the specular highlights, especially on the tiger's head and the shirt button. Also enhanced contrast slightly and applied a small amount of noise reduction. —SMALLJIM 01:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I can tell the difference. The contrast especially. Maybe the noise too. Am not well trained enough for the other aspects. But it seems to have more pop now with darker tiger stripes. TCO (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support-Although my vote may be biased as I have done some work with the nominator, I find this to be a spectacular image. The only small quibble I have (and this does not hold up my support) is can anything be done so that his elbow doesn't rest on the bottom edge of the image? Maybe if the bottom could be dropped ever so slightly (I realize it may not be possible to add to the image, but if the original were cropped to these dimensions, I would like to see it ever so slightly less cropped toward the bottom).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Cleaned version. A really unique photo with good EV. The lighting an composition aren't perfect, but I don't consider this a typical portrait shot. Kaldari (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support < 5 Makeemlighter (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2011 at 17:45:17 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is a high quality contemporary poster that nicely illustrates the article Utopia, Limited.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Utopia, Limited, Gilbert and Sullivan, W. S. Gilbert
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Others
- Creator
- Strobridge & Co. Lith. (edited by Adam Cuerden)
- Support as nominator --KFP (contact | edits) 17:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support with both hands and legs. Very eye-catching. Twilightchill t 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per twilight. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Something strange going on in the upper left, between the three gentleman and the "O" in "Opera". Makeemlighter (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- The unedited original version from LOC consists of 32 squares. The seams between and other flaws have been cleaned up in this version. That faint horizontal band in the background on the left is also present in the original, so it is not a stitching error but something else. --KFP (contact | edits) 21:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Very eye-catching. And very, very unusual for FPC; which is to say, it isn’t another f**king bird picture. Greg L (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- My bad :P. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- You know Greg L, you could always just scroll past the bird pictures like the rest of us who don't have any interest in them... Or even nominate more yourself of other subjects! Risky idea I know, but hey, sue me... gazhiley.co.uk 09:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do scroll past the birds. Go look; see if you can find one single vote or comment from me on our flock. JJ Harrison, below, has the right attitude: Bring on something else; anything else. Something new. Greg L (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- You know Greg L, you could always just scroll past the bird pictures like the rest of us who don't have any interest in them... Or even nominate more yourself of other subjects! Risky idea I know, but hey, sue me... gazhiley.co.uk 09:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- My bad :P. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The EV here derives not from its artistic value, but from its EV as an illustration of the opera. It belongs in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment, surely? J Milburn (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per Greg L though I'd hope for more nominations from other topics as the solution. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. And I admire how you are such a good sport here, too. Keep up the good work; yours are always excellent pictures of birds (*sigh*). Greg L (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support fantastic picture. Interestingly, the moon has a face on it. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support I love this. Great stuff. Booksworm Talk? 14:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support As per nom. SMasters (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Lovely eye catching poster that is also a great example of a nineteenth century poster and gives us a nice feel for late 1800s design aesthetic. Really like the smiling man in the moon. --Discott (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Fabulous scan. NauticaShades 13:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Utopia Limited Poster.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2011 at 00:45:38 (UTC)
- Reason
- Highly encyclopedic; quality is decent. A very good feature of these videos is that even in the static thumbnails, they convey the concept well (although it is of course better to watch the actual animation). It is unfeasible to use an animated GIF image for something with many thousands of frames. Please note that much of the encyclopedic value lies in distinguishing between the disordered and periodic intermediate phases, so it makes most sense to support these two videos as a set.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Biham-Middleton-Levine traffic model
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Sciences/Mathematics
- Creator
- Purpy Pupple
- Support set as nominator --Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support The two make sense. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support I already saw this video on you user page and I wonder why you didn't put them before.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Overall Support I'm a bit worried about the bandwidth though; the files are nearly 100 Megs each. Is it possible shorten them to the first minute or so for the main page? Also, are we sure the ogv file format has wide enough support for the main page? Anyone who has faced a morning commute on a crowded freeway will recognize the pattern. RDBury (talk)
- The videos have already been sped up by 4 times (i.e. 3 out of 4 frames were omitted). I think that it should be possible to shorten them further by about half, since they converge to one of the states by the time it's about halfway through. However, the remaining half should be useful to observe exactly how it is, say, periodic. Seeing as the video is streamed, the total filesize should not matter as much as the bitrate (nobody is going to download the whole movie before watching it). I think that it is quite viewable on most internet connections, but users of, say, dial up may experience unpleasant slowness. As for the support for the ogv file format, it is the default format used for videos on Wikipedia and is chosen for its free and open source codec that is, in general, highly accessible to everyone. Besides, Wikipedia has its own Java-based player or something in case the reader does not have a player that supports it. Purpy Pupple (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- It might actually serve to boost ogv support among the readership. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- The videos have already been sped up by 4 times (i.e. 3 out of 4 frames were omitted). I think that it should be possible to shorten them further by about half, since they converge to one of the states by the time it's about halfway through. However, the remaining half should be useful to observe exactly how it is, say, periodic. Seeing as the video is streamed, the total filesize should not matter as much as the bitrate (nobody is going to download the whole movie before watching it). I think that it is quite viewable on most internet connections, but users of, say, dial up may experience unpleasant slowness. As for the support for the ogv file format, it is the default format used for videos on Wikipedia and is chosen for its free and open source codec that is, in general, highly accessible to everyone. Besides, Wikipedia has its own Java-based player or something in case the reader does not have a player that supports it. Purpy Pupple (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Support Cowtowner (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:BML 144 89 38.ogv --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:BML 144 89 39.ogv --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Promoted as a set. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2011 at 19:29:56 (UTC)
