Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/March-2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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


The Starry Night is one of Vincent van Gogh's most known and reproduced paintings, painted in 1889. It represents various elements seen in the area surrounding the asylum in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence. Its impact can be seen as the inspiration for Timbres, espace, mouvement and Vincent by Don McLean.
ballance edit 1
File:Starry night ballancing procedure.jpg
ballancing image used to make edit 1
Edit 2 - from last nom
Reason
My main reason is that is very pleasing to my eye and encyclopedic. Meets criteria: High quality (though it is jpeg, I see no artifacts, feel free to correct me, I'm not terribly experienced in image quality detection); useful to its article (The Starry Night); high resolution (more than 1000px each side); in the public domain; I think it shows as one of Wikipedia's best work.
Articles this image appears in
The Starry Night
Creator
Vincent van Gogh (uploaded by User:Thebrid on Commons[1])
Nominator
WillMak050389
I don't think you should withdraw the nomination. I think you should let it go, and since no consensus was reached on color ballance last time, I would suggest we not engage in an edit orgy but just vote on this version. I'd bet there is a reasonably good chance it passes.Debivort 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess if we keep long enough to get a proven proper color scan. I was withdrawing this edit of the picture until it could be proven at least. --WillMak050389 04:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need a proper scan of this great painting --frothT 01:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps this could be a chance to have a go at figuring out what the proper colouring should be? The discussion last time didn't seem to get anywhere conclusive. Raven4x4x 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe this photo could help. We could use the lady to establish the gray value. Maybe part of her scarf is an actual gray. That would seem to indicate a color balance closer to the cyan edit of the last nomination. Debivort 07:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The MoMA website doesn't help. They got four versions, all in different hues, although the biggest one comes somewhat close to the one we have here. ~ trialsanderrors 07:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • All right - here's a shot at an objective color ballance. I took the image with the lady and the scarf, took 8 of the gray subpanels of her scarf and averaged them and then set the gray point of the image to that color. Then I matched the nominated image to the corrected image as best I could by eye. Seems pretty aesthetic, and it matches my recollection of the image. Debivort 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • We can't know that the light falling on the scarf is identical to the light on the painting - and do we know the scarf really is a true grey? In edit 1, the painting looks a bit too blue-green. I made an experiment, assuming the wall is white, and depending on where on the wall the white balance is checked, I can get thew painting from anything between reddish orange to dark blue. So, it is almost impossible to determine the correct color without having a true grey card (Kodak 18% type) directly in front of the painting. OTOH, I think edit 1 is the best so far, so I'll weak support that one. (PS: Why did you GNU licence the edit, when the original is PD? A simple color correction isn't reason enough for changing the PD status.) --Janke | Talk 08:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hi Janke - I know what you mean about different pixels on the wall. I think the variability is just color noise in that image. - that's why I chose several regions of the scarf to average. You could try averaging a region of the wall. As for different light on her and the painting, yes it's abslolutely possible. But most walls are slightly creamy versions of white, and that I ended up with that color on the walls after correcting based on her scarf is suggestive that the correction is somewhat close. I GNU licensed it because I couldn't figure out a better license, mostly because I thought VVG had died within 70 years, checking that, it isn't the case - I'll go PD it. Debivort 13:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any version that gains concensus. - Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1. howcheng {chat} 05:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all of them! --frothT 04:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1 -this is the best one -Nelro

Promoted Image:VanGogh-starry night ballance1.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Valley Fog
Edit 2. retouched a different, less noisy, image at suggestion of nominator. Fcb981
Reason
I think this is a very good encyclopedic picture of valley fog. It was seconded on peer review
Articles this image appears in
Fog
Creator
Digon3
Nominator
Digon3
Fcb981 has added an edited version --Digon3 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Edit 1 I was origenaly going to abstain from voting on this because I had said "It has a shot to be featured" on the PPR and I felt compelled to offer some support here which would be unobjective. However, I think the shot illistrates fog exeptionaly well because it not only shows a, 'cut away' if you will, of the fog but also the fact that it can sit in valleys and has a very different look from above. I think the edit corrects all the complaints above and from a technical point of view the image is good. -Fcb981 15:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I personally think there is too much noise all around in the image, especially on the mountains and on the fog. JHMM13 20:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - It's not clear enough, in my opinion, especially in thumbnail form. Too much noise and haze. JoshHolloway 22:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Photograph of Go board (old variant)
High res variant w/ background
Reason
Looks really nice. That said, I am slightly concerned about its size (it's rather small) and there is some fuzzines at the end - perhaps somebody could help address those issuses with some editing? Please note that a different variant exists at commons (commons:Image:Go board.jpg) however our variant was changed when the background was 'blacked', I think. While the black background is nice, the Commons version seems sharper.. let's decide on the best variant (or create it) and synchronize it with Commons.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in
Go (board game) and several others
Creator
User:Donarreiskoffer, modified by several users throughout history
Nominator
 Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 

Not promoted MER-C 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve
Reason
Beautiful
Articles this image appears in

California Poppy

Creator
Vsion
Nominator
Brewdog

Not promoted MER-C 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dancer
Reason
Sharp colour and focus
Articles this image appears in
Bharatanatyam
Creator
Nominator
Ernst Stavro Blofeld

Not promoted MER-C 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Bushman's Hat, Queen of the Namib (Hoodia gordonii),Biedouw Valley , Western Cape, South Africa
Reason
this is a sharp, clear, high resolution photo of a beautiful subject
Articles this image appears in
Hoodia
Creator
Amrum
Nominator
The Talking Sock talk contribs

Not promoted MER-C 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A Green Passenger Express Steam Locomotive designed for the London and Southwestern railway and built in 1893
Reason
I though about nominating this picture as the light on it I think is quite well divided up and not too bright and it gives the full effect of what Steam trains were like before going into musuems and generally gives a well formatted and eye catching image.
Articles this image appears in
London and South Western Railway
Creator
Tellyaddict
Nominator
Tellyaddict

Not promoted MER-C 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"A photo I took of the Hancock Tower on a recent trip to Chicago in September 2006."
Reason
Great picture of an awesome building . . . maybe a little cropping on the bottom to take the lamp out, but other than that it looks gorgeous. I also feel the water tower in the foreground provides an appropriate contrast between classical and modern architecture, both of which are excellent examples.
Articles this image appears in
John Hancock Center
Creator
Path2k6
Nominator
Soakologist

Not promoted MER-C 04:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Egeskov Castle
?
Reason
Good picture with enc value which shows us the architecture of the castle very well.
Articles this image appears in
Egeskov Castle
Creator
Malene Thyssen
Nominator
Arad

Promoted Image:Egeskov Slot spejling Edit 2.jpg Basar 04:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Camp Susque's observatory, used for stargazing, is on the left. On the right is the Susque Pond.
Reason
I think this image, a picture of idyllic Camp Susque is good enough to be featured. It is 2000 x 1500 pixels.
Articles this image appears in
Camp Susque
Creator
Heather Klees
Nominator
'WiiWillieWiki(Talk) (Contrib)

Not promoted MER-C 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


the evolution of the States of Australia since 1788 to the present
Reason
Interesting, clear and informative. This information is known by very few people (including Australians). The animation may be a little jerky for some people. What do you think?
Articles this image appears in
History of Australia
Creator
Loaded by Electionworld, based on Chuq's maps.
Nominator
Witty lama
On reading Yummifruitbat's comment, I must say I agree. I've posted a note at Chuq's talk page to ask him to change the file in that light, hopefully he does... Witty lama 19:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


File:P5090048.jpg
An artichoke flower.
Reason
It illustrates the globe artichoke articel very well.
Articles this image appears in
Globe artichoke
Creator
Laura Vance
Nominator
Bewareofdog

Not promoted MER-C 02:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Osmotic pressure on blood cells
Reason
Very high enc value for wikipedia. I would love to see a bit higher resolution. It's SVG by the way.
Articles this image appears in
Osmosis Hypotonic Hypertonic Isotonic Passive transport Hyperosmotic
Creator
LadyofHats
Nominator
Arad

Promoted Image:Osmotic pressure on blood cells diagram.svg --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Red-necked Grebe -- Bronte Harbour, Oakville, Ontario -- 2005 August
Reason
Very sharp, no artifacts, excellent composition, perfectly captured the bird's personality
Articles this image appears in
Red-necked Grebe, List of Kansas birds, List of non-passerine birds of Korea, List of Iowa Birds
Creator
User:Mdf
Nominator
Althepal
Comment I don't think that the blurred wings detract at all from the picture, and even though the DOF was small, Mdf did a fine job. Anyhow, here's something that the picture teaches you: These birds often stand up in water and flap their wings while preening and playing. I don't know if you want to change your vote or anything, but it is something to think about. ;-) --Althepal 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they're blurry, that's common with moving things. - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common in common photos, not so common in exceptional photos.. Technically this image is very good except in composition. If it were more front-on, the right hand wing would be less of an OOF blob and the blur would be easier to accept (IMHO anyway). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Beautiful shot -- Sturgeonman 01:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - This amount of wing blur is exactly what you are aiming for in wildlife photography. Also 700mm is a very standard focal length as this is a 500mm with a 1.4 TC. Nice catch. Wwcsig 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think it shows the bird's plumage exceptionally well. I don't see how the slight blur detracts from the photo or how it would be inappropriate given that it's showing the bird in action. Basar 06:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - It looks slightly too tight for the wings, but otherwise it's fine. typhoonchaser 16:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Podiceps-grisegena-008.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


When many of the chemical elements, such as the noble gases and platinum-group metals, freeze to a solid — the most ordered state of matter — their crystal structures have a closest-packed arrangement. This yields the greatest possible packing density and the lowest energy state.

— — Below is a candidate caption for use in Close-packing article, added 16:33, 26 February 2007 (and revised 20:15, 26 February 2007) — —

Shown above is what the science of sphere packing calls a closest-packed arrangement. Specifically, this is the cannonball arrangement or cannonball stack. Per the Kepler conjecture, no other arrangement of spheres can exceed its packing density of 74.048%. The cannonball stack shown above (which takes the form of a regular tetrahedron) has a face-centered cubic lattice. Note how the two balls facing the viewer in the second tier from the top contact the same ball in the tier below. This does not occur in hexagonal close-packing.
Reason
It’s a ray-traced CAD image that I think is attractive and informative
Articles this image appears in
Thermodynamic temperature
Close-packing (added 02:41, 1 March 2007)
Creator
Greg L
Nominator
Greg L

Not promoted MER-C 08:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A World map produced in Amsterdam 1689.
Reason
A very encyclopedic map.
Articles this image appears in
World map
Creator
Van Schagen
Nominator
Bewareofdog

Promoted Image:World Map 1689.JPG --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


File:Mccarthur-peace.jpg
Douglas MacArthur signs the formal surrender of Japanese forces on the USS Missouri, September 2, 1945
Larger file size
Reason
Clear, moving, historically significant, and iconic.
Articles this image appears in
Military history of Japan, Pacific War
Creator
From the national archives
Nominator
Tobyw87

Promoted Image:Ww2-198.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Juuso Pykälistö driving a Peugeot 206 WRC at the 2003 Swedish Rally.
Reason
This is an image of rallying (WRC) action on snow, and I think it succeeds in depicting that very well. It seems to meet the criteria and is quite eye-catching too. I was planning to nominate this after uploading, but was a bit unsure until now, when I noticed this is a candidate on the German Wikipedia and currently has unanimous support.
Articles this image appears in
Peugeot 206, Swedish Rally, World Rally Championship
Creator
Christopher Batt (Flickr)
Nominator
Prolog
  • SupportProlog 14:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Definite "wow factor", but barely of size.--HereToHelp 15:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Comment This is a Flickr photo, so there might be a larger version if someone can contact the photographer (no idea how that works on Flickr). ~ trialsanderrors 18:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Finally a good car photo. Amazing. And I'll be very happy to see a larger version. Many thanks to the creator for the licence. --Arad 20:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. I was blown away by this picture the first time that I saw it on someone's userpage. One of the most interesting racing pics that I have ever seen (that from a huge racing fan!). Royalbroil T : C 04:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wow. howcheng {chat} 05:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wow, indeed. --Janke | Talk 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per nom and above. Debivort 08:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the nomination. Wow. S.D. ¿п? § 12:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Cool picture, but fake (or at least heavily altered). Observe the snow at the bottom left around the fender - some displays motion blur, whereas other is crystal clear. Driver shows impossible lean (his whole body is tilted such that his lower extremities would be somewhere on the gearshift; if properly harnessed, his head would be tilted, but not his whole body). In the upper right corner in the background snow there has been some heavy cloning (notice lack of smooth color gradation versus, say, the car itself). Noraad 14:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have to disagree with your rationale for proving this is a "fake". Observe the snow at the bottom left around the fender - some displays motion blur, whereas other is crystal clear. - Easy to explain: The snow particles that have a trajectory straight towards the camera would not be blurred. I can't see any other definitive proof of editing, either. --Janke | Talk 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I can reply more as a long time rally follower and less as an image expert, but I see absolutely nothing bizarre about this image. Pykälistö's shoulders and head are in the position those are supposed to be, when landing a high speed "yump" on two wheels on a road like that. Rally drivers are not glued to their seats and they have room to move around a bit and do tricks like Scandinavian flicks, opposite locks and handbrake turns, as you can see for yourself from footage on YouTube. I see neither proof of altering nor can I think of any motive to do so. The action in the image is pretty common, even if capturing it well is not easy. Prolog 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I understand about camera and trajectory, et al. And I doubt there is any definitive proof of anything; but there are suspicious elements to the picture. Also note the wheel in the lower left of the picture. There seems to be something of a transparent fender - you can clearly see a motion-blurred wheel where you shouldn't be able to. Yes, I noticed that the fenders are damaged, understand that suspension or transaxle might be broken, etc., but viewing other pictures of Peugeot 206 rally cars says to me that something is not right with that wheel. I realize that this is only my opinion on the picture; perhaps someone should contact the creator of the image. --Noraad 16:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I ran it through the bag of tricks I know to detect Photoshop tampering, but I don't find any strong evidence. The image might've been sharpeneed, but I don't see evidence for cloning. The fender is ripped into pieces, that's why you see the tire peeking through. ~ trialsanderrors 19:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I trust your expertise there. I like the picture, and have no problem with it being featured as such. I would like to see a larger version, which would make for a better image and allow for closer examination, but I will by no means stand in the way of it being featured -- Noraad 20:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does't look tampered with. the snow that is crystal clear as opposed to the motion blurred snow is moving directly at the camera so that its position as percived by the lens doesn't change in the time of exposure and is a fairly common sight. -Fcb981 00:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If anyone thinks this photo is tampered with, I would encourage them to seek out some other top-level rallying images. You might be surprised how often surreal "effects" miraculously happen when vehicles are in such radical conditions. Still, this is a well framed and cropped example with good color and visual impact. - Plasticbadge 22:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tomer T 20:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Peugeot 206 WRC.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Alternative 1: 2003 version
Alternative 2: 2004 version. Stitching errors fixed.
Reason
Oh no, not another nebula! I found this doing comparison surfing for the recent nomination, and noticed the picture in the Helix Nebula article was of low resolution. I discovered the hubblesite.org versions and extracted those two from the full resolution tiff files. Both versions are centered, cropped and downsampled to a manageable file size. No other edits were made. I'm indifferent between the two versions here, so I'm posting them both for your consideration. On the Nebula itself, hubblesite calls it "one of the largest and most detailed celestial images ever made". Both versions are composites of a nine-image Hubble panorama and ground-based images. The Helix Nebula is only 650 light years away, which accounts for the high level of detail. This is the visible light version of the nebula, the infrared version is currently up for FPC at Commons, but in my opinion this one is far superior. ~ trialsanderrors 20:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in
Helix Nebula
Creator
Alternative 1: NASA, NOAO, ESA, the Hubble Helix Nebula Team, M. Meixner (STScI), and T.A. Rector (NRAO)
Alternative 2: NASA, ESA, and C.R. O'Dell (Vanderbilt University)
Nominator
trialsanderrors