- Reason
- This aquatint by Samuel Daniell 1805 provides an accurate depiction of Khoikhoi life in the very early 1800s and late 1700s. Prior to their nomadic way of life being permanently and dramatically changed by the arrival of white and Bantu settlers. This is one of the earliest known and most artistically skilled depictions of the Khoikhoi.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Khoikhoi, Samuel Daniell, Pastoralism
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/Others
- Creator
- Samuel Daniell (1805), first uploaded onto Wikipedia by Anrie
- Support as nominator --Discott (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support interesting. Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support - this is the sort of thing we need more of. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support, as above. J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Who owns the dog? It'd be nice for more caption detail too imo. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Khoikhoi where known to have kept dogs and other domesticated animals so I think it would be safe to assume that the artist had it in mind that the family would be the owners of the dog in the picture. Particularity since this is a scene depicting the domestic life of the Khoikhoi; as such one would expect to see in the picture things that they would own like their huts (being dismantled), armaments, pets and cattle. I was thinking of expanding the caption to include some of the stuff I mentioned in the rational. I suppose I could mention that they are/were a pastoralist society that lived in southern Africa before the arrival of European and Bantu settlers? --Discott (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Samuel Daniell - Kora-Khokhoi preparing to move - 1805.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2011 at 12:25:29 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very good angle on the whole body of an attractive lizard, tail intact. Resolution is high, lighting is nice, and it's an FP on de.wiki.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Italian wall lizard
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
- Creator
- Richard Bartz
- Support as nominator --Maedin\talk 12:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I like the original more, but will officially prefer edit 1 because it's more likely to succeed at staying in the article (particularly infobox). Maedin\talk 13:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support nice perspective. Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. --KFP (contact | edits) 21:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose This should be cropped tighter. Then I would support. Greg L (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)- Added crop. Maedin\talk 01:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 is a good photograph, illustrating the subject well in its native habitat. Greg L (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support edit 1. Nice look. Twilightchill t 21:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support either. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support I like the original more, as it gives a better sense of size, but will support either. SMasters (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for supporting either. If the objective was to sacrifice detail to illustrate diminutive scale, our Ant article would have pictures like this. Wisely, they used a serious closeup of an ant for the introductory photo in the lede of the article. Greg L (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- 'Support Edit 1. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support edit-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1. Per above. NauticaShades 13:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Podarcis sicula rb edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2011 at 18:40:42 (UTC)
- Reason
- It is high dpi and high resolution. There are less wrinkles than the original upload.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Reichsmark
- FP category for this image
- History/World War II
- Creator
- Sumsum2010
- Support as nominator --Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 18:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- The image page is not very informative. Please document the history of this image. Did you scan the bill yourself? Did you touch it up digitally? Also, the license is incorrect--the copyright that matters here is that of the original bill, not the scan of it. My understanding is that Third Reich currency is public domain, but that needs to be confirmed, and it certainly isn't CC 3.0! So please clear all of that up--thanks. Chick Bowen 22:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is either public domain or non-free, certainly not CC. Until shown definitively to be PD, it has to be considered non-free. J Milburn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I believe I have fixed the concerns brought up thus-far. Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 05:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are we certain that that license applies to money? J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am certian it would fall under the "official decree" portion. At this category on Commons of currency from Germany the same licencing is used. Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 23:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are we certain that that license applies to money? J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I believe I have fixed the concerns brought up thus-far. Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 05:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is either public domain or non-free, certainly not CC. Until shown definitively to be PD, it has to be considered non-free. J Milburn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Support Assuming others are satisfied that the copyright is OK. The creases are annoying but everything is still clear. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't replied above because, despite reading as much as I could on it, I'm still not sure that the template on it is accurate, even though it is, as Sumsum2010 says, the one used on other German currency images. The Deutsche Bundesbank has said that there are no legal restrictions on reproducing Deutschmarks, which is not quite the same as saying they're in the public domain but perhaps close enough. However, Nazi-era currency would be a different issue. After the war the copyrights on work-for-hire done for the Third Reich government reverted to the authors, but something like this would obviously be collective authorship, in which case its copyright would not be held by anyone (since the Nazi government was considered an illegal entity after the war, it couldn't hold copyright). So I feel confident in saying that no copyright claim could be made on this image, but less confident in endorsing the particular template that's currently on it. Still, since there's no way it would be deleted from Commons, I'd say it's suitable to be featured if voters think the quality and historical value are sufficient. Chick Bowen 04:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Not promoted --Jujutacular talk 22:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2011 at 00:15:11 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is, in my opinion, the best media on Wikipedia demonstrating 2D random walk and its similarity to Brownian motion. Moreover, it is highly intriguing to look at.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Random walk; Brownian motion; Scaling limit.
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Sciences/Mathematics
- Creator
- Purpy Pupple
- Support as nominator --Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Can you add as an end frame the overlay of all the paths? i.e. to bring back the faded tail and to show all the places where it has been? Nergaal (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Overall Support With same concerns as with Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/BML Traffic Model, namely file size and if ogv will be supported by everyone. I like the pixel fading, nice way of keeping the motion visible. I think most people will get the general idea fairly quickly, so I think a shorter version, say about 30 seconds, would be better.--RDBury (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- The filesize is much smaller than the videos in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/BML Traffic Model so I think it would be an even smaller problem. As for the length, the reader always has the choice to stop the video at any point he wants. I don't think there is any harm in having the full length video. Purpy Pupple (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support But you should shorten it to a minute or two. Nobody will sit and watch this for 11 minutes. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support, but I agree about the length. Cowtowner (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support < 5 Makeemlighter (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2011 at 00:08:24 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality, compelling view of the Petrified Forest National Park landscape
- Articles in which this image appears
- Petrified Forest National Park
- FP category for this image
- Landscapes
- Creator
- Finetooth
- Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Conditional (strong) supportThis photo begs for a more illuminating caption in order to give the (very) pretty picture EV. In banded formations such as this, the fossils clearly wouldn’t be in every type of layer; they would be in (I’m guessing) the reddish-brown layer, or some other layer. The caption should explain in which layer the fossils are found and how erosion has scattered them to the valley floor. Also, a tad too much EV is being sacrificed to include so much of those pretty clouds and deeply saturated sky; the crop should be a tad tighter vertically with all the ground preserved and less sky, which is purely decorative here; which is to say, this landscape—with two peaks left & right—could benefit from more of a “landscape” aspect ratio (now the valley floor). Greg L (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)- I agree with Greg L - will check back to see what happens before opposing/supporting... gazhiley.co.uk 00:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Expanded caption. --Elekhh (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Greg L - will check back to see what happens before opposing/supporting... gazhiley.co.uk 00:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. I can understand what Greg is saying, but I am also happy to support right now. Very attractive, solid EV. J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support - gorgeous. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Conditional support per Greg, AND I would like to see an alt without the bottom (~10%) that is distracting. Nergaal (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, a tad off the bottom too would be an improvement. I took the liberty of using the provided PDF from the National Park Service to revise the expanded caption. Naturally, I support the expanded caption, which I think gives the photograph extensive and thoroughly sufficient EV. Now I’d just like to see a version of the picture without so much of that sky; as I’m not even seeing a “horsey or ducky” up there, I don’t see the point of including so much sky & clouds. Greg L (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Oh… what the heck. I uploaded a cropped version myself. So…
- Yes, a tad off the bottom too would be an improvement. I took the liberty of using the provided PDF from the National Park Service to revise the expanded caption. Naturally, I support the expanded caption, which I think gives the photograph extensive and thoroughly sufficient EV. Now I’d just like to see a version of the picture without so much of that sky; as I’m not even seeing a “horsey or ducky” up there, I don’t see the point of including so much sky & clouds. Greg L (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1, cropped since issues in my now-struck conditional support are now addressed. Greg L (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is a collaborative project, so I welcome your additional expansion, and Alt proposal. I personally still prefer the original. Do you support both versions with preference for your edit or only your edit? --Elekhh (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Only Edit 1, Elekhh. Both a better caption and cropping out sky were a condition of my support. I surmise that is the same situation with Nergaal, who also felt that cropping was needed here. Hopefully, the others here who thought the original was fine will also find the cropped version to be cool beans. Greg L (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think the sky crop is a tad too tight. Nergaal (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Nergaal here - I suggest cropping just above the more grey of the clouds on the LHS... gazhiley.co.uk 10:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- After further thought I not only prefer the original but oppose Edit1. --Elekhh (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Nergaal here - I suggest cropping just above the more grey of the clouds on the LHS... gazhiley.co.uk 10:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think the sky crop is a tad too tight. Nergaal (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Only Edit 1, Elekhh. Both a better caption and cropping out sky were a condition of my support. I surmise that is the same situation with Nergaal, who also felt that cropping was needed here. Hopefully, the others here who thought the original was fine will also find the cropped version to be cool beans. Greg L (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is a collaborative project, so I welcome your additional expansion, and Alt proposal. I personally still prefer the original. Do you support both versions with preference for your edit or only your edit? --Elekhh (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support either' JJ Harrison (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
OpposeSupport original without potentially misleading caption : Thank you for considering the image.It might seem odd that I would oppose promotion for my own photo.In fact, I would be happy to support the original. It is already a featured picture and a quality image on the Commons and has been chosen as Picture of the Day for March 11, 2011. However, the cropped version iswashed out, not as nicely proportioned as the original, and removes important context, including parts of the sky and foreground. Furthermore, while the original description could be improved, I'm not convinced that the banded rocks of the Tepees are part of the Petrified Forest Member. Another NPS document says here, "The Blue Mesa Member consists of thick deposits of grey, blue, purple, and green mudstones and minor sandstone beds, the most prominent of which is the Newspaper Rock Sandstone. This unit is best exposed in the Tepees area of the park. The Blue Mesa Member is approximately 220-225 million years old." Are those red bands in The Tepees perhaps the Newspaper Rock Sandstone? I wrote a short description for the original because I didn't want to guess at the facts. Finetooth (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Changing to conditional support. Finetooth (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support original Edit's composition is too wide for an infobox image in my opinion. Jujutacular talk 10:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support original per nom-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:The PEFO Tepees.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2011 at 05:22:32 (UTC)