Promoted Image:NGC7293 (2004).jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


File:2000px lillium michiganese.jpg
Horizontal version (Lilium)
File:1000px Lillium michiganese.jpg
Vertical version (Lilium michiganense)
Reason
A clear, sharp picture that illustrates very well the subject. (Lillium Michiganese) The foreground flowers are in focus, but the background is not, so it is not to distracting from the flower. There is both a horizontal and a vertical version.
Articles this image appears in
Lilium, Lilium michiganense
Creator
Heather Klees
Nominator
'WiiWillieWiki(Talk) (Contrib)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Biodegradable starch-polyester utensils photographed using photoelasticity.
Edit 1: Sides cropped.
Reason
A picture of kitchen utensils made of biodegradable plastic. The image was created using photoelasticity to produce the variety of colors based on stress distributions. Probably one of the best illustrations of the phenomenon (or at least, Google didn't produce anything close). The picture is also currently a candidate for featured picture status at the Commons.
Articles this image appears in
Biodegradable plastic, Photoelasticity
Creator
Scott Bauer (USDA)
Nominator
ShadowHalo
  • SupportShadowHalo 15:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - please crop away the partial utensils at left and right edges - there's even a black stripe on the very left edge... This could also illustrate polarization. --Janke | Talk 19:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral While the quality is good, they don't look any different from normal plastic utensils and as from the commons FPC, what is the "polarisation" (?) of the plastic doing there? I know it's used to show the distribution of stress but what is the point in here? --antilivedT | C | G 05:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I nominated this image is because I thought it illustrated photoelasticity much better than any single object probably could because of the various shapes used. I thought it was interesting to see how stress was distributed through the curve of the spoons or the rod-like parts on the forks, but much less on the flat blades of the knives. I also thought the image was "eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article". My interest in the image is not in how it illustrates the utensils themselves (so I suppose this page's title may have been misleading), but rather how it uses the utensils to illustrate stress distributions as shown with photoelasticity. ShadowHalo 01:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with Antilived, I don't see the relevance of this picture. If the objective is to show the stress, a single piece would be better. If the objective is to depict biodegradable utensils, why the special lighting? Aesthetically, I don't like it. - Alvesgaspar 09:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I'm more confused after having seen the image than before. Though an interesting picture, it is not encycloaedic. Witty lama 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:BiodegradablePlasticUtensils2.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A female Magnificent Hummingbird (Eugenes fulgens) in Panama.
Reason
High res, superb quality, very attractive image.
Articles this image appears in
Magnificent Hummingbird
Creator
Mdf
Nominator
Pharaoh Hound (talk)

Promoted Image:Eugenes-fulgens-001.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Stanford University's statue of Louis Agassiz, toppled by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.
Edit by trialsanderrors: retrieved orginal USGS image, restored and downsampled.
Alternative perspective: Frank Davey version with niche and statue of Alexander von Humboldt.
Reason
It is a historically significant photograph, of reasonably high resolution, and is very eye-catching.
Articles this image appears in
1906 San Francisco earthquake
Creator
W. C. Mendenhall
Nominator
Readro
  • The image or the subject? There are any number of versions of the subject in the online libraries, from a variety of angles. This one is a pretty poor one, and I also believe it gets most of its visual attraction from digital enhancement. ~ trialsanderrors 02:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good distinction to draw. The subject is iconic. I'm not sure the building is more recognizable in the alt version (it is missing a roof line for example), but seeing the pedestal helps. Debivort 08:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Debivort 01:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found the current version on the USGS website and created a restored version from the largest available copy. If anyone else wants to attempt their own restoration efforts, the orginal is in the edit history. My comment about lack of enc stands. ~ trialsanderrors 03:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support for the picture with the alternative perspective if it's cleaned up since it better portrays the effect of the earthquake than the original: viewers can picture that statue falling off the pedestal; the original seems like an accident.--BirdKr 13:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1 -Serious "Wow" factor -Nelro
  • Support edit 1. —Dgiest c 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1 - I'm changing my vote to support the first edit. I did not know that there was a better version out there, and I would rather the better image was used. Readro 01:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for the alternate version. I really like the additional context provided by the zoology building and the statue's old platform next to the other statue. I Oppose the original or its edit. Basar 07:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Agassiz statue Mwc00715.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Finlandia Hall by Alvar Aalto
Reason
Concert hall "Finlandia" in Helsinki, designed by the "father of modernism" Alvar Aalto in 1971. The walls are carrara marble. In my opinion very nice angle of this piece of modern architecture, looks very good to me.
Articles this image appears in
Finlandia Hall
Creator
Thermos
Nominator
Pudeo (Talk)
  • SupportPudeo (Talk) 15:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great composition - shows of Alto's rhythmic facade nicely - particularly like the reflections from the (nearly unseen) glazing. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a little difficult for me to look at and understand because of the lack of context. Although I understand the picture may have meaning architecturally, I still think that this picture might be considered to be "cutoff" in the FP criteria since it only shows part of a wall. The flag in the bottom is also unfortunate. Basar 17:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Captures the spirit of the architecture. This building is huge, and can be shown "uncut" only in a picture shot from the bay side - unfortunately, those pics tend to be rather dull - there's not even a full image on the official site, as far as I saw... --Janke | Talk 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no context.. the only idea of scale I get is from the size of the lights underneath the overhang. It's also not a plan, elevation or section so its not exactly useful for architectural study. Regardless, the image could be sharper. -- drumguy8800 C T 23:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great composition - Alvesgaspar 01:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. The composition is pretty good, but I agree with drumguy8800 that the pic is basically too artsy to be encyclopedically useful. --Dschwen 09:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry chaps, I never interrupt on FIC but there's two people now who are objecting for this pictures lack of encyclopedic quality because its too arty - presumably a elevation would be considered encyclopedic? Well architecture is a fine art - what you suggest is like illustrating a painting by number break down of the mona lisa - an assmebly drawing does not show how the light hits a building's forms and masses or how the rhythym of a facade diminishes with perspective - these are things the architect has in mind. The lack of scale is a criticism often laid at the door of modern architecture - so it's inclusion in this image, makes that point and is therefore encylopedic on that basis alone. Some thoughts anyway. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure that's a product of the picture and not the building itself? I'm trying to find other pictures of the building to see if there is a way it would be more clear and more encyclopedic... gren グレン 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This picture sits uncomfortably between the poles of representing the building and representing the architectural style, and for both poles there are better pictures. This one captures the full facade and puts the building in context, while this one does much better at capturing the international style of the building. Now we just have to collect the money to send Diliff to Helsinki... ~ trialsanderrors 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per trialsand errors. The two linked images in his/her comments are much more informative than the nomination. Debivort 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -Nelro
  • Oppose not an impressive picture Tomer T 10:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


composite images of various images from various ratings on hot or not
Reason
An (relatively) unbiased view of various levels of physical attractiveness that's cleverly composited and very clear/informative.
Articles this image appears in
Rating sites, Physical attractiveness, Averageness
Creator
Manitou2121(flickr), uploader:Quadell
Nominator
antilivedT | C | G

Not promoted MER-C 07:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A red rock crab (Grapsus grapsus) in the Galápagos Islands
Reason
Another great picture
Articles this image appears in
Crab, Grapsus grapsus, The Log from the Sea of Cortez
Creator
Marc Figueras (Oersted)
Nominator
Tomer T

Not promoted MER-C 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A picture of sunlight shining through sequoia trees in Muir Woods
Reason
A great picture of sequoia trees
Articles this image appears in
Sequoia, Sunlight, Muir Woods
Creator
Richs5812
Nominator
Tomer T

Not promoted MER-C 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


the caption of the image
Reason
You can understand it in just a sight; isn't looking beautiful.
articles
a link to the article this image exists in Lemon
Creator
Jaseem umer
Nominator
?JAS?

Not promoted MER-C 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Panorama of Mountain High ski resort, from the top of the north resort.
Reason
Gives a great deal of information about mountain high, and with the fog, is in my opinion, quite pretty.
Articles this image appears in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_High
Creator
Mike Frieda
Nominator
Mtf612
  • SupportMtf612 00:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This isn't really a panorama of the resort, it's a panorama of a carpark, some cars, a few random people and a couple of trees. A very small part of the resort is visible, but not sharp and not prominent, in the middle. Reasonable stitching but otherwise just a snapshot - no encyclopaedic value, and it certainly doesn't give "a great deal of information about Mountain High". Try again on a clear day and from a viewpoint where you can actually get the resort in the frame, without distractions. --YFB ¿ 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the east resort is on the left and west resort is middle-right. Also mountain high is usually foggy, and is rarely clear.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtf612 (talkcontribs).
  • I'm sorry, but this picture has almost no chance of becoming featured. The parts of the resort that are visible are indistinct and uninformative, and are not nearly prominent enough in the image as a whole, as evidenced by the fact that you felt it necessary to point them out. Even if Mountain High is "usually foggy" (it's not today, for example: [2]) there is no way that a photo largely consisting of cloud will be a suitable featured picture of the subject. If it's really not possible to get a good photo of the resort from a high vantage point, I suggest trying a shot from somewhere below the cloudline, where you can look up at the resort and make it a more prominent feature of the photo. Try to illustrate a specific part of the resort clearly if it's not possible to get a good shot of the wider area. --YFB ¿ 01:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you should probably give it a more descriptive name. gren グレン 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - a foggy ski resort car park? I don't get it. I like panoramas, but we need a bit more than this. What's the focus of the image? Are the cars and kids intentional? Stevage 02:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - maybe if you cropped the car and such, but really it begs for a different shot from the same roll. Brianski 10:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The kid in the photo i liked, as t is symbollic to me of the awe one sees in such a majestic mountain. However, the car was not on purpose and i agree it ruins the image. I agree i need to go to a better location, i simply went here because i wanted the east resort in the image. Hopefully next time it will be a clear day.
  • Oppose - Not really special, in my opinion. Tomer T 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Fog obscures most of the sky and a bit of the mountain, and there are distracting details such as people, cars and litter. Mrug2 22:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Two F-22 Raptors over Ohio Utah. Their first official deployement.
Alternative, but not historical
Edit 1 - contrast boost, colour correction, noise reduction
Alternative Edit 1 - contrast boost, NR
Reason
It's historical (the first official deployement of F-22) and very good quality for such a hard to catch image.
Articles this image appears in
F-22 Raptor
Creator
U.S. Air Force
Nominator
Arad
  • Support AnyArad 20:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could we have the historical year in the picture description? Basar 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC) I found it in the metadata. Basar 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose original, weak support neutral Edit 1 - I've uploaded an edit which fixes the poor contrast, green colour cast and fairly heavy noise. I'm not 100% convinced about the enc of a head-on shot like this, though. I prefer the alternative as an illustration but the image quality isn't that great. --YFB ¿ 02:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Neutral Alternative Edit 1 - Better after a spot of noise reduction and a minor contrast boost, but there's not a great 'wow' factor and I'm a bit puzzled by the port vertical stabiliser, which looks sort of like it's been manipulated badly in Photoshop (rear edge, just in front of the rudder). --YFB ¿ 03:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how this is historical. Are we going to see pictures of the first Toyota Camry being sold in Washington state soon? Also, call me old fashioned, but that deployment over Ohio didn't really involve any military action, did it? Wasn't it a mere testdrive? --Dschwen 12:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on. How can you compare Toyota Camry to F-22 Raptor, the best fighter plain in the world. It's technology is the best available. It's something you don't see everyday. --Arad 04:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make it a Prius then ;-). Anywho, my point was more on historical... ...and the deployment being just a testdrive (not that I would rather want to see them in an actual fight). All in all it is a decent pic (but please don't call it historical). Just like all those military promo shots, I don't think it is of terribly high enc value (if it were, it probably wouldn't be declassified). --Dschwen 08:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all Run-of-the-mill aircraft photos. Just because this is the Testarossa of fighter jets doesn't mean we have to elevate any middling photo of it to FP. ~ trialsanderrors 22:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all per trailsanderrors. Plus, I don't know if anyone has noticed, but the caption here says the planes are over Ohio. Whereas in the article it says this was taken over Utah. Furthermore, the picture summary just says the planes are en route to Utah and gives no info on location whatsoever. Uberlemur 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Original — Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska: The Aurora Borealis, or Northern Lights, shines above Bear Lake
Edited version — Picture of the year at Commons
Edit 2 by trialsanderrors — Rotated, cropped, color corrected, noise reduced, downsampled.
Edit 3 by AzaToth — Cropped, color corrected, noise reduced, downsampled.
Reason
Commons Picture of the Year 2006, somehow not an FP on the Wikipedia
Articles this image appears in
Aurora (astronomy)
Creator
Joshua Strang, US Air Force
Nominator
Goodmanjaz

Not promoted MER-C 02:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Tawny Owl (Strix aluco), is a medium-sized earless owl. It is 37-34 centimeters in length and has a wingspan of 81-96 centimeters.
Edit 1 Noise removed - By: Arad
Reason
This image, used in it's mainbox, adds a lot to the article in my opinion.
Articles this image appears in
Tawny Owl
Creator
NikiWiki
Nominator
SonicChao talk

Promoted Image:Tawny wiki edit1.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Blue crab on market in Piraeus - Callinectes sapidus Rathbun
Reason
Third one today, with the same reason of the previous
Articles this image appears in
Crab, Blue crab, Organism, etc.
Creator
Wpopp
Nominator
Tomer T