- Reason
- Excellent and encyclopedic image showing a Lyapunov fractal. The picture is of extremely high resolution and also has strong artistic merits. There is no good reason why the Mandelbrot set should have a ton of FPs and not the Lyapunov fractal. Also, I'm not sure why it wasn't promoted the last time it was nominated here because it seems to me there were 10 supports and 5 opposes.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Lyapunov fractal
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Sciences/Mathematics
- Creator
- BernardH
- Support as nominator --Purpy Pupple (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Very pretty. Again, it'd be nice to have the source, but the Author has not been around since 2007 or so it seems. It'd be nice if there was some sort of key between the colour and the value of too. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Both interesting and beautiful. I have seen lots of Mandelbrot fractals and not nearly enough examples of other fractal sets including the Lyapunov set. Nicely rendered as well. I agree with JJ Harrison, it would be nice if there was a colour key of some sorts. --Discott (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support I disagree with the reason given in the nomination since the Mandlebrot set is a much more widely studied object, but this image certainly meets FP criteria.--RDBury (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support - woooooow. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Conditional Support. I support the concept, but is there a more "iconic" image of the Lyapunov? I don't know enough about that fractal to know if there are any more "representative" images. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since the Lyapunov Fractal can be generated for any arbitrary starting sequence and growth parameters, I don't think there is a general and iconic image that represents all Lyapunov fractals. Purpy Pupple (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Promoted File:Lyapunov-fractal.png --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2011 at 19:37:52 (UTC)
- Reason
- unusuall, historical image (not reproducible), decent quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Convair F-106 Delta Dart, Belly landing, Cornfield Bomber
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
- Creator
- US Air Force
- Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support if only for the rarity... gazhiley.co.uk 00:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I know that it has landed in a cornfield, but shouldn't it be categorised in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air instead? Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- But it was riding through the field in this pic. Nergaal (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- But it's an aircraft... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Despite my support above I agree this needs to be in the aircraft section... gazhiley.co.uk 21:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- ps: the land category proposal was really a joke! Nergaal (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- why is it still in that catagory then if it is a joke? gazhiley.co.uk 12:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- ps: the land category proposal was really a joke! Nergaal (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Despite my support above I agree this needs to be in the aircraft section... gazhiley.co.uk 21:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- But it's an aircraft... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- But it was riding through the field in this pic. Nergaal (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Opppose. Sorry, I'm not convinced that the EV is high enough to compensate for the very ordinary quality. If we had an article on this particular aircraft, or the particular incident...J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)- Comment We do have an article on this incident: Cornfield Bomber, as listed in the nomination. Cowtowner (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do apologise, oppose struck for now. That's certainly the article in which the image has the highest EV, I would say... J Milburn (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Whilst the event was pretty rare, plenty of photos seem to be available. The large areas of blown highlights and low resolution suggest to me that we need a better scan of this image. Whilst I'd imagine this image is in the public domain, I wasn't able to spot any evidence of this at the source website. If it is indeed in the public domain, then it should be possible to find or request a better scan from somewhere. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose After noodling about this one, I realize that Wikipedia needs a WP:BITI (boy is this interesting) feature. When I first saw this picture here, I read the caption and found it quite interesting; a plane that landed itself. Nevertheless, WP:FPC isn’t, in my opinion, the proper venue for this picture as it simply doesn’t appear to me to represent excellence in photography in any particular regard. It isn’t even particularly eye-catching since, at first blush, it looks like a plane that ran off the end of a runway or an incident where the pilot had to ditch his aircraft after a bird strike at 40 feet. One has to read the caption to understand the significance. Greg L (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP:ODD is good for that. J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- OMG; Wikipedia is a big place! No matter what, there’s an app for that. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP:ODD is good for that. J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2011 at 08:02:54 (UTC)
- Reason
- Featured on Commons, high quality, good EV, used in other national Wiki.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Strombus sinuatus
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others
- Creator
- George Chernilevsky
- Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky talk 08:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Quality image, sufficient EV. Cowtowner (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Seems "upside down" to me, conceptually, but that's not a problem. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Suggestion - perhaps a rotated version might be a good idea to try? Neutralitytalk 22:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, a seashell very conditionally has "top" and "bottom". A gastropoda mollusk creeps on surfaces with very different angles. This picture shows dorsal and ventral view, and any angle of view for both part of picture will be correct.
Yes, there is a historical tradition only (by Ernst Haeckel and other wildlife illustrators) to draw apex at top, however it isn't dogma. This historical illustration by Ernst Haeckel breaks tradition (see shells at left and at right).
Also exist other historical tradition by other illustrators (however not so popular), to draw apex at bottom. For example: this picture has been made 1742. Personally I like such variant. However any angle of view is correct for a seashell, an example with ~30° rotation. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. High quality, plenty of EV. NauticaShades 13:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per above. Jujutacular talk 17:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support As per nom. SMasters (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Strombus sinuatus 2010 G1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2011 at 03:04:02 (UTC)
- Reason
- Here we have an important moment in World War II, in the History of the United States, and to a certain extent in the Civil Rights Movement that would emerge in the US in the 1960s. On December 7, 1941, during the attack at Pearl Harbor, Mess Attendant Doris Miller distinguished himself aboard the battleship USS West Virginia (BB-48) when he manned a unmanned anti-aircraft gun and - without any prior experience in its operation - fired the weapon against the attacking Japanese until the ammunition was exhausted. For this action Miller won the Navy Cross, the first African-American to be so honored in the United States Navy. In a ceremony aboard the carrier USS Enterprise (CV-6), Miller's award was presented to him by then Admiral Chester Nimitz (as shown). For the historical importance of this image, I am hereby putting it forward as a Featured Picture Candidate.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Chester W. Nimitz, Doris Miller, Military history of African Americans
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military
- Creator
- United States Navy
- Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 03:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The image is of poor quality and even at its barely-there resolution, isn’t sharp. It is full of dust and dirt, and the features of Miller’s face can barely be discerned even though the brightness has been punched up to the point that large areas of everyone’s uniforms are totally blown out. Greg L (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose: despite the historical importance. It needs to be worked on and then we can reconsider Booksworm Talk? 14:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, Greg sums it up well. Yes, lower standards are expected of images from many years ago, but that doesn't mean we should be promoting anything and everything. J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I have to oppose as per Greg and J Milburn. SMasters (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I uploaded a bigger version from the LOC that could work with some cleanup. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Notified the voters. NauticaShades 19:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support alt, as it solves all teh problems listed above. Nergaal (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment while the alt is an improvement, it's still got serious problems - for instance, there are and black spots all over the photo. The EV is strong and the composition is good, but this needs to be restored. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Whereas the Alternate has addressed all my above-cited objections regarding quality, I’m still not seeing how this image has exemplary quality based on any criteria. This picture was nominated on Martin Luther King day (U.S. time), and it is a meritorious objective to recognize the bravery of a black sailor, Miller, on MLK day. I am skeptical that FPC and its mission to identify and highlight eye-catching excellence in photography is the route to accomplish the goal of the nominator—not with this picture. Perhaps Doris Miller should be a Featured Article next year. But even then, his portrait at the top of the article is a far, far better way to illustrate the topic “Doris Miller” than this one. Greg L (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the MLK day thing was just a coincidence; here in El Paso most people are more interested in Cesar Chavez day than MLK day, and to be honest MLK day means very little to me since A) I wasn't alive at the time and B) I think there are better people that could be held up as Civil Rights leaders among the African American community - or for that matter, any one of the minority communities in American that take the back seat to the blacks which have the back seat behind the whites. Take Company F, for example, which most of you probably never heard about and likely never will. Guys like that I could get more excited about than good ol' MLK (I mean no offense here, I just feel that those who really fight for what they believe should be a little higher on the totem pole, thats all). As to the criteria: I've got be honest and say that FPC criteria is over my head - all the tech stuff and such that folks judge on literally means nothing to me. These days when I nominate an image here I full expect the image to fail, as most have. When I bring an image or video or other visual medium here I do so because I wish to highlight what I think are memorable photograph moments that to me should be featured if they are not already. Seeing images that were candidates and failed there FPC makes me feel like there may just be hope for the process yet - and by hope, I mean the hope that people will see what I am trying to present rather than seeing a line here a botch there and so forth in that manner. FWIW, I already know for a fact that this will fail; I've never had an FPC pass after the first person to comment votes against it, as you did a few days ago Greg, but for me the consolation prize, and the real reason I put it here, is so the next time someone looks at the image on the image page they'll see the link here and know that this image was once considered a candidate for a star, even if it did not make it. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see. Thanks for sharing your interesting and candid views and motivations here. As to your nominations frequently going down in flames after the first “oppose” vote, allow me to suggest a criteria upon which to select candidates: “Stop, Stare & Click.” If there is anything about the subject matter (not the caption), or the way the image was captured, or something about its lighting that really makes your eye stop, then consider bringing it here to FPC. That’s my criteria for judging and I look forward to being able to give you a "support" vote. Greg L (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the MLK day thing was just a coincidence; here in El Paso most people are more interested in Cesar Chavez day than MLK day, and to be honest MLK day means very little to me since A) I wasn't alive at the time and B) I think there are better people that could be held up as Civil Rights leaders among the African American community - or for that matter, any one of the minority communities in American that take the back seat to the blacks which have the back seat behind the whites. Take Company F, for example, which most of you probably never heard about and likely never will. Guys like that I could get more excited about than good ol' MLK (I mean no offense here, I just feel that those who really fight for what they believe should be a little higher on the totem pole, thats all). As to the criteria: I've got be honest and say that FPC criteria is over my head - all the tech stuff and such that folks judge on literally means nothing to me. These days when I nominate an image here I full expect the image to fail, as most have. When I bring an image or video or other visual medium here I do so because I wish to highlight what I think are memorable photograph moments that to me should be featured if they are not already. Seeing images that were candidates and failed there FPC makes me feel like there may just be hope for the process yet - and by hope, I mean the hope that people will see what I am trying to present rather than seeing a line here a botch there and so forth in that manner. FWIW, I already know for a fact that this will fail; I've never had an FPC pass after the first person to comment votes against it, as you did a few days ago Greg, but for me the consolation prize, and the real reason I put it here, is so the next time someone looks at the image on the image page they'll see the link here and know that this image was once considered a candidate for a star, even if it did not make it. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Alternate. Technically much improved. NauticaShades 13:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular talk 04:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2011 at 16:32:56 (UTC)
- Reason
- Curious looking animal, certainly draws the reader into the article. Academic style of photograph (fish identified by and photograph taken by an expert), high quality, obvious EV, and not a bad article (by no means a one-line stub). Note that the "cuts" are entirely natural- they are the lateral lines.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Redeye gaper
- FP category for this image
- Fish
- Creator
- Steve Ross
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Excellent, eye-catching lighting. Greg L (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support - very high encyclopedic value! Neutralitytalk 22:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Per Greg. And the black color looks apt for the background here. Twilightchill t 09:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Citron (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 18:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The original version included a scale which has been edited out: File:Chaunax stigmaeus dorsal view.jpg. Size information for the specimen should be added to the image description page based on this, or a scale added to this version. Maedin\talk 07:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've added a note. J Milburn (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is the fin right where the ruler was edited out? Makeemlighter (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Maedin, you are spikebrennan and I claim my five pounds. (mad props for asking for a scale or size reference). Spikebrennan (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Here's what that was supposed to say: are the colors on the lower fin correct? The bottom piece looks like it took the colors of the ruler. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Very good EV and HQ picture. SMasters (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Chaunax stigmaeus dorsal view2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2011 at 22:38:57 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution map, with plenty of EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Castello Plan, New Amsterdam, Colonial history of the United States, New York Harbor, Fort Amsterdam
- FP category for this image
- Maps
- Creator
- John Wolcott Adams and Isaac Newton Phelps Stokes
- Support as nominator --P. S. Burton (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Its a pity it is not the original but it is lovely none the less. Love these old maps and it is interesting to note the fortifications of the city illustrated on the map. --Discott (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Looks a bit faded to me. Maybe some saturation? Twilightchill t 21:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support I find it quite eye-catching actually. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Quite a creative redraft of the original, but nevertheless high encyclopaedic value and good quality. -Elekhh (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Although I agree slightly with Twilightchill. The colours look a bit dull. SMasters (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Castelloplan.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2011 at 04:04:12 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution self-portrait of an important artist. You can see the brush strokes clearly, no noticeable noise. Photo of the artwork comes from the Detroit Institute of Art (where the painting is located) so the colors should be reasonably correct.