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A dune in Morocco
Reason
A great picture that I uploaded from Hebrew Wikipedia
Articles this image appears in
Dune, Morocco, Geography of Morocco, Sunrise
Creator
Gilgamesh
Nominator
Tomer T
Unfortunately, there is no larger version of the picture. It was contributed to Wikipedia by one of Gilgamesh's friends, and he has only this version of the picture. Isn't there any chance to feature the picture in this version? Tomer T 16:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already asked him for a larger image, he said that this is the largest he has. (The creator also speaks English, if you want to ask him) Tomer T 14:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Palacio de Bellas Artes
Alternative
Reason
It adds alot to the article and it's the best image i could find.
Articles this image appears in
Palacio de Bellas Artes
Creator
Daniel Manrique
Nominator
Bewareofdog
  • SupportBewareofdog 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original -very nice -Nelro
  • weak oppose original, oppose alternative - original seems washed out, shouldn't those domes be brilliantly colored? The angle is significantly better than the alternative though, which really doesn't show the building. Debivort 20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose original. The original has the more impressive angle, but the overcast sky doesn't do justice to the dome. Oppose alternative. The alternative doesn't have the nice angle of the original. (believe it or not, I formed this opinion before reading Debivort's response :P )— BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-06 20:42Z
  • Weak Oppose Both Per above. (Believe it or not i made my decision from the first moment this image was nominated) :-) --Arad 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original Tomer T 10:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Pecans
Edit 1 to remove artifacts
Reason
I found this to be a very eye-catching, illustrative picture of pecans, both shelled and unshelled.
Articles this image appears in
Pecan, Hickory
Creator
Scott Bauer (USDA)
Nominator
ShadowHalo
Maybe you are the only one... I cannot see any "massive" artifacts except some noise here and there. Care to be more specific? --antilivedT | C | G 05:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see them too. They're not really massive artifacts but rather look similar to scanlines. Looks rather strange to be honest, but not something that is easy to fix. Downsampling would help and probably not lose much/any information. In fact it looks as though the image has been upsized already with poor sampling hence the artifacts. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pecans-crop.jpg
OK, maybe not massive! But I can't justify supporting pictures with this problem (see crop) ...it's just not the quality I've come to expect at FPC. Again, I would happily support if we got a copy that addressed this issue. I really do think it's a fun, encyclopedic shot. tiZom(2¢) 18:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No clear consensus yet on whether to go with the original or edit 1. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original I don't see what the improvement is of the edit. There is a barely visible cut in the center of the picture, roughly at a 167 degree angle, but the edit doesn't remove that either. ~ trialsanderrors 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose edit, decreasing resolution to a point where the artifacts aren't noticable anymore also discards good data from the picture. Weak oppose original not very enc as each individual nut is fairly small. I'd strongly prefer macroshots of closed, cut and opend nuts. --Dschwen 12:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original Aesthetically a very nice picture that shows pecans in an artistic yet informative way. I see no improvement in the edit -- it merely seems blurrier. I agree that close-up macro shots would add to the Pecan article, but I don't think that should count against this particular image. Despite some technical flaws, I think this image should be promoted. --Asiir 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Pecans.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A classic example of homeomorphism: a coffee mug and a donut are topologically the same.
For discussion.
Reason
It caught my eye, I thought it looked cool :)
Articles this image appears in
Topology, Homotopy, Homeomorphism
Creator
User:Kieff
Nominator
TomStar81 (Talk)
  • SupportTomStar81 (Talk) 04:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. A little on the simple side, but still interesting and makes the reader want to know more. --Tewy 04:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. This image doesn't do it for me. it's just too bland. If it were spiced up somehow I would support. Witty lama 04:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support - lovely idea, gray is a bit drab, the polygons comprising the solids are a bit simple, i.e. the cylinder part of the mug expands non-smoothly into the handle. Also, it would be nice if the figure preserved its volume throughout. Debivort 08:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Homeomorphisms aren't volume-preserving transformations, so I don't think there is a reason to have the volume preserved. There is something to be said even for not having the volume preserved. Spebudmak 00:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realize this. I just think it would covey the concept of deformation better if volume wasn't appearing from no where. Debivort 05:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, the bottom of the coffee cup rising to make a solid cylinder at the start of the animation could be a bit smoother with the rest of the deformation. Spebudmak 07:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That was my original idea, but it didn't work the ways I've tried. It's just hard to interpolate a highly concave shape like the mug into a convex shape like the torus the way I did it. Maybe later when I figure a better way to do it, but right now that's beyond my abilities. Sorry. — Kieff | Talk 00:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good animation. Gray is fine. But I'm afraid it gives a wrong idea of a homeomorphism. It doesn't illustrate which point of the donut goes to which point of the mug. And it is not necessary to have a continuous deformation between the two objects in order to have a homeomorphism: think of a trefoil knot which is homeomorphic with a cylinder for instance. This animation should probably go to homotopy instead. Someone on Talk:Homeomorphism has already made this remark. --Bernard 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Shouldn't this image go in string theory? I remember seeing a film on it and homeomorphism was explained, but I don't remember why. --Iriseyes 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The animation is just fine where it is. Just because basic topology is a prerequisite to understand String therory I wouldn't cram it into that article. And I disagree about the move to homotopy too, that's just taking it too abstract. The anim is a proverbial example for topological equivalancy. The fact that it is animated is not the point, it just helps understanding whats going on. How it is animated, whether it conserves volume or not etc. is completely irrelevant to the concept presented. --Dschwen 19:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support This is a good animation and illustrates well enough the concept. But I don't like the part when the cup is "emptied". After all topology is about "deformation" not "removal" of material. Maybe it could be modified to make it more obvious. In that sense, I agree with Debivort's comment. - Alvesgaspar 00:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well, apparently the colors were too faint for anyone else to notice, so I made it bluer. It's the only change I can make right now, with my current tools, time and knowledge. — Kieff | Talk 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are several ways that people could get wrong ideas of homeomorphisms from this animation:
    • If you think that a homeomorphism is a continous deformation, you have it wrong. You must understand that the homeomorphism is just the map from the initial state to the final state.
    • If you think that such deformations always exist between homeomorphic objects, and therefore conclude that a trefoil knot cannot be homeomorphic to a cylinder, you have it wrong.
    • Then there are problems about the way the mug is filled. If you visualize it like water being poured in the mug, you have it wrong: you have to deform matter already present, not add some new.
    • If, consequently, you think that the mug should be filled by expanding the inner part of the bottom of the mug, you still have it wrong, because the map is not continuous.
    • If, consequently, you decide to expand the inner and outer parts of the bottom of the mug together, and simultaneously shrink the upper part of the mug, you may still have it wrong, because in the process the inner part of the boundary of the mug (the cylinder part) gets contracted into a circle and the map is no longer injective.

It is likely that some mathematicians, when thinking of homeomorphisms, have in mind something like in the animation, but unfortunately it is difficult to make it into a rigorous argument. I'm curious to know if wikipedians have made the mistakes I describe? It is still a good animation, but should be better explained, probably moved to homotopy, and should not be featured. --Bernard 16:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strongly oppose. See my comments below. --Bernard 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first three objections are nitpicks. There are many wrong things one can imagine a layman will think from such an animation. The relevant question is whether the essential idea has been conveyed. The last two objections are apparently why BernardH considers this not to demonstrate a homeomorphism, but it does. This is a perfectly good isotopy in fact. --C S (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I very well knew all the time that it could demonstrate a homeomorphism, and I wrote it. Salix's solution doesn't surprise me; I could certainly have done something similar if I had wished (it's actually very much like making the two steps of my solution into one). I felt that people, in the discussion above, were at risk of making those mistakes, and I think I was right. Even after I had warned about pitfall 4 two times, someone below still made the mistake. Was I wrong to insist on these problems? I don't think so. My conclusion is that warnings in the image page would be useful. You talk about confusion below but it is not on my side. --Bernard 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The fact that homeomorphisms are not necessarily continuous deformations does not change the fact that this is an ideal illustration of the often-repeated phrase, in undergraduate classes, of "a donut and a coffee cup have the same topology". As such, per Dschwen, the animation is perfectly adequate at doing what it purports to do. Also, my comments above were just nitpicks and I still think this is a good animation. Spebudmak 04:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The fact that is an animation helps the viewer understand how the two shapes are topologically the same. Sure, you don't have to transform between two items with an animation to make them topologically the same, but it sure illustrates the point! Normally I'm a bit skeptical at bland, simple illustrations, but this actually does have a "wow" factor. And it's certainly encyclopedic. Enuja 10:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although the caption should be changed from "A classic example" to "The classic example". On Bernard's points above, correct me if I'm wrong, but every single frame in this animation is homeomorphic to every other frame. Also, I find the topologies as physical "matter" objection unconvincing. Since they're both subsets of the R³ they both contain infinitely many points, so there is no matter added even if the object expands. A mug is also homeomorphic to a mug five times its size. ~ trialsanderrors 16:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for replying to my arguments. It's true that every single frame is homeomorphic to every other, but the reader has to imagine for himself what those homeomorphisms are, and if he takes the trouble to do so, then the animation strongly suggests a transformation that is not a homeomorphism. I'm going to repeat and expand on my last point above: if we expand the lower part of the mug and simultaneously shrink the upper part, it's all the upper, 3-dimensional cylinder part of the mug that becomes contracted into a 2-dimensional annulus. Sure the transformation could be made a homeomorphism, but the animation is not helping. It took me some time to see this problem, and somehow it looks like just a detail, but it still makes the animation either imprecise or mathematically incorrect. That's annoying. I could imagine ways to fix the problem... But anyway I don't like this animation so much. --82.66.235.134 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC) --Bernard 22:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'm not quite if I follow this, your "bottom part" of the mug is the disc at the bottom and the "top part" is the tubular part, and they are for some reason distinct elements? ~ trialsanderrors 08:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's it. We consider them as distinct elements because we really need to apply different treatments to different parts of the mug. Another possible decomposition would be a radial one, but as I said it doesn't work either. --Bernard 11:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Oppose for reasons unlrealted to mathematics: I just noticed that the lighting is inconsistent between the cylinder and the ring. On the ring, there is a spotlight above the viewer, but this light never appears on the cylinder. Also, as the mug hollows out one of the shadows indicates a light source to the right, but the right side of the cylinder is itself in the shade. ~ trialsanderrors 08:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, you are wrong. In the POV-Ray scene I wrote, there's only one light source just behind the "camera" and a bit to the right. The reason the lighting may look odd is that I'm using orthographic projection and a bit of transparency and ambient light to soften shadows a bit. Also, there are no areas on the surface of the cylinder with a normal vector at the right direction to create a specular reflection in this angle, unlike in the torus, so your criticism doesn't really make any sense, 'mathematically'. Sorry, but there's nothing inconsistent here. — Kieff | Talk 11:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • On second viewing it's not inconsistent as much as it's unrealistic. A single light source would leave a spotlight even on a cylindric surface, just turn on your desk lamp and point it on your coffee mug. Of course if you stick to a mathematical model of lighting the spotlight is a single point on the upper ring, which creates the impression that the mug is made from different material than the handle. ~ trialsanderrors 21:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. After some thinking, I've decided to support my own image. I'm not sure, is this against the rules? ... Now, I like this image. I think it shows well enough how the mug and the torus are topologically equivalent, and it just requires a little bit of thought to figure that the bottom of the cup is rising to the top in order to make the overall shape convex for a smooth transition, and it seems that once the average person realizes this the whole concept of topological equivalence seems to "snap" in place (worked with a few friends I showed to, so I'm happy with the results — but don't take my word for it.) So I guess this animation ended up being a good thing after all. Also, if or not the image would be better at homotopy instead of homeomorphism is irrelevant to this nomination, since it's just a matter of moving the image to a different article. My only issue here is that I wish I could add a texture to it, but that's UV mapping and it only works with parametric surfaces on POV-Ray. That'd be extremely difficult. — Kieff | Talk 20:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will ask you to be more precise about how you think the object should be deformed when the bottom of the cup is rising. If you think that the bottom should be expanded only in the z direction and the rest of the cup left unchanged, then it is just wrong, since the deformation is not coutinuous. I am annoyed that nobody gives accurate answers to my remarks, and I wonder how people can support without doing so. It seems to me that nobody sees the problem: I can assure you, as a mathematician, that there is one. This problem is all the more serious if nobody sees it: it is acceptable to be approximative only if one is conscious of the limitations. --Bernard 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can assure you, as a topologist, there is no such problem as you imagine. --C S (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My answer to "I wonder how people can support without doing so" is that non-topologists may support this animation without knowing what's "wrong" with it and without understanding the math just as non-taxonismists can support animal pictures without researching to see if the illustrated animal is, in fact, the correct species and a typical member of the species. This makes it important for topologists, taxonomists, and everyone else to make VERY CLEAR what's wrong with articles or pictures. I'm sorry but I STILL don't understand what's wrong with the picture. Since I still think it very clearly shows that mugs and donuts are the same topologically, I still think this deserves to be a featured picture. Enuja 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are right and my comment was a bit abusive. However I don't know how to explain better than I did... I will ask you to be more specific about what you don't understand. I am a little lost here. I had thought my comments would be understandable at least by mathematicians and would have hoped one of them would lurk around here, so if a mathematician reads this he is encouraged to give his opinion on this matter, whether he understands and agrees or not. If non-mathematicians fail to understand... Sorry, but that is also a weakness of the animation. People think they understand but they actually understand very little, I'm afraid. --Bernard 03:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be honest, I have no idea what would be the best and most accurate way to make this animation, and I'm pretty sure such a thing is beyond my skills at the moment. So I can't say how it should be deformed. The only reasons it turned out this way, with the bottom rising and all that, is because it gave the best aesthetical results and it was withing my skills. I also have a feeling that a mathematically accurate animation would look less convincing than what it this one is. The original point of this animation, in case you're not aware, was just to illustrate the famous idea that the donut and the coffee mug are topologically equivalent, and to this purpose it seems to be good enough. It was never meant to accurately illustrate the mathematical concept of homeomorphism or homeotopy. See this page for more info on where it came from. I'm certain that it is inaccurate in that sense, but I think you're missing the point and expecting too much from the animation. Meanwhile, you are encouraged to suggest a better and more accurate approach for the image, and if it is within my skills I'll certainly give it a try. Also, if you feel the animation is misplaced and lacks an accurate description to clear things up, just be bold and make the changes yourself! I'd really like some constructive criticism here, and I hope you're willing to provide it. Thanks for the comments, looking forward to a reply. — Kieff | Talk 00:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not so much that this picture is inaccurate, but that it suggests a wrong way to deform the object. I am not asking too much of the animation. I recognized its value. But having a mathematically wrong animation in FP, that is not possible. As I said, I have ideas to fix the problem, but that would not put it in FP realm to me, and would make it more complicated; and after all, why fix a problem that nobody acknowledges? The best would be to just warn about those problems in the image page. Sorry, don't want to work on the animation myself, lost too much energy here (actually, asking people who oppose to do better themselves has several times been viewed as bad style on FPC). I will ask for comments in the page you mentionned. --Bernard 01:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not asking you to do better animation or anything like that, I just pointed out that you could have edited the articles already. Also, I noticed you have said, several times, that you have ideas on how to fix these issues you pointed out, but you never really stated what these changes are. I'm just asking you to explain this further. I'm just curious, really. And I'll learn something more on the subject, and that's always a good thing. :) — Kieff | Talk 02:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is some work to describe, and I would have done it more happily if people had understood my previous comments. Anyway, here it is, I've added the thumbnail on top of the section. This raises a few other issues: it will be difficult to understand without seeing the interior of the mug; people who don't see the original problem will wonder why it is done this way... --Bernard 15:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a graph theorist, and we don't really deal with those kinds of minutiae, but it seems to me your objection stems from the visualization of the mug as a tube on top of a disk, with the diameter of the disk the same as the outer diameter of the tube. In that case the removal of matter from inside the tube amounts to a reduction to a 2-dimensional annulus. But an alternative visualization is the disk inside the tube. In that case the removal compresses the inner cylinder into a flat but 3-dimensional disk – a volume-reducing but perfect homeomorphic transformation. ~ trialsanderrors 09:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support graphic is fine, illustrates the topological concept of a homotopy perfectly. But I do agree with Bernard that its not the right one for homeomorphism. It actually reinforces the wrong idea about what a homeomorphish is. People will look at the animation and leave with that incorrect impression. --Salix alba (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Graphically illustrating why the image could be confusing for homeomorphism. There is a homeomorphism between the torus and Trefoil knot, but no homotopy. --Salix alba (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for giving your opinion on the homeomorphism/homotopy problem. I would like to ask also what you think of the other problem I wrote about, namely that the transformation that is suggested between the torus and the mug is not in fact an homeomorphism (fails to be either continuous or injective)? Whether you understand, agree, and think it is a serious problem or not... --Bernard 12:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beleive you can construct a continuous and injective map which mirrors this illustration. What you don't get is differentiability. Consider just a small portion round the top of the cup, before its been pressed in, and just after. A slice through is illustrated below, I've constructed two diagonals lines and divided the interiour into three sets of points: a,b,c.
-------------       |------
aaaa\bb\ccccc       |\ccccc
aaaaa\bb\cccc       |b\cccc 
aaaaaa\bb\ccc   ----|bb\ccc
                aaaaa\bb\cc
The deformation maps each set of points before onto the corresponding points after. Hopefully enough to convince you. --Salix alba (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expect many people intuitively visualize something of this sort when they see the animation. I'm rather baffled that it has been a source of confusion, but in hindsight it's somewhat understandable. I remember when I started learning topology that I would overthink these things. There was a tendency to think things really couldn't be as they somehow appeared. If one works a lot in hands-on topology in 3 dimensions, one learns to trust one's intuition again (or at least certain parts of it....). --C S (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The only real objection I see is that the animation demonstrates an isotopy, which is a stronger condition than homeomorphism between two objects contained in an ambient space. Is this a serious objection? I don't think so. The gist of what topology is about is conveyed more than adequately. It's a great animation. --C S (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mug and Torus morph.gif --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Animated gif of the evolution of Canada's provinces and territories
Reason
Self-nom; seeing the response to the animated Australia map below (people saying the concept was good), I thought it was time to nominate one I made of Canada some time ago, spruced up a little bit. It may look low quality in thumbnail view but full view makes it better. The actual animated version is in the two articles mentioned; each frame is also individually used in Territorial evolution of Canada.
Articles this image appears in
Canada, Provinces and territories of Canada
Creator
User:Golbez
Nominator
Golbez
  • SupportGolbez 13:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you take suggestions? It would be good to have an intermittent frame showing only the outline of the country at the end so it doesn't jump from present to 1867. Also, the dates might be better presented as a timeline. Otherwise this is pretty nice. ~ trialsanderrors 19:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There was a peer review of this image (by the same nominator) here, which includes some other suggestions as well. Just throwing that out there. --Tewy 23:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, very well done. The only reason I do weak is because I'm not sure that gif is the best way to represent this. Maybe an html solution where you click on tabs to change images would work better (I can't find an example, but I know I've seen them). gren グレン 11:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've uploaded a new version with a timeline, explanations, and a blank frame at the end as suggested, which I thought would not work at all but it kinda does, it cleanses the palate (and palette! heh) before restarting again. I should have done this after the peer review, but here it is. :) --Golbez 12:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very nice. High enc value. I liked to see it start from the beginning of Canada, but maybe that'll be too long to fit in a single map. Anyway, good job again. --Arad 15:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would also seriously threaten my sanity, as the borders of the colonies of pre-dominion Canada were, shall we say, poorly documented. ;) I'll eventually make one, probably. --Golbez 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -Very informative -Nelro
  • Support. Nicely done (although a little slow, but that's just because so much happened). --Tewy 22:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Well done, especially now that you have incorporated the other suggestions. Though, I've got one more for you: could you make the borders slightly thinner? I'm thinking about 0.5 to 1pt smaller. ♠ SG →Talk 03:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I think it's great, I especially like the recent addition of the timeline. I was thinking of doing the same kind of thing for the Grateful Dead#Lineups, haha. A couple of comments though: Perhaps the text of Saskatchewan could be the same (or comprarable) size as the others, and not slanted? A hyphen could make it fit, maybe. Also, it would be great if the text could be curved to follow the lines of equal latitude, which are particularly important in the case of the edges of the Western provinces. Spebudmak 07:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I like the delay between the frames, as it gives you ample time to read it. Also,
Question: Does anyone know if Flash presentations are ever going to be compatible with WP? With a forward/backward button, this would be an ideal candidate, as the viewer could read at his own pace... tiZom(2¢) 15:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Til then, each frame is available separately with sourcing and more information at Territorial evolution of Canada :) --Golbez 16:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good job again! Canada's proud of you ;-) --Arad 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose - ambiguous regional identity of islands at many places in the animation, and the boundary lines change thickness throughout. Debivort 20:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They do? Where? The international borders are thicker than the internal borders, but beyond that there should be no changes. As for lack of identity, 1) I don't think the District of Keewatin extended beyond the mainland, the islands always belong to the NWT except when 3) Nunavut comes along, and its borders are clearly delineated. So, please be specific - where are the borders wonky, and which islands are ambiguous? --Golbez 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No the borders are the same. The international ones are thicker only. I think it's a mistake eye makes because of colors maybe. --Arad 15:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are right about the borders changing only when they change status. I hadn't realized that was the distinction. It would be worth saying that in the caption. As for the NWT, there is no way to know that the islands belong to NWT or any of the other sepia territories that run into the water there. Change opposition to weak opposition. Debivort 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Canada_provinces_evolution.gif --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The brise soleil on Santiago Calatravas's Quadracci Pavilion of the Milwaukee Art Museum in three different positions. Image 1: open.
Image 2: closing.
Image 3: Almost closed.
Reason
After the failed nomination earlier this month I was intrigued by the building and looked for better versions of the brise soleil. This set of pictures from Flickr captures the entrance of the pavilion at sundown, just when the brise soleil is closing, and gives a better idea of its purpose. It also has a quite beautiful atmosphere. I did some cleanup work on the image, but I did not retouch the right wing of the sail, which seems to have some surface damage. (Note this is not a representation of the whole pavilion, which should be covered from a different angle.)
Articles this image appears in
Brise soleil
Creator
Mulad (on Flickr)
Nominator
trialsanderrors
black problems

Promoted Image:Milwaukee Art Museum 1 (Mulad).jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Paris metro network pictured at a geographically accurate scale.
Edit 1: white background.
Reason
It's clean: without the names of the stations, the interconnectedness of the network is easier to see, and the map isn't too cluttered. Also, this map doesn't have the artificially-parallel lines that the standard RATP-distributed one does, making it (purportedly) geographically accurate.
Articles this image appears in
Paris Métro, List of stations of the Paris Métro
Creator
User:Metropolitan
Nominator
Spebudmak

Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


File:Row of Icicle.jpg
Row of Icicles on a roof
Reason
Wonderful picture that I saw on the article ice.
Articles this image appears in
Ice
Creator
User:Digon3
Nominator
Tomer T
I will upload a untilted version sometime soon. --Digon3 22:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Creator: LadyofHats
  • Reason: Lady of Hats has many very high quality SVGs which are all "biology book" worthy. So here I nominate the collection. We already had a FP collection before, so here is another one.
  • Comment Well, that's a lot of good images. However, I'm afraid that they will have to be nominated separately. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Oppose: 5. Neutral: 1. Can see: 2 Animal cell can be shown better, namely the chromatin and the neuclous isn't very clear. Sodium channels on #1 need to be labled. I can't see #2. (I also added the number lables for the purpose of identification in the votes) -Fcb981 23:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, for the love of God don't vote on these. It'd take a week to close a nom like this. :) --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. lol. Then I'm sorry. --Arad 00:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed #2 so it can seen now. —Pengo 08:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted without prejudice. Feel free to renominate if and when featured picture sets become a reality, or individually. MER-C 08:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creator: LadyofHats
  • Reason: Another collection of high quality, high enc value SVG of LadyofHats. I removed the less "enc" ones.
True, but these are used in different articles. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted without prejudice. Feel free to renominate if and when featured picture sets become a reality, or individually. MER-C 08:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The O2, formerly the Millennium Dome, seen from the River Thames.
Alternative edit.
Reason
A fortuitous shot of this monster. The Dome is highlighted by lateral sunlight while contrasting nicely against the cloudy sky. It's among the "most interesting" free-license architecture images on Flickr and certainly the most encyclopedic view.
Articles this image appears in
The O2
Creator
zakgollop on Flickr
Nominator
trialsanderrors

Not promoted PS2pcGAMERtest 04:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Severn Crossing carries the M4 motorway across the River Severn between Severn Beach near Avonmouth in south west England and Caldicot in south Wales
Alternative version 1 showing extreme left of bridge
Alternative version 2 showing extreme left of bridge, with slightly increased contrast and brightness
Reason
I took this on an atmospheric evening last summer, having used the bridge frequently to travel from my home in Cardiff to work in Bristol. Although the bridge is in silhouette, I think this shot does a good job of illustrating its structure and size, and is visually appealing and eyecatching. It's already featured on Commons but I hesitated to nominate it here because I thought it'd be shot down for unc1; I've reconsidered because (bias aside) I believe it's highly enc.

1unencyclopaedicity

Articles this image appears in
Second Severn Crossing
Creator
Yummifruitbat (YFB)
Nominator
YFB ¿
  • Um, good point - I'm not sure what happened there. I've restitched the image with the rest of the frames and uploaded the result as an alternative version which shows the entire bridge. I'm not convinced that any particularly useful information is gained by this addition and I can't decide whether the first seems a more balanced composition. Thanks for pointing it out - any opinions either way? --YFB ¿ 07:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternate. Per above.--HereToHelp 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Maye it's good for commons but I don't see the Enc value for Wikipedia. I like it in a way but the subject (i think it's the bridge) is too dark (no detail) --Arad 22:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arad, thanks for commenting. If you're struggling to make out the subject, it may be that your monitor isn't properly calibrated. Many monitors are set too dark "out of the box" and need adjusting to get full shadow detail. Admittedly this image is dark (as Alvesgaspar puts it, "contre-jour") but it should be easy to see the bridge's structure in considerable detail on a properly calibrated display. --YFB ¿ 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the reply but I can assure you my monitor is perfectly calibrated. It's just that I don't think the image is a perfect FP for Wikipedia. It's a very good photo indeed, --Arad 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alternative version Tomer T 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The detail is great when viewed at full resolution. In case it makes a difference, I created a version of this with slightly greater contrast and brightness.

Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 12 March 2007


So... Which version? Moving to "additional input required" section. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm for the unedited alternate. That's just me, though.--HereToHelp 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative, Oppose alternative version 2 I can't really decide what version is better (original or alternative), but I have a slight preference for the alternative (after all, there's more information in it). The sky of version seems almost too bright in my opinion. -Wutschwlllm 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Second Severn Crossing pano 2 s.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A rainbow hovers above the ground in front of Vernal Fall
Reason
Very attractive photograph of the waterfall
Articles this image appears in
Vernal Fall
Creator
God of War (talk)
Nominator
MattWright (talk)

Promoted Image:Vernal Falls Rainbow.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Animated timeline map of the Confederate States of America
Reason
Self-nom. After seeing the happy responses and suggestions for my Canada map (Below) I decided to try it out on the Confederacy. This is much less a 'territorial evolution' map and more an 'animated timeline' but I'll stick with the naming system. ;) I added a days-of-the-month timeline because there are a few months where a large number of events happen. I wonder, should it be there the whole time, or only during busy months? Anyway, let me know what you think. --Golbez 10:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in
Confederate States of America
Creator
User:Golbez
Nominator
Golbez
  • SupportGolbez 10:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -Very good and informative -Nelro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.46.208 (talk)
  • Comment What is the top counter (that goes from 1 to 30) referring to. perhaps you could label it? Witty lama 14:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Can you put commas in between the day of the month and the year? Neutralitytalk 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are the colors based on a cartographic precedent? I have to admit I find them poorly matched and not very telling (for instance USA and CSA could be separated by different color schemes, with different levels of brightness or saturation establishing different levels of incorporation). Also, I don't see the need for the day-of-the-month timeline or the thick line between USA and CSA. ~ trialsanderrors 19:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The colors are based on all of the hundreds of maps I've made up to this point, and I haven't yet been shown a better scheme. :) As for 'different levels of incorporation', I'm not quite sure what you mean; like showing how much control the CSA held at a certain time? That would be more of a war timeline, whereas this is more of a political timeline. --Golbez 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that's a term I made up on the spot for want of a better one. It roughly means a state in a union is a higher level of incorporation than a territory, so a possible color scheme would be:
        • State of the Union
        • Territory of the Union
        • Independent state
        • Territory of the Confederacy
        • State of the Confederacy
      • It doesn't have to be these exact colors, but it's easy to signal affiliated states by using different color depths. ~ trialsanderrors 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm, I might try that out at some point, but for now I like my system. :) though it did get a little out of whack here, I used my normal "disputed" color for the CSA territory. --Golbez 13:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In reference to Trialsanderrors. I don't know (care) so much about colors. I think the day of month thing works because there is plenty of room and I can't think of anything more worthwhile. I think the thick line is good because it's claiming to be a national boundary... not just a state boundary. gren グレン 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I haven't looked at this in enough detail to make any criticism of the quality (looks pretty good on first glance) but I don't really think an animated GIF is an ideal way to show this progression. There are simply too many steps and the animation is therefore too long and lacks user control. This would be great as a Flash applet with forward/back controls and a speed slider for the automation. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that there's a Flash implementation for Wikipedia so I can't really suggest a constructive way to make this better - I just think it's too long at present, and too likely that someone would want to go back a frame or two and not be able to. --YFB ¿ 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, as with my other animated timelines I'll eventually make a list article, I simply haven't done that yet. And yeah, this is rather long. And no, I will not be making one for the United States, that animated gif would be over 5 minutes long. =p --Golbez 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HTML-ish tabs
    • I was wondering the same thing. Is there a way to make it so you click on a little tab with a year and it changes to another (preloaded) image. I know this can be done... but I'm not sure if the code is allowed in Wikipedia. I think that would be ideal (providing there aren't too many years. But, can it be done? gren グレン 13:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Old version (not nominated)
  • Support, very nicely done, I like how it shows the confederacy separate from seceded states. Although it might be good to also show the borders of the US territories. Also, should Indian Territory (oklahoma) be confederate too as in this map, or at least shown as disputed? I tried doing something similar several months ago made from maps on wikipedia, interestingly with colors like those suggested by trials&errors above and showing part of the war borders. I had previously thought that writing would not work in an animated gif, but it does work very well here. --Astrokey44 12:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My original version did have the U.S. territories, but there are too many changes in the time period that it distracted from the focus, which was the CSA. --Golbez 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that one includes Indian territory, but I specifically omitted that from mine, because even though it started under CSA control, it was never formally annexed or organized by the CSA, unlike Arizona Territory. --Golbez 13:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well done animation, shows the image's intention well. The image is very informative with its descriptions and dates. Hello32020 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support very informative, but I would prefer something like the color scheme in the non nominated example. Debivort 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would recoment pending above recomended color scheme (blues and greys); also your "day of the month" bar kind of threw me off (I thought that it was going to be a slide counter, as in "map 1 of 30".) Otherwise, I am totally digging this map, and hope to see your continured involvement with Wikipedia. OverMyHead 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Canada one does a better job at representing this kind of an animated map. This one here is too cluttered, the day-of-the-month timeline is unintutive and unexplained, and the color scheme is unhelpful and unattractive. ~ trialsanderrors 18:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:CSA states evolution.gif --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Pomegranate (Punica granatum), illustration by Otto Wilhelm Thomé, 1885
Alternative: white background.
Reason
This is a nomination partially to advertise two rich and underused resources: biolib.de , a repository of old, mostly out-of-print biology books, and Otto Wilhelm Thomé's work on German, Austrian and Swiss plants in particular. I picked one that is both attractive and easy to clean up (since most original scans have the common dark edges). There are two versions: I prefer the version with the yellowed, somewhat uneven paper, but there is also an edit with white background. (The original is here.)
Articles this image appears in
Pomegranate
Creator
Otto Wilhelm Thomé, 1885
Nominator
trialsanderrors
In 1885, paper was (sometimes) plenty white; color like in this "original" (which has been retouched already and may have had an unknown amount of color correction to enhance the red even before trialsanderrors worked on it) would be a combination of aging discoloration and a not-super-white but probably much whiter original color. Still, I mostly agree with you.--ragesoss 04:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more clear--yes, the paper will have darkened considerably, but the background of the second picture is, essentially, blank—i.e., not like paper at all. Chick Bowen 04:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original of my edit is directly from the biolib source. Looking at their gallery as a whole, they certainly didn't do any editing to their images. Of course the scanner setting might have contributed to the high saturation, but I don't see eveidence that all their images are oversaturated. I agree with Chick that the white background is digital white. ~ trialsanderrors 05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Illustration Punica granatum2.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Closeup of Eastern carpenter bee (Xylocopa virginica) male, showing white face and mouthparts.
Reason
This is a great shot of a bee. The vivid colour of the flower the bee is resting on is dramatic, and reflected nicely in its eyes. The tight focal length on the bee's face gives it a personality that would be lacking in a blander photograph.
Articles this image appears in
Eastern carpenter bee
Creator
Pollinator
Nominator
Hex