- Articles in which this image appears
- James Abbott McNeill Whistler
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
- Creator
- James Abbott McNeill Whistler
- Support as nominator --howcheng {chat} 04:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Could also fit in the people category; serves the double whammy of illustrating the person and the painting style. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Whereas painting is something I certainly can’t do and Whistler is better than many artists, there are many oil paintings out there that have truly stunning, eye-catching qualities such as keen attention to light & shadow. This painting looks like a self-portrait of him while he was hiding in an attic, where the only light was filtering in from a gable vent. I’m not seeing how it is eye-catching. That it is a self-portrait of Whistler is certainly interesting, but one has to read the caption to ascertain that bit. Greg L (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at the images in the article, most of Whistler's paintings are in relatively flat light with muted colours. I don't think it's right to oppose because of the way an artist paints. Cowtowner (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- ¿ It’s not right to oppose a painting for being an FP because an individual voter doesn’t like the look of how an artist paints??? (*Gee…*) If we had WP:Featured Poems, would it be *wrong* of me to oppose a nom because I think the poem isn’t at all appealing to me (sucks), only to find that all his work is in the same style? I’m tempted to nominate a painting here that I consider to exhibit breathtaking use of detailed light & shadow but will pass for the moment now that I’ve diss’d Whistler and there’s hard feelings over how I was very bad here. Greg L (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Oh, what the hell… Balthasar Denner’s “Old woman” is my idea of a painting that catches the eye for its stunning quality and the way he used light and shadow and captured the irradiance of the skin. But then, here at FPC, everyone’s an expert. ;-) Greg L (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the James Abbott McNeill Whistler article more closely. His paintings emphasize "the primacy of tonal harmony" and he is the founder of the Tonalism movement, which is known for using shades of mostly the same colors -- in other words, your complaint about the muted colors and everything was exactly what he was trying to achieve. Sorry it's not to your liking. howcheng {chat} 21:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Come-on, Howcheng; stop treating me like I’m “new” here; m‘kay?. Featured Pictures on the Main Page should not assume that the reader will instantly recognize this as one of Whistler’s works and how that somehow makes it special. That much is pretty much a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, as revealed at WP:NOT, which states A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. The same principle would clearly apply to a picture on the Main Page, where we are hoping for two seconds of neuron attention from the atttention-defict-afflicted Internet crowd. Featured pictures should be sufficiently eye-catching that readers will *stop* what they’re doing and take the time to read the caption. I apparently don’t think showing a work that is an example of tonalism is a good way of accomplishing that objective. The picture looks like the U.S. Army’s camouflage R&D team has been busy working on it. Greg L (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Bla, Bla, Bla... I however Support this.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 22:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Greg, my comment was not intended to be condescending; sorry if I implied such a thing. However, I think the sentence you quoted isn't quite applicable here -- my interpretation of that statement is that we need to provide context and not just throw things out there, assuming the reader (or viewer in this case) will just be able to absorb it. The POTD blurb will of course be written to provide such context. howcheng {chat} 05:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Bla, Bla, Bla... I however Support this.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 22:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Come-on, Howcheng; stop treating me like I’m “new” here; m‘kay?. Featured Pictures on the Main Page should not assume that the reader will instantly recognize this as one of Whistler’s works and how that somehow makes it special. That much is pretty much a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, as revealed at WP:NOT, which states A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. The same principle would clearly apply to a picture on the Main Page, where we are hoping for two seconds of neuron attention from the atttention-defict-afflicted Internet crowd. Featured pictures should be sufficiently eye-catching that readers will *stop* what they’re doing and take the time to read the caption. I apparently don’t think showing a work that is an example of tonalism is a good way of accomplishing that objective. The picture looks like the U.S. Army’s camouflage R&D team has been busy working on it. Greg L (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the James Abbott McNeill Whistler article more closely. His paintings emphasize "the primacy of tonal harmony" and he is the founder of the Tonalism movement, which is known for using shades of mostly the same colors -- in other words, your complaint about the muted colors and everything was exactly what he was trying to achieve. Sorry it's not to your liking. howcheng {chat} 21:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- ¿ It’s not right to oppose a painting for being an FP because an individual voter doesn’t like the look of how an artist paints??? (*Gee…*) If we had WP:Featured Poems, would it be *wrong* of me to oppose a nom because I think the poem isn’t at all appealing to me (sucks), only to find that all his work is in the same style? I’m tempted to nominate a painting here that I consider to exhibit breathtaking use of detailed light & shadow but will pass for the moment now that I’ve diss’d Whistler and there’s hard feelings over how I was very bad here. Greg L (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at the images in the article, most of Whistler's paintings are in relatively flat light with muted colours. I don't think it's right to oppose because of the way an artist paints. Cowtowner (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Per nom. Cowtowner (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a bad argument to make. One should also note the use of "or" in the criteria. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- It’s not a simple matter, JJ, of WP:IDONTLIKEIT; I (twice) stated that I don’t find it sufficiently eye-catching that it meets the FPC criteria. Please don’t personalize the voting here; that is not too much to ask. Judging FP candidates is a highly subjective affair without the extra tedium of editors criticizing the reasoning of others who have the hubris to disagree with you; particularly when they resort to BS back-handed misrepresentations of the other editor’s reasoning. As for the “or” in the voting criteria, everything is shades of gray in real life. Placing too much emphasis on one thing to the extent that “eye-catching” suffers too much is unwise. I’m quite done here now debating this since you, JJ Harrison, elected to employ cheap stunts to be combative. Goodbye to you. Greg L (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I see four people commenting upon your opinion, I think it is unfair to single out one here. I also re-read the Criteria and found "eye-catching" does not appear among them. However, good caption does. Rmhermen (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Read the first sentence in the blue-div at the top of the FPC page. “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.” Yeah, as JJ pointed out, that’s an “or” in that mission statement. But in this nom, I see too much sacrifice being made to the eye-catching part. You guys go vote how you want. We’re obviously not going to see eye-to-eye on this one. Greg L (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- You wrote, Please don’t personalize the voting here. Might I remind you to please follow your own advice and not assume facts not evidence (you ... elected to employ cheap stunts to be combative). howcheng {chat} 05:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Greg, if we take for granted that tonalism by definition entails the traits which you criticise in this picture, then how could any tonalist picture meet the criteria? If you're willing to bite the bullet and accept that no tonalist picture could, then you're saying that an entire school of fine art is not worthy of recognition as examples of "Wikipedia's best work". I understand your argument, but this does look to be straying dangerously close to "I personally don't like this type of art, so I don't think we should feature it". J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- You wrote, Please don’t personalize the voting here. Might I remind you to please follow your own advice and not assume facts not evidence (you ... elected to employ cheap stunts to be combative). howcheng {chat} 05:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Read the first sentence in the blue-div at the top of the FPC page. “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.” Yeah, as JJ pointed out, that’s an “or” in that mission statement. But in this nom, I see too much sacrifice being made to the eye-catching part. You guys go vote how you want. We’re obviously not going to see eye-to-eye on this one. Greg L (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I see four people commenting upon your opinion, I think it is unfair to single out one here. I also re-read the Criteria and found "eye-catching" does not appear among them. However, good caption does. Rmhermen (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- It’s not a simple matter, JJ, of WP:IDONTLIKEIT; I (twice) stated that I don’t find it sufficiently eye-catching that it meets the FPC criteria. Please don’t personalize the voting here; that is not too much to ask. Judging FP candidates is a highly subjective affair without the extra tedium of editors criticizing the reasoning of others who have the hubris to disagree with you; particularly when they resort to BS back-handed misrepresentations of the other editor’s reasoning. As for the “or” in the voting criteria, everything is shades of gray in real life. Placing too much emphasis on one thing to the extent that “eye-catching” suffers too much is unwise. I’m quite done here now debating this since you, JJ Harrison, elected to employ cheap stunts to be combative. Goodbye to you. Greg L (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Dudes! Just pardon me all over the place for disagreeing with you but I think there are far, far better portraits for putting on the Main Page—like Balthasar Denner’s “Old woman”. My vote stands; please just accept that. Just out-vote me if you want it promoted. Greg L (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I know, that's fine. No one is denying you your vote. We're all/mostly/both rational, intelligent adults- I'm just trying to shed some light on your thought process. J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- My thought process?? Don’t worry about me, I’m just fiiiiiine. Greg L (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- This candidation is not about "this picture is better than this picture"; if you think File:Balthasar Denner 003.jpg is a great painting and deserves the FP status, why you don't nominate it? And I think this paintings should not be compared; they are from different painting movements.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- My thought process?? Don’t worry about me, I’m just fiiiiiine. Greg L (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Jujutacular talk 15:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support as FP, because he's a fairly important artist and this is a good example of his work. (Were it merely a matter of the artist, I would oppose, as I'm not a particular fan of Whistler's. And I have a degree that allows me to get away with saying that... :) ) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Compared to his Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket (also held by Detroit), this self-potrait is nearly photographic. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oooh, I'd love to try nominating that one... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Compared to his Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket (also held by Detroit), this self-potrait is nearly photographic. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support As per nom. SMasters (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Mainly because I had to actually look up what tonalism was as well as who the artist was because I did not know either and having done so see the high EV of this picture, how ell it fits into the article, and illustrates both this artist's work and the style of painting. Cat-five - talk 03:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Promoted File:Whistler Selbstporträt.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)