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fish and chips on the seafront at Hunstanton, Norfolk, UK
Reason
Very nice and appetizing picture :)
Articles this image appears in
Fish and chips, Take-out
Creator
User:Solipsist
Nominator
Tomer T
I think that there are a lot of good pictures that thier subject is a beach. What's bad with a picture that its subject is Fish and chips? Tomer T 20:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This photograph of a Little Egret was taken in the Okovango Delta in Botswana, Africa.
Reason
Composition; quality; subject; etc.
Articles this image appears in
Little Egret
Creator
Birdman1
Nominator
Birdman1 talk/contribs

Not promoted MER-C 08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Diagram of an Eye
On red background to show lost detail. Some parts are white, or white with transparency.
Reason
Superb quality svg with very high enc value
Articles this image appears in
Eye
Creator
Chabacano
Nominator
Arad
  • Support. Yes, please, someone create an image map for Eye!!! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-09 20:31Z
  • Support see above reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penubag (talkcontribs)
  • Conditional Support - It looks great. But I'm not so crazy about the background being the same colour as many elements in the subject. A light cyan might be better, since it really isn't present anywhere else in the image, and is light enough to allow labels to be seen. --Paul 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also, does SVG support embedded metadata? (I'd be surprised if it didn't , since it's XML-based.) Because I preferred the version with labels. However, if the descriptions for each numbered label were in the metadata, it would make the picture independent of any page it might be embedded in. It's a pet peeve of mine to see images with label descriptions or colour keys that are in the referring page instead of the picture itself (though in this case, having the descriptions in the picture itself would make it too noisy, which is why I'm suggesting the use of metadata). --Paul 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, SVG supports metadata but I don't believe there's a standard way to embed caption information, or at least any standard way to read it back again (someone please, please correct me). There is a standard [way to include href links, but unless Wikipedia begins to support them, or has a way to convert SVG link tags (with CURIEs) into image maps, then, well, it's all just an exercise in futility. Perhaps you'd just like the labels named or given IDs that reflect what they point to. I doubt it would help anyone though. —Pengo 02:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Eye-diagram no circles border.svg --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historic church of Cúcuta
Reason
It is beautiful.
Articles this image appears in
Historic church of Cúcuta
Creator
Qwerty2
Nominator
Ricardo Ramírez

Not promoted MER-C 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Palms in the Park of the Greater Colombia
Reason
It is excelent.
Articles this image appears in
Park of the Greater Colombia
Creator
Qwerty2
Nominator
Ricardo Ramírez

Not promoted MER-C 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A celestial map from the 17th century, by the Dutch cartographer Frederik de Wit.
detail (2x)
detail (2x) of existing FP Carta Marina
Reason
High enc, good looking, high quality scan.
Articles this image appears in
Astronomy, Star chart
Creator
Frederik de Wit
Nominator
Janke | Talk

Not promoted MER-C 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Looking westward on a bayou in George Bush Park.
purple fringing
Reason
It seems well enough to be nominated, good view of park. It also demonstrates how straight-down Houston bayous can be.
Articles this image appears in
George Bush Park
Creator
JuWiki
Nominator
JuWiki
I think that alternative version is too bright. Tomer T 14:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Turgor pressure on plant cells
Reason
High enc value. Good svg.
Articles this image appears in
Osmosis Plasmolysis Hypotonic Hypertonic Turgor pressure
Creator
LadyofHats
Nominator
Arad
  • Weak Support This is pretty well done, although I'm not sure why the background is grey and what the significance of the green and yellow arrows is (both easily fixed, I suppose). "Weak" only because I see number of more impressive illustrations on LadyofHats' user page. ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The arrows indicate the direction water is moving in, but the colors suggest the arrows indicate the movement of two different substances. I will support an image in which the arrows are the same color. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly Oppose The yellow arrows indicate the diffusion of water into the cell's vacuole, the green arrows show water diffusion out of the vacuole. This is obvious if you think about it, but not immediately clear. I agree that the quality of the diagram is extremely high; however I do not really think that the image holds enough interest to be featured. -- Ninjakannon 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A mother sow nursing her piglet.
Edit by trialsanderrors — cropped, qualifty enhanced.
Reason
Encyclopedic, and a well taken picture.
Articles this image appears in
Pig, omnivore
Creator
Scott Bauer
Nominator
RyGuy17

Oppose I just feel there are better pictures of pigs out there and so, this is not one of Wikipedia's best works.Bernalj90 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruins of a church at Shivta (Sobota) in the Negev desert, Israel.
Reason
Beautiful encyclopedic picture in high quality. It is hard to take a picture in Shivta without picturing the shadows.
Articles this image appears in
Shivta, Nabataeans
Creator
ST (here or here)
Nominator
Tomer T
  • SupportTomer T 16:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Bad lighting (overexposure and harsh shadows). Should be taken at another time of the day. Alvesgaspar 17:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I just don't see either overexposure nor harsh shadows. There is plenty of detail in the shadows as far as I can see. That being said I'm not too excited about the pic either. Focus is a bit soft and the subject matter is a bit too arbitrary. --Dschwen 19:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Arbitrary!? Since when is the ruins of an ancient civilization arbitrary? As a matter of fact, since when is a UNESCO world heritage site arbitrary?Bernalj90 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • By arbitrary I meant that the way the photo is taken does not depict the site in a unique way (or show its unique features) that makes it distinguishable from other ruins of an ancient civilizations. I did not intend to belittle the subject itself at all. --Dschwen 07:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I'm seeing artifact around where the building turns into the sky... and what Schwen said. gren グレン 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose- Anyone can find a pic like this on the internetPenubag 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag[reply]
  • Neutral Not concerned about shadows, which would be hard to get rid of without artificial lights (bleh) or if the sun was directly behind the subject, and that might not be possible based on positioning of the subject and lends itself to overexposure, which I see none of here. (That long and still a fragment! My English teachers would be proud.) But the view does not lend itself to showing the layout of the whole site (where am I?), and the focus, while good, could be better. This may be due to the camera itself.--HereToHelp 00:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support I agree the shadows are well proportioned in this picture and I can't complain about the quality or resolution in any reasonable way. Also, I love the fact that it depicts a little-known yet immensely important ancient historical site. Bernalj90 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -Nelro 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Artifacts all over the place. The shadows look interesting, but overall this image is just not that striking to me. The lower third looks too bright. Not really Wikipedia's best work. -Wutschwlllm 14:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Las Limas Monument 1, an important iconic representation of the Olmec belief system. Carved between 3000 and 2500 years ago, this statue shows a youth holding an apparently-lifeless were-jaguar baby. Incised icons on the youth's shoulders, legs, and face are considered by many prominent archaeologists as archetypical representations of Olmec dieties.

[[Señor_de_las_limas_2.jpg|thumb|200px|Edit 1 by Chabacano]].

Reason
First, this is a very striking picture. The statue itself is very expressive and the light pool surrounding the were-jaguar baby gives it an otherworldly glow. Second, this statue is very important archaeologically, and a drawing or photograph of this appears in nearly any book on the Olmec culture. Third, the clarity is such that, at highest resolution, the incised icons on the statue can be clearly seen. In summary, this is the best photo I've seen of this statue, and one that Wikipedia is very fortunate to have. It's less in focus in the chest area than the face, and I myself wish the glow were a little less bright. Nonetheless, I do think the combination of its encyclopedi-osity and striking beauty makes this a fine candidate.
This photo was taken by an amateur photog from Mexico at the Museum of Anthropology in Xalapa, Veracruz, where the statue is on display. I saw it on Flickr and contacted the photographer, who graciously allowed me to upload it under CC 2.5 Attribution. For comparison sake, here is another photo of the same subject.
P.S., I also think that the subject matter is a nice counterbalance to the many wildlife, landscape, and cityscape shots we see here in FPC. Thanks, Madman 15:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in
Olmec and Las Limas Monument 1, as well as the Spanish and French Wikipedia Olmec articles.
Creator
Cadeva
Nominator
Madman
Regarding background, I will have to depend on the kindness of strangers to do this, but I'm sure it can be done. Regarding the resolution, the criteria states that one side must be at least 1000px, and so this does qualify. And, I'm not sure that this lighting is the best to illustrate this sculpture, but the lighting does emphasize the religious nature of the statue and perhaps shows why this statue was venerated in modern times as a Madonna. Too often artifacts like this are shown in a dead, antiseptic light, and that's what makes this photo exciting to me. In addition, museum photos are difficult since amateur photogs do not control the lighting, placement, etc., and often risk getting chased out by the authorities. The results usually end up like this.
Thanks for your comments, Madman 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever enc you lose is more than made up by by the composition. I would support an edit to remove the non-black patches, and to make the black blacker. The idea is there, but a bit of editing can bring out the full potential. I will abstain until such an edit is created.--HereToHelp 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay...but somehow the sharpness is lacking. Alas, I have been spoiled by Diliff, Fir, etc. and their professional equipment. I still congratulate the photographer, though.--HereToHelp 00:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested that the folks at the Graphics Lab take a shot at these fixes. Thanks, Madman 15:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast! Check out Edit #1. I have used the Graphics labs folks in the past to improve several photographs. As mentioned, it is very difficult to get good shots of archaeological artifacts and they are really brought out the detail in this shot of Maya glyphs. Madman 19:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Distracting lights in the upper-right corner. Also the the lighting doesn't exactly help enc --frotht 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, great subject, not a terrible shot, but the image quality just isn't that amazing. Seems... not very sharp? And to continue the argument above, the subject itself is only about 710×970 pixels, which would barely qualify. Would be great if someone with a high-end camera got a shot of this using a tripod. —Pengo 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once the background is fixed.·Maunus· ·ƛ·

09:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

CommentThe edited one is much better. I don't think the concerns about bad lighting are justified, on the contrary the lighting adds to the picture. I believe that there are good reasons for using effectful ligthing when taking a picture of a three dimentional artefact, inbstead of always using a straight flash or a diffuse lighting. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose-bad lighting User:penubag 02:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag[reply]

  • I suppose what Fcb981 is saying is that there is nothing in the picture to give an indication of scale - the statue could be 1 foot tall or 20 feet tall, the picture is no guide. However, the picture needn't be a guide as to scale, that information could be in the caption and/or the article, which ought to be sufficient. Pstuart84 Talk 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think any additional size reference would distract from the quality of the image. It may be sufficient to write the size in the caption/comments of the image -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Several pasta kinds.
Reason
An encyclopedic image, that details really well about the different pasta kinds
Articles this image appears in
Pasta
Creator
ChiemseeMan
Nominator
Tomer T
  • Another possibility is to do something like the coquina variation image that Debivort did: take individual pictures of pasta noodles and stich them all together into one single picture, so you avoid the flash reflection. howcheng {chat} 20:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A very important thing is to use bounced/indirect flash instead of direct flash. Just hold a mirror in front of the flash and reflected to a white ceiling or somewhere and crank the flash level compensation (or exposure compensation if that's not available) up to avoid under-exposures. --antilivedT | C | G 07:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Displaced victims of the earthquake, in front of a temporary tent shelter. Other tents can be seen in the background at right.
Reason
A picture that adds significantly to the SF 1906 earthquake article - the very first shelters were tents, before the Army built more permanent shelters. A high quality scan (1381 by 1078 px) of a 1906 snapshot that has survived in good shape for over 100 years. A snaphot, yes, but with high historical significance.
Articles this image appears in
1906_San_Francisco_earthquake
Creator
Unknown, from uploader's family album. (Third person from left is a sister of my great-grandmother.)
Nominator
Janke | Talk
  • SupportJanke | Talk 15:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the image illustrates the clothing of the period very well, but doesn't do much to illustrate the tents, nor the article in question. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-12 16:21Z
  • Oppose, until there is a good extended caption to place the image in historical context.--ragesoss 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Brian. I couldn't tell from the picture that this is near SF, related to an earthquake, or even a shelter. For all I know this could be a camping vacation in sweden. Just commenting on the picture, this doesn't mean that I doubt your word if you say it is what it is, Janke! --Dschwen 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Still a great find though![reply]
    • Unfortunately, our great-aunt died many years ago (at the ripe age of 98!), so it's impossible to get any more info about the picture, or the location, other than what's written in the album. She lived in California for over a decade back then, and we have many of her pictures from SF. I doubt anyone can pinpoint the exact location of this shot, without having access to records of displaced people - such records may (or may not) have been kept back then. --Janke | Talk 07:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, compared to some of the other quake FPs this isn't so great. gren グレン 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this doesn't show the quake, it shows the displaced victims in front of their tent shelter... ;-) Seriously, I think it adds some human perspective to the article. --Janke | Talk 07:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with regrets. This is a nice picture, with the right amount of patina to convey "old", but as has been mentioned before, the occasion of this tent outing remains unclear. Also there are a bunch of technical problems, e.g. the elder gentleman on the right has no eyes. And finally, no caption. I'll give it a E4T5A9. ~ trialsanderrors 17:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I may be missing something, but I don't see how the picture demonstrates that they actually are quake victims. They could be anyone in 1906 merely standing in front of a tent. -- Sturgeonman 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


View of the entire city of Zurich, including the Lake of Zurich and the Alps
Edit by Sxenko — cropped,sharpened, qualifty enhanced.
Reason
High quality photo of the entire city and surrounding terrain
Articles this image appears in
Zürich
Creator
Sxenko
Nominator
Sxenko

Not promoted MER-C 08:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A company of Danish artists in Rome, a painting by Constantin Hansen from 1837. Description from the image's page: A group of Danish artists in Rome. Lying on the floor is the architect Bindesbøll. From left to right: Constantin Hansen, Rørbye, Marstrand, Küchler, Blunck and Jørgen Sonne.
Edit1
Reason
Beautiful painting in high quality
Articles this image appears in
Constantin Hansen
Creator
Constantin Hansen, was uploaded by Thuresson
Nominator
Tomer T

Not promoted MER-C 08:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Holdridge Life Zone Classification scheme. Potential evapotranspiration is the amount of evaporation that would occur if water were not limited. Annual precipitation is rain or snow.
v2: Larger numbers & labels
v3: Larger belts/region labels too
Reason
Really well illustrates Holdridge's life zones, and is visually pleasing.
Articles this image appears in
Leslie Holdridge
Creator
User:Pengo (self made)
Nominator
Pengo
  • Support — —Pengo 13:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What are the chances of increasing the text size? Even in full resolution it's barely readable. ~ trialsanderrors 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The numbers down the left and right sides (which I assume you're talking about) appeared larger (or at least clearer) in Inkscape before I uploaded. I'll have a go at fixing them. —Pengo 05:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The text labels could be bigger too, at least on the sides. I don't see any space constraints. ~ trialsanderrors 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've increased the size of most of the text labels now. —Pengo 07:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if you can add to the image page all of the sources you used to create the image (to allow us to verify that it is factually correct). It'd also be nice if you could say what you used to make it... but, that isn't as necessary. gren グレン 20:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was created entirely in Inkscape. It's an amalgamation of various sources. See the image page for links to 7 web-based sources and 2 textbooks referenced (Sorry, they weren't linked from the old image page). Textbook of Biodiversity can be viewed through google books, but the other book (Ecology) was my main reference point and AFAIK is only available hardcopy. The colours used are my own. —Pengo 03:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't so interesting in checking the sources myself, hah, but... I've just noticed people forget to source diagrams. I'd just looked at the old version it seems. Great job :) --gren グレン 03:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Why are the life zones hexagon shaped instead of triangular, which would be the natural thing to do? Alvesgaspar 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't invent this diagram, I based it on existing diagrams, so I can only give a best guess. A hexagon better approximates a circle than would triangles or diamonds. E.g. a dry forest is has 500 to 1000mm precipitation (actually to 2000mm) and an evavotranspiration ratio between 1 and 2, which would fill a diamond on this diagram. However at the extremes of these parameters it might start to be considered a steppe or a very dry forest, so the hexagon better approximates this, while still giving rigid boundaries without gaps. —Pengo 22:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why bees use hexagons in their honeycombs: they are the regular polygon with the most sides that still tessellates.--HereToHelp 15:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support v2 v3 Enc, SVG, larger labels visible in preview (important since many people don't have the ability to read SVGs).--HereToHelp 15:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Weak support edit Overall it is fairly well done and informative. It isn't remarkably striking, but it is probably about as interesting an image you can get with the subject matter. The use of color helps, and the shapes are dynamic. Isn't that useful in a thumbnail because labels are hard to see, but the edit helps the preview be more readable. SVG is a plus so it can easily be translated, edited, and updated by others.-Andrew c 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Lifezones_Pengo.svg --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


English actor David Garrick as the titular role in Shakespeare's Richard III as painted by William Hogarth. The scene depicted is Act V, Scene 3 where, on the eve of the battle of Bosworth Field, Richard is visited by the ghosts of those he has murdered. They warn of his death and he awakes to the realization that he is liked by no one.
Alternative version.
Reason
David Garrick was one of the most painted individuals of his time, but this is really the most arresting image of him. Garrick was one of the first actors to use a naturalistic style of acting and while we only have descriptions of his performance and paintings of him in character, this image comes the closest of any of them to portraying the power of his performance.
Articles this image appears in
David Garrick, Richard III, Theatre Royal, Drury Lane
Creator
Ganymead
Nominator
*Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue?

Not promoted MER-C 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Tapantí National Park during a foggy/rainy day. One can see the tropical plants on the sides and the natural fog from the waterfall in the background.
Reason
Not only is this the only picture in Wikipedia that depicts the Tapantí National Park in Costa Rica, but it's also one of the most beautiful depictions of a tropical rain forest in Wikipedia. This picture grabs the viewer's attention and incites him/her to read more about the article. The picture has a relatively high quality and resolution (2080 × 1544 pixel) and any blurriness in the background is caused by the naturally forming fog from the waterfall and the water vapour exhaled by the trees and wet ground (not to mention that it was raining the day the picture was taken).
Articles this image appears in
Ecotourism, List of national parks, Tapantí National Park
Creator
Bernalj90
Nominator
Bernalj90

Not promoted MER-C 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reason
It is a great image of Simón Bolivar
Articles this image appears in
Simón Bolivar
Creator
Unknown
Nominator
Ricardo Ramírez

Not promoted MER-C 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Female internees practicing calisthenics at Manzanar internment camp, 1943.
Reason
Another political image of sorts. In 1943, Adams visited the Japanese-American internment camp at Manzanar and took a series of photographs, many of which are considered among his best portraits. He has been criticized for putting a positive spin on the subject, but when he gifted the set to the Library of Congress, he defended his decision:

The purpose of my work was to show how these people, suffering under a great injustice, and loss of property, businesses and professions, had overcome the sense of defeat and dispair [sic] by building for themselves a vital community in an arid (but magnificent) environment. — Ansel Adams, 1965

I believe this picture perfectly encapsulates this intent.
Articles this image appears in
Manzanar, Calisthenics, Born Free and Equal
Creator
Ansel Adams
Nominator
trialsanderrors

Promoted Image:Manzanar calisthenics 0016u.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


An example of an HDR image tone mapped.
Reason
An example of the entire post-processing effort used to make a viewable "HDR" image in one depiction (if requested, all exposure brackets can be uploaded).
Articles this image appears in
Tone mapping
Creator
Cody.Pope
Nominator
Cody.Pope
  • SupportCody.Pope 07:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it looks to me as if you could have gotten the same result by just tweaking the gamma curves of the 0.0/f offset exposure. The subject isn't really calling for such a long exposure series and HDR as far as I can see. More details on the tonemapping algorithm (and the software) used would be a plus for the caption too. --Dschwen 08:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Dschwen here. It looks like there were no blown highlights on any of the exposures apart from +1.33. You could have achieved much the same result from post-processing the +1.0 exposure I think. In fact, apart from a more subtle gradient from left to right in the sky, I don't see how the end result is significantly different from the +1.0 exposure apart from being a bit soft from the stacking... A very aesthetic scene (where is it?) but doesn't really do justice to tone mapping for me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I'd almost agree, accept that no matter how you tweak either the 0.00ev or the 1.00ev, details are always lost (especially along the coast and in the sky as you said). You can grab the originals (Nikon RAW) at 0.00ev NEF or 1.00ev NEF. The point of this blending was to to find the subtly in color without making a surreal image -- hence the actually small exposure range. Also, it's Lake Michigan inside the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.
        • Thre range is small in terms of f-stops, but large considering the number of shots. Was that really necessary, wouldn't two or three exposures have been enough? --Dschwen 12:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No opinion on the image yet, but time to crack down on lack of a caption. ~ trialsanderrors 09:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Image does not give a good example of tone mapping as the dynamic range of the subject is not that large. I can release this HDR series into a compatible license if there is interest. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I can see many of your concerns and I appreciate the feedback. The one thing I would say is that the small range is actually very helpful when it comes to blending the image. Most tone mapping software actually suggest 9-15 images to get the best results; since the blending is pretty complex, the more data the better results. A lot of hazy and murky tone-mapped images are a result of too few exposures and/or poor blending software/settings (think murky black skies). I good tone-mapped image should actually be -- at first glance -- unnoticeable and natural. And a lot of the HDR-tone-mapped-images aren't usually like that all. That being said, I still would like to see a good tone-mapped image presented in a similar matter as this. It's more the format of the image that I was promoting. In the future, I'll try to get a image with a higher overall range, but I'll still make sure to get a large number of shots. --Cody.Pope 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with some of your points but disagree with others. I don't think you need a large number of images. You just need images with a reasonable amount of overlap. Tone mapped images that end up with problems such as murky skies are usually the result of poor settings and trying to squeeze too much dynamic range into a limited output rather than a low number of source images. Your image does look quite natural but that is mainly due to the fact that the scene didn't really HAVE a large dynamic range requirement in the first place. Any time you try to fit significantly more dynamic range into a typical PC output, you're going to either lower overall contrast, create halos or at least display a scene that on first glance looks a bit fishy and strange. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Jolly Roger is the traditional flag of European and American pirates. In early Roman times through the Middle Ages, skulls and long bones were on display in catacombs, churches, and graveyards to serve as a reminder of your own death. Thus, it became a common symbol of death and decay. It might seem a bad idea to forewarn a quarry by flying the Jolly Roger; however, its use may be seen as an early form of psychological warfare.
Reason
I think this is a good use of the SVG format, and it is a commonly used and encyclopedic flag.
Articles this image appears in
Jolly Roger, Piracy, List of flags, Maritime history of California
Creator
Liftarn and ed g2s
Nominator
Basar

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco at Sunset
Reason
I think it is a good picture of the San Francisco bay. It was seconded on peer review.
Articles this image appears in
Northern California and Port of San Francisco
Creator
Digon3
Nominator
Digon3

Not promoted MER-C 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A sausage biscuit
Reason
Seconded at peer review by Nelro.
Articles this image appears in
Sausage biscuit, Breakfast sandwich
Creator
Renee Comet (USDA)
Nominator
ShadowHalo

Not promoted MER-C 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A view of the sunrise at about 8 am. Taken on the west side of Central Park, looking east towards Fifth Avenue.
Reason
I think the 'x' created as the sun rises looks picturesque behind the row of skyscrapers.
Articles this image appears in
Fifth Avenue
Creator
Conor Campbell
Nominator
Conor Campbell

Not promoted MER-C 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Osteorpermum ecklonis, or African Daisy, is a species of shrub belonging to the Asteraceae family, the same of sunflowers. It is a perennial plant, 60cm to 1m tall, normally grown as annual. The flowers are daisy-shaped, white or bluish, blooming in summer or early autumn, and the leaves are green and elliptic.
Reason
beatiful flower with gorgeous colours
Articles this image appears in
Osteospermum
Creator
Joaquim Alves Gaspar
Nominator
Alvesgaspar

Not promoted MER-C 07:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The surrender of the British at Yorktown, Virginia, on October 19, 1781, which ended the American Revolutionary War. Painting by John Trumbull, photograph by the Architect of the Capitol
Reason
This is one of those 'famous' paintings that many people recognize, and as such I thought it would make a good Featured Picture. Of course, before it gets to be an Featured Picture it has to clear this selection process first :)
Articles this image appears in
George Washington, History of France, Charles Cornwallis, 1st Marquess Cornwallis, Siege of Yorktown, John Trumbull, United States Capitol rotunda, France, George Washington in the American Revolution
Creator
John Trumble
Nominator
TomStar81 (Talk)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginiana) is the only marsupial found in North America. A solitary and nocturnal animal about the size of a domestic cat, it is a successful opportunist and is found throughout North America from coast to coast (introduced to California in 1910), and from Central America and Mexico to southern Canada .
Alternative
Alternative 2
Reason
It's an amazing picture of a opossum
Articles this image appears in
Virginia Opossum
Creator
Cody Pope
Nominator
Bewareofdog
  • SupportBewareofdog 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've had trouble viewing the fullsize version, but I can view the alternates and they are very sharp.--HereToHelp 00:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Debivort 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very nice.--ragesoss 02:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (original image) What's with the interface between the tail and body in the original? If someone can explain to me what is going on there, and convince me that there are no edits to the actual opossum in the original (finger placement, tail, ect.) I'll support. Otherwise, I oppose. It is a very pretty picture, but I don't think featured pictures should be misleading about their subjects. One minor thing that bothers me is how its eyes look; not having seen an opossum in the daytime, I think it might just be that opossums have funny eyes, but does anyone know? Enuja 03:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The tail is going behind a twig first and then the big branch that's all. No edits at all, only some minor color tweaking when converting from RAW to jpg (also cropping, obviously). Also, concerning the full size version display, I tend to save my jpgs as 5-scan-progressive which means that your browser will load the image five times, which each scan getting progressively clearer (you won't notice this at all on fast connections); so you may need to wait a sec for a clearer version (the advantage being that the file sizes tends to be smaller for the same quality image, I think). --Cody.Pope 06:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support awesome possum! I've seen opossums during the day before, although it's rare (usually you just see them dead on the road or not at all) and this is a great depiction of one. The way he's sitting stock-still in a tree like that is absolutely typical. I once almost walked straight under one without seeing it until a friend pointed it out. Mak (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment (original) Like HeretoHelp, I too seem to have difficulty downloading the fullsize image, and not just because the download takes a long time. It just stops, says done, with nothing on the screen. This should be worked out before nomination. However, I think the picture is very good quality, especially in capturing an opossum in daylight. --Asiir 20:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I had the same trouble, but I purged the page and then purged my cache and it was fine. I wonder why the problem is persisting. Perhaps a re-upload is in order? Mak (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all!!!! Tomer T
  • Comment. I can't vote on the original since it isn't loading for me. It just stops. I've tried clearing my cache, but nothing works. Anyway, I don't support alternative or alternative 2. While the face of the animal is in focuse, much of the lower half is not. It seems as if the twig in front of the animal grabbed the focus, so the animal's tail and feet are all blurry. --Mad Max 04:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Opossum 2.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Atmospheric gases scatter blue wavelengths of visible light more than other wavelengths, giving the Earth’s visible edge a blue halo. At higher and higher altitudes, the atmosphere becomes so thin that it essentially ceases to exist. Gradually, the atmospheric halo fades into the blackness of space.
Reason
A beautiful high resolution phograph that illustrates Earth's atmosphere very well. Some image noise and minor compression artifacts are visible in the dark areas but I don't this is a very big problem.
Articles this image appears in
Atmosphere, Earth's atmosphere, Kármán line
Creator
NASA
Nominator
KFP (talk | contribs)
  • SupportKFP (talk | contribs) 21:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A great shot, very illustrative- although perhaps somewhat uninformative. It is a pity that the sky has so much noise. Also, the horizon is tilted.Jellocube27 23:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - I'm not sure what this image represents, but it is not for sure the top of the atmosphere, whatever the way we define it (the air density decreases exponentially with height). The "normal" clouds may extend from near the surface to the tropopause (the top of the troposphere), which is about 10 km high. At heights of about 80 km, the top of the stratosphere, the air is barely dense enough to scatter light to a visible degree. However, the atmosphere extends much higher than that, with measurable effects (like the auroras, which may occur at 1000 km). The question is: if, in the present picture, the cloud tops are 10 km high, what is the altitude of that line separating the blue from the black: 20, 30 km? But it is a beatiful image though the quality could be much better. - Alvesgaspar 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The naming of this image as "The Top of the Atmosphere" on NASA's site is apparently based on the Kármán line which "is commonly used to define the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space." According to [4], this photograph was taken from an altitude of 335 kilometres. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Alvesgaspar, see accompanying text at [5]. I like the faint moon in the picture (should be noted in the caption though, at first I thought it might be a reflection). I don't have much problem with the noise or the tilt, but the color gradation gets a bit stripey in the mid-resolution version. ~ trialsanderrors 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Using simple geometric reasoning, and based on the apparent curvature of the Earth in the photo, I have made a gross estimation of the scale of the image, which is of the order of 1:300 000 (this is a lower estimation, the true figure might be 1:150 000 or even more). This means that the height above the clouds of that line separating the blue from the black is of the order of 10-20 km (12 km according to my calculations), very far from the Karman line’s 100 km. Anyone interested in making a better estimate? - Alvesgaspar 10:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a sourced claim that this is the Kármán line. Are you saying that the image incorrectly presents the gradual color change in the atmosphere, and the fade into blackness should occur at higher altitudes? I don't see any argument in the accompanying text that the atmosphere ends where the picture turns black. We should be careful when writing our captions for the image not to imply this, but for the most part the image visually represents the gradual thinning of the atmosphere. ~ trialsanderrors 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Photographically, it's as good a picture as I've seen of the upper atmosphere. KFP has given us a good overview of the source's information, and it seems to portray the facts well, even if Wikipedia's editors can't agree on what they're seeing (I'll take NASA's word on the altitude over "a gross estimation of the scale of the image.") The composition is excellent, and it relates well to encyclopedic content. -Harmil 21:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good upper atmosphere picture. - M&NCenarius 22:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A very nice picture - Booksworm Talk to me! 15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -Very good -Nelro 15:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very interesting picture. -Wutschwlllm 13:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wonderful image. Jaredtalk17:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Top of Atmosphere.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"Arachnida" from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur, 1904
Edit by trialsanderrors— stamped out borders, background brightness corrected – uploaded over original.
Reason
This is a high quality scan of Ernst Haeckel's arachnid illustrations from Kunstformen der Natur. I think it illustrates the article arachnid very well.
Articles this image appears in
Arachnid, Kunstformen der Natur
Creator
Ernst Haeckel
Nominator
KFP (talk | contribs)
Because no one's written the articles yet. Not surprising considering there are some 70,000 named species. Mgiganteus1 15:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know red links mean a nonexistent article...but with that many species, I might be able to forgive that.--HereToHelp 02:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder why you chose that example :-), as I happen to have an example for just that (but maybe you knew that...). Granted, its not every building, but the notable ones (better than none at all...) --Dschwen 09:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha no, that was a coincidence. That said, I think that image would have perfectly illustrated New York, without any blue links to the buildings - of course it's better with them though. Debivort 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The picture is attractive and highly informative. That we have no articles on the species is the (very understandable) fault of article-writers. 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - it illustrates arachnid just as well as any one of the species. Debivort 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - What is this, the fourth Haeckel print to be nominated? Well, if it ain't broke... RyGuy17 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is I believe the 9th to be nominated, and looks like it will be the 7th promoted.--ragesoss 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Haeckel Arachnida.jpg (edit uploaded over original) --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Spilled diesel on Easter Road, Edinburgh, 2006. The thin layer of hydrocarbon results in iridescence, the appearance of fringes of colour.
Variant crop
Variant crop
Reason
I was very pleased with how this worked out. The diesel was fresh and smelly. I took it on my Fuji Finepix and cropped and rotated it to this composition, which turns it into a rainbow. What do you think?
Articles this image appears in
Diesel
Creator
User:Guinnog
Nominator
Guinnog
Thanks. I tried a couple of tighter crops. As to the size, that is all the size I have, regrettably. --Guinnog 21:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to oppose -- it just needs to be bigger for an FP. Still, overall I really like it as a picture. --Asiir 12:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original is 976, which is not far off 1000. --Guinnog 01:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I was looking at a variant. However, with digital cameras easily producing pictures 2000 or more pixels wide there's no reason (apart from heavy cropping) for a small pic. But I do think it's a fascinating picture - Adrian Pingstone 08:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A young red-necked wallaby
Edit 1, color balance
Reason
clear and informative and superior to any other images of this species on wikipedia
Articles this image appears in
red-necked wallabys
Creator
--Benjamint444 10:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator
Benjamint444
  • Weak Oppose For same reason as I did on common (user Benh) ; the overall picture has too much sad "brown/gray" colors I don't like (looks like the weather was cloudy a shoot time, so I suggest you try to adjust temperature to a warmer side a little). As has been said, the picture is very sharp though and I may support an edit. Blieusong 10:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for the edit version, I change my mind from oppose to neutral, so my vote won't be a penalty if other user like the pic. still not enough for me to support however (ack every comments over here). Blieusong 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A view of downtown Boston, Massachusetts taken in August of 2006.
Edit 1, fixed tilt.
Reason
This photo features a magnificent view of the Boston Harbor. The image with exhibits bright, vibrant colors, and its lighting and composition is ultimately flawless. As one who has studied photography and enjoys photographs of city skylines, I can say that this is one of the best images I have ever seen of its kind.
Articles this image appears in
Boston, Massachusetts
Creator
Spinnick597
Nominator
Crashintome4196

Not promoted MER-C 05:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Morphology and Locomotive system of Equus callibus (a common horse).
Reason
Great illustration of the horse anatomy.
Articles this image appears in
Horse, Horse anatomy
Creator
User:WikipedianProlific
Nominator
Tomer T

Promoted Image:Horseanatomy.png --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is a photograph of the Chicago River dyed green for the St. Patrick's Day celebration. On the left is Wacker Drive, where it changes from three to two levels. Crossing the river is the Michigan Avenue Bridge.
Reason
It satisfies all the technical criteria in WP:FP?, and I think this is a great photo showing a very interesting tradition.
Articles this image appears in
St. Patrick's Day
Creator
User:Knowledge Seeker
Nominator
BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak

Not promoted MER-C 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Bell of the Chapelle Saint-Antoine, Cantal, France
Reason
Great picture
Articles this image appears in
Bell (instrument)
Creator
commons:User:Fabien1309
Nominator
Tomer T

Not promoted MER-C 11:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A set of playing cards released by the United States Department of Defense. The cards depict high-ranking officials of Saddam Hussein's government who the United States sought to capture in the Iraq war.
Reason
Its a high-quality, high resolution picture of a list of all of the most important officials of Saddam Hussein's regime. I think that this image is very encyclopedic.
Articles this image appears in
Most wanted Iraqi playing cards, Taha Yassin Ramadan U.S. list of most-wanted Iraqis and Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti
Creator
United States Department of Defense
Nominator
Ahadland
  • Support, and before someone brings up the possible legal argument, the Jokers are trademarked, not copyrighted. I think that means it's FP-legal. --Golbez 16:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • emphatic oppose propaganda is by its very nature POV. If This nom was rejected on those grounds, so too must this one. Debivort 16:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the word "propaganda" appears nowhere in that link, I fail to see how your WP:POINT oppose is relevant. --Golbez 17:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're missing the point of WP:POINT. Propaganda is grounds to oppose, and even if it were misapplied here (on which I have no opinion) it has nothing to with disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please be more careful in your accusations. ~ trialsanderrors 18:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which part of the FP guidelines says propaganda can't be a featured picture? --Golbez 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which part of the FP guidelines says propaganda can't be a featured picture? — Irrelevant. WP:POINT refers to disruptive actions taken in order to amplify ones viewpoint. If Debivort starts nominating 20 ugly propaganda pictures because he's unhappy with the way the discussion here is proceeding it's WP:POINT. Offering his interpretation of the criteria is not WP:POINT, even if it is outside the consensus opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose the clause was slightly eliptical. It was rejected because the illustrated article was POV, not because anyone called it propaganda. That said, I feel the Pastafarian image is certainly anti-religious propaganda. See my enumerated point below if you still don't understand my point. Debivort 19:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Complete and utter rubbish propaganda is defined as "Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid". This isn't attempting to influence anybody's opinion it is merely informing people of who the USA wishes to capture.82.36.182.217 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Was this a civil comment 82.36.182.217? Now, just to be clear: I believe that an image should be eligible (and not considered POV) as long as it illustrates its article neutrally. Others (a majority of people voting in the past) have indicated that an image is ineligible if it illustrates an article that is inherently POV, regardless of whether it illustrates it neutrally or not. I have accepted this consensus, and my current vote here reflects that. So, let's reason it out: 1) This image very neutrally illustrates Most wanted Iraqi playing cards. 2) The topic Most wanted Iraqi playing cards is inherently POV because it is the American Defense Department's subjective evaluation of who were bad guys in Iraq. 3) Therefore: if we allow illustrations associated only with NPOV articles, this is ineligible. However, if consensus has changed, and NPOV illustrations of POV articles (such as this one) are eligible, then I will change my vote, and renominate Touched by His Noodly Appendage which illustrates the POV article parody religion in an NPOV way. Cheers. Debivort 19:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes it was a civil comment, I apologize if it came off as otherwise. I think if an image is POV it should be no grounds to oppose. Anyway I hope you do change your vote :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talkcontribs).
"utter rubbish" is civil, well ok... You haven't really explained your opinion in the context of my argument. I'm guessing you think an image that illustrates a POV article in an NPOV way is OK (I agreed in the past but am yielding to consensus here). Do you also think that an image which illustrates an article in a POV way is OK? I.e. could the Flying spaghetti monster be used to illustrate Christianity? Lastly, please sign your comments using four tildes: ~~~~. Debivort 20:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be completely fair I could have said complete and utter shit, or some other profanity. I completely agree with your Flying Spaghetti Monster pic. Ill support yours if yo support mine :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.182.217 (talkcontribs).
  • Well to be honest you opposed for no valid reason who cares about POV. If POV is not listed as a reason to oppose a featured article candidate dont oppose it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talkcontribs).
  • Sighh. You seem to be ignoring the rest of the comments and questions I left. I even asked you about them directly 6 bullet points ago, with no reply. My patience for trying to explain my relatively simple point has evaporated, so unless you start adressing my points, don't expect much more energetic participation in this discussion from me, if any. Debivort 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Most of the actual photos are very poor quality. Fully 25% of the playing cards have no image at all. The DoD watermark is unnecessary. Chicago god 19:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is no reason to deny FP status, I have the actual playing cards in my home and the quality on those pictures is the same as on this picture. The reason being some of the suspects were very hard to photograph. The watermark is relevant because it tells you who published it and suggests a reason why they were taken, i.e. the us government took it to inform people who the "enemy" was.Ahadland 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chicago, I think you have completely misunderstood this poster, It has been issued by the US Government and has NOT been created by the nominator Ahadland. So the missing pics, the low quality of some of them and the watermark are simply features of the poster itself - Adrian Pingstone 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the idividual faces are really poor quality, plus it doesn't catch the eye -Nelro 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Debivort, at least until Touched by His Noodly Appendage is accepted as FP. highlunder 00:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why the big discussion about NPOV? I know it's an important topic, but let's talk about that some other day on WT:FPC. This image should be rejected based on quality alone. Half the faces have really bad artifacts, none of the borders line up with the other cards, and to be quite frank, it looks like a school project. tiZom(2¢) 01:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Tomtheman5 - very poorly executed... they could at least have lined up the edges of the cards and got the border thicknesses consistent. --YFB ¿ 03:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree with above. The Quality alone is very bad. It really does look like a school project. Even worst. Even though I hate all these people (on the cards) it's still not a good idea to put their faces on cards as if they are some sort of game or something. This whole thing could be done much much better with better images. --Arad 05:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. You know, this technically might be counted as a fair use image under Wikipedia rules. It's unlikely that the DOD is the owner of any of the head shots themselves. Although Iraq and the US do not have a copyright treaty, Jimbo has stated that we should still honor Iraqi copyrights (although I can't seem to find that link right now). howcheng {chat} 05:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it wasn't fair use it would have been deleted
  • Oppose --Mad Max 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose No doubt some copyvios in the photographs, low quality, arguably POV-laden. Noclip 19:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't like the watermark. I would prefer to support an actual photograph of the actual playing card set (assuming the quality was good enough) rather than this image which looks like it was made in PowerPoint or something like that. Perhaps a real photograph, with just two or three of the cards, so that in thumbnail, some detail could be seen? Spebudmak 07:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for quality of the collage. I don't mind the pixelated images of the Iraqis because I think they were that way on the printed cards as well. But, the differing border heights and widths is something that should be done correctly. Also, I see no reason for the logo (although, that's less important if it weren't pixelated). I would support a version that thixed this. I really don't understand the NPOV arguments. It doesn't matter if it's propaganda if it's noteworthy and well done... and this image represents Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards incredibly well--propaganda or not. gren グレン 10:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose for copyright reasons. This is not a free image; a collage of fair use photos cannot magically become PD.--Pharos 16:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the argument. The argument is that the government released this set of cards and therefore it's free. But, the government didn't originally take the pictures so, I think it may be possible that they are violating copyright? gren グレン 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd say that's exactly the same argument. Btw, wasn't the U.S. Government sovereign over Iraq during the time the poster was released? Oppose btw. ~ trialsanderrors 05:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look, the US government has a right to fair use just like everyone else, and fair use is often employed in government documents. It's very important to understand that not everything in US government documents is PD, because many items in these documents are not produced by US government workers — and this is especially true of photos of people the US is trying to capture. I would say it's irrelevant whether or not the US was ever sovereign over Iraq — the US has certainly never made any claim of conquest over Iraqi intellectual property. By the way, I've listed this image as "no source" on Commons, for lack of information about the individual photographs.--Pharos 07:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Propaganda. Propaganda is inherently POV, and therefore lacks encyclopedic value. Maybe in 20+ years time this can be looked at as an example of propaganda instead of simply being propaganda. Besides which the image is pretty lousy (it would be better if it were a photo of the actual playing cards), and lastly there are possible copyright issues as stated above. —Pengo 13:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every picture is propaganda --Ahadland 19:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You clearly don't understand WP:NPOV, Pengo. Our policies clearly permit the use of POV sources unless they reflect the position of a negligible minority. ~ trialsanderrors 02:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria #9. Religious, political, and commercial photos require caution. There's a fine line between describing a POV and promoting it, and the line has a lot to do with timing. Ten years from now a propaganda image from 2003 might be an appropriate FP (unless the war is still on, sigh). But not now. Kla'quot 07:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Almost every article in this article is propaganda; the argument against this image on those grounds is absolutely absurd. My problem with this image is that in any scaled form (in an article) it's totally unintelligible. Perhaps a high res scan or crop of a few of the cards would be better. Leon 01:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for aesthetic reasons. At this size, it just doesn't look like anything. Kla'quot 06:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose can only be used under fair use. I have uploaded the file to Wikipedia under a Fair Use claim and deleted the Commons image. As the photographs are not the work of the US Govt, this is not a public domain image. I'd appreciate if people more experienced in writing FU rationales check the image page.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose LOL! I don't mean to insult, because it is a good picture, but it's more of an April Fools' schtick than a real instructional tool, in my opinion. YechielMan 00:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Timothy B. Blackstone Bronze Plaque at the Blackstone Library (October 30, 2006)
Edit 01 by Vanderdecken (talk contribs). Perspective correction, cropping and minor colour/noise adjustments.
Timothy B. Blackstone Bronze Plaque at the Blackstone Library (March 22, 2007) with flash
Timothy B. Blackstone Bronze Plaque at the Blackstone Library (March 22, 2007) without flash
Edit 02 by Vanderdecken (talk contribs). Taken from the second non-flash version. Cropped, colour and levels correction.
Reason
I have a WP:FL (3/16), I am close to having and a WP:FA (3/26), I want to become an admin to be involved in WP:FC. I might as well get my hands dirty at WP:FP
Articles this image appears in
Timothy B. Blackstone, Blackstone Library
Creator
TonyTheTiger
Nominator
TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio)
Still oppose. The newer version is well-taken of its subject, but "there's no 'there' there". howcheng {chat} 06:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean "I am not a photographer", or "I am not the photographer"? If it's the latter, then the licencing information on the image page is incorrect. If it's the former, apparently you are a photographer, albeit perhaps a reluctant one... but you won't be able to do perspective correction without a decent photo editing programme - MS Paint is definitely not going to be sufficient. --YFB ¿ 01:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the photographer. I am not a serious photographer. I just use a point and shoot Canon Powershot A620 and MS Paint for cropping in general. I have a new (Feb 2007) Hewlett Packard Pavilion DV9000 and all the programs that come with Microsoft Vista Home Premium edition plus the Canon utilities programs. I may have other
  • I can see you didn't finish your comment, but I'll respond anyway. I'll do the cropping and perspective correction - MSPaint is not sufficient (it's bad quality for re-saving images and it can't do perspective correction). It's very low quality. For FP-quality, you need something like Adobe Photoshop (what I use), Corel Paint Shop Pro or the GIMP. I've uploaded it on Commons, I'll add cats when CommonSense is updated. —Vanderdeckenξφ 19:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Vanderdecken's Edit 02, oppose all other versions. Tony, you've addressed most of my criticisms and the new non-flash image is a vast improvement over the original, particularly after Vanderdecken's crop (Vanderdecken - I think your colour correction is a bit off; it seems to have a slightly red cast). Unfortunately (and I think this is probably the fault of your camera, so it's going to be hard to do anything about it) there's still a lot of noise and the sharpness isn't great. Top marks for effort and for responding positively to criticism, but sadly I can't quite place this image amongst Wikipedia's best. --YFB ¿ 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -not eye catching -Nelro 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose its a lovely subject although it has far too many technical faults Ahadland 15:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support — I have retaken the photo. I don't want to crop it with MS Paint given the technical sophistication of this panel of judges. It could be cropped slightly especially at the bottom to get rid of the exit sign. Feel free to aid in the photo editing by cropping and any other minor adjustments that are considered fair in this process. Please vote on new image. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll make another edit tonight (after 6:00PM GMT/UTC). Bagsy that, I'll do one of the flash, one of the non-flash. I'll upload them both to commons and post here - until then, keep voting above this divider. —Vanderdeckenξφ 10:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Autumnal foliage of Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia climbing a green railing at the side of an urban road (Forques, southern France)
Reason
The photo captures the Virginia Creeper at its most vibrantly-colored, with good saturation, lighting and composition, contrasted against a green railing.
Articles this image appears in
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Creator
Mick Stephenson mikaul
Nominator
mikaul
  • Supportmikaul 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Composition alone is what kills it for me. there is no size reference, the angle is confusing and the green bars are bad. Other than that good shot but the composition is glaring. -Fcb981 23:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What Fcb981 said. --Mad Max 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. The composition isn't that bad. The bars appear to be some sort of railing, so they act as a relative frame of reference. I think this image might have done better if shot in a more natural environment for encyclopedic purposes. But plants do grow in urban environments, and there are gardens and such (what I'm getting at is the context of this photo is confusing, hence the weak support). However, the composition is dynamic and engaging. The subject is very interesting, the colors are vibrant, and it illustrates not only the plant but the change of color in autumn. While the subject takes a large portion of the frame and is at an angle, the photographer did a good job of maximizing the depth of field on the subject. I really do enjoy this image. The reflection off the leaves, white balance suggests a cloudy/rainy day, as does the overall darkness and shadows. The dark background counter balances the red leaves. The green bars are a good contrast to the red as well. And the stones under the leaves are a nice touch. I've convinced myself to change this to a full on support, despite the confusing context.-Andrew c 02:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I agree the context is confusing, as you would expect ornamental plants to normally grow in a garden environment. However the Parthenocissi are incredibly vigorous and grow wild all over southern France. Apart from foliage color, the image illustrates a part of the article which mentions the plant's propensity to climb structures like telephone poles. I've amended the caption here to reflect this. mikaul 10:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


St Mary's Church on Brownsea Island in Poole, Dorset. The church is the current religious home to the Scouting movement and serves the few residents of the island, as well as Brownsea Island Scout camp. It was created by William Waugh in Gothic style.
Reason
Recieved support to nominate in picture peer review Wikipedia:Picture peer review/StMarysChurch. I believe its of a high quality/resolution and is pleasing to the eye. I welcome any other user to edit using tools/photoshop etc (as I do not have the tools or the knowledge) if they are worried about the foreground tree shadow or roof highlights (as mentioned in review).
Articles this image appears in
Brownsea Island
Creator
LordHarris
Nominator
LordHarris

Not promoted MER-C 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Las Vegas Strip at night viewed from the Bellagio - New Original
Removed all hot pixels and the halo around the bleu dome - Edit1 by Arad
Edit 2 The right side of the restich looked a little dull. I upped the levels over there but in hindsight maybe a touch too much, I still say it looks good -Fcb981
Reason
Captures the magnitude of the Las Vegas strip
Articles this image appears in
Las Vegas Strip
Creator
Matthew Field
Nominator
Mfield
  • SupportMfield 20:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very cool picture, but I feel like I'm seeing double on the far right side, there seem to be some doubles of buildings. Also, in the center there are two bright green spots in the sky which I can't account for. The are a couple other lines which I can't understand where they're coming from. I don't know whether these are due to stitching errors or what, but I wonder whether it's possible to fix them? Or at least minimize the doubling effect on the right side? It's an awesome picture in any case, just thought I'd ask though. Mak (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They are not stitching errors, they are actually reflections. The only way to get this shot is to take it from inside the Bellagio which necessitates taking it from behind a non opening dual paned window. This led to some slight reflections at the right hand end where the camera was at a very oblique angle to the glass for the extreme right shots. For photographic purposes I would crop the panorama down to remove any reflections but I decided to leave the shot with them in as for encyclopedia purposes I felt it was more useful to include the Project City Center construction on the right. Mfield 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nice. -Bluedog423Talk 21:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - Great scene, but I'm afraid the reflections everywhere really kill it. Has anyone noticed a pair of blue lights, repeated about ten times across the whole length of the sky? Mrug2 22:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ah, I see them - hot pixels, I'll remove them and replace it Mfield 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Removed hot pixels and some reflections and replaced image. Mfield 23:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very good panorama -Nelro
  • Support New original - Great panorama sans the hot pixels. --antilivedT | C | G 07:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Several minor issues. The color balance might be a tiny bit off towards too much yellow. I'd like to see the pano extended at the bottom. And there is that duplication effect from shooting through glass. Everything is doubled. The New York casino suddenly is the New York, New York Casino. --Dschwen 15:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I feel I should start spreading the news that it is indeed the New York-New York Hotel & Casino--Melburnian 09:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that is of course how it is - thanks for pointing that out to people :) Mfield 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm yeah, as my edit summary stated, it probably was a little too subtle ;-) --Dschwen 11:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is an odd halo effect around the blue dome near the center.. also there are still several hot pixels. Other than that, absolute rubbish just like the rest of your photos ;) heheh drumguy8800 C T 16:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1 - But I still see hot pixels. And there are a few bleu dots in the sky. They look wierd. What are they? --Arad 20:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both I know it might seem odd for me to be opposing a picture I took, but I've just looked at it properly and realized how embarassingly badly the verticals are aligned and what a mess I made of something in the PP process which made it hazy. I am rebuilding it from scratch right now and I will replace my original so I am opposing both edits in the mean time. Mfield 03:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Edit 1 - have replaced original with complete restitch, now is vastly improved over all previous edits. Mfield 06:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - new version of original Mfield 06:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose edit1, weak support new original. Great job on the verticals, and I very much prefer the new version in terms of contrast/exposure correction. --Dschwen 08:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks as if the new origenal and edit arn't being voted on. Should it be renominated or something so that conscensus can form. -Fcb981 05:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit 1" or "New original"? Moving to "additional input required" section. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Las_Vegas_Strip_panorama.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The order which the original 13 states ratified the constitution, then the order that the others were admitted to the union
Reason
I looked at the article and saw this picture, which clearly explained and showed in a nice, attractive manner the order the states entered the union. It even shows W.V. and Maine splitting from Virgina and Massachusetts. Having this as a featured piture would compliment the featured list it is in. The Placebo Effect 20:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in
List of U.S. states by date of statehood, United States, U.S. state
Creator
User:Astrokey44
Nominator
The Placebo Effect
  • Support I feel that adding names would clutter this map, and initials wouldn't add much to those without much knowledge about the US.KenBest 04:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Support, I would like to see the year in question written in a large font - currently it only really shows the sequence of statehoods, to see what year the state received statehood you have a lot of trouble reading the years on the slider-bar at the bottom.

Witty lama 10:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit, key including dates
Actually I tried updating it with the dates before, but the thumbnail image refuses to work. Probably this is because of the larger filesize.. it is now located here --Astrokey44 12:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the blue bar might be harder to see if the key was black. im glad you like the names :) --Astrokey44 12:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit or original? Moving to "additional input required" section. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:US states by date of statehood3.gif --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The world's largest compass rose, drawn on the desert floor at Edwards Air Force Base in the United States.
Edit 1, alignment whiskers removed. --TotoBaggins 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Edwards Air Force Base Compass Rose.png
Not nominated. Color version, stitched from Google Maps. I'm fairly certain this is some sort of copy-vio, but I'll throw it out just for comparison.
--WiiWillieWiki 13:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason
Interesting picture, high resolution, certainly encyclopedic.
Articles this image appears in
Compass rose, Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base
Creator
NASA
Nominator
WiiWillieWiki

Promoted Image:Jfader dryden.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A 1888 "Goodwin Champions" baseball card of King Kelly, one of the earliest cards using chromolithography to create multi-colored images of players.
Edit 1 by Fir0002 - removed color cast
Reason
A beautiful early baseball card that's also an interesting industrial artifact. From the Library of Congress collection at memory.loc.gov. For the full set, see my Commons user page. Proposed PotD caption:

Baseball cards have been popular advertising vehicles especially for tobacco manufacturers, but production was limited until the use of chromolithography made cheap mass production of colorful cards possible in the 1880's. This Goodwin Champions card of Boston Beaneaters catcher King Kelly from 1888 is an early example of the use of pointillism in printmaking to create a wide variety of colors with a small number of plates. The pointillist technique was later advanced to create halftoning and Benday dots.

Articles this image appears in
Baseball card, King Kelly, Pointillism
Creator
Goodwin & Company
Nominator
trialsanderrors

Promoted Image:King Kelly 0554fu.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animated map/timeline of the territorial evolution of Mexico
Reason
Self-nom; after the success and good reception of my last two nominations, I decided to throw this one up. The individual frames will eventually be at Territorial evolution of Mexico once I get that article done. The color of the United States changes to a paler gray to kind of move it to the background and cause it to be ignored; it still needs to be there, unless I make the map jerk around, but I wanted to make it kind of forgotten, since it's not involved in the changes anymore. --Golbez 10:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in
Political divisions of Mexico
Creator
User:Golbez
Nominator
Golbez
  • SupportGolbez 10:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Great work! Ancjr 10:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -Superb- Nelro 14:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support great image, which obviously took a lot of work to compile. Ahadland 17:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - voters may wish to take a look at the concerns raised on the image talk page. I remain neutral. —Vanderdeckenξφ 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now - The time scale is cluttered and the year labels are too small - Alvesgaspar 19:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportLooks good and easy to watch. LostCity42 17:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The only problem i have with this image is a possible NPOV issue with the wording. I'm refering when it says: "united states recieves mexican cesion". I think it would be more apropiate to just say something like: ceeded to the US, because of X treaty or whatever. The way it's currently writen almost sound like it was a gift where there was actually a war. if that is changed i will change to strong support. (The image itself it's f-ing GREAT by the way. I hope you keep doing stuff like these on interesting/encyclopedic topics. Keep it up!!) Nnfolz 08:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I share your concern over this, I wasn't quite sure how to word it in so few letters - especially because the area didn't have a single name, except "Mexican Cession", and we can't say "United States obtains/gets/conquers Mexican Cession" because neither quite fits. I can try to fit "Mexico cedes Alta California, Nuevo Mexico to United States", how would that work? (Except it also included the disputed Texan land... hrm). Maybe do what I did for the constitution, have "Mexican Cession" in large text, then explain the specifics in smaller text? Like "United States receives Alta California, Nuevo Mexico, and disputed land with Texas following Mexican-American War"? And thank you very much for the kind words :) --Golbez 08:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something like what you did with the constituton i belive will be ok. I think the example you gave will work just fine. Wonder when we will se the next in this series of pics.Nnfolz 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you mean the next version of this, tonight. If you mean the next country, I dunno - I tried doing Brazil and Argentina but lack of English sources has hampered my progress. Next will probably be Indonesia. --Golbez 01:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I meant next country. ;-)Nnfolz 05:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I support the wording given by Golbez above similar to the way the new constitution is done. The inclusion of a mention of the war makes it clear it wasn't just a friendly gift, but it incorporates the common English name for it, Mexican Cession. These really are great, and as a member of WikiProject Indonesia, I'm looking forward to that one. Rigadoun (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've uploaded a new version with new wording for the Mexican Cession, and an error fixed (Aquascalientes was split from Zacatecas, not Jalisco). --Golbez 12:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mexico_states_evolution.gif --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Campanile and Mt. Tamalpias from Memorial Stadium at sunset, 2006
Edit 1
Reason
I was absolutely stunned by the quality of this picture of Sather Tower upon first seeing it in the University of California, Berkeley; the mix of color (assisted by the time of the day of the photograph) is simply stunning. The image is 2448px × 3264px (and it still very beautiful zoomed in to full-size) and it demonstrates the concept of a campanile (as well as symbolizes UC-Berkeley) very well. Thus, I feel this satisfies all criteria under WP:FP?.
Articles this image appears in
Sather Tower, Campanile, University of California, Berkeley
Creator
Trisweb (talk · contribs) (Tristan Harward)
Nominator
tariqabjotu

Oppose I guess it is artistic but really doesn't show much as far as enc goes. --Fir0002 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:CampanileMtTamalpiasSunset-original.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The matriarch of the simpsons family. The mother of Bart and Lisa, and the long suffering wife of Homer Simpson. She is perceived as an archetypal fifties housewife.

Reason
All round decent quality and good size
Articles this image appears in
Marge Simpson
Creator
Matt Groening
Nominator
User:Ahadland1234

Not promoted (ineligible) --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Stepped Tank At Sun Temple, Modhera.
Reason
The stepped tanks are the example of the ancient Indian architecture. Such tanks are found in many ancient constructions in India. This picture points to one such structure which is a part of the sun temple at Modhera, Gujarat.
Articles this image appears in
Sun Temple, Modhera
Creator
Uday
Nominator
Uday
Stepped Tank At Sun Temple, Full View, Modhera.(Not for featured picture)
  • Comment Zooming in on Steps alone rouses curiosity enough to visit the main page of the article. thats why the smaller, zoomed in picture may draw more attention towards the subject. Thats why I preffered to nominate this picture instead of Full view of the tank. Uday 05:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it's far too narrow to be a FP for that article. There would need to be a whole section on something as specific as the triangle shapes. I also think the angle of the image could be better. Sorry. gren グレン 10:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Opening ceremonies climax with the lighting of the Olympic Flame. For lighting the torch, modern games feature elaborate mechanisms such as this cauldron-spiral-cauldron arrangement lit by the 1980 U.S. Olympic ice hockey team at Rice-Eccles Olympic Stadium during the opening ceremonies of the 2002 Winter Olympics.
Reason
This image shows the true excitement of the opening ceremonies and the lighting of the Olympic Flame for the Olympic Games. It's of great quality and focuses wonderfully on the subject—the flame.
Articles this image appears in
Olympic Games; Winter Olympic Games; 2002 Winter Olympics; Salt Lake City, Utah; Olympic Flame
Creator
Journalist 1st Class Preston Keres
Nominator
Jaredtalk

Not promoted MER-C 08:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mammatus Cloud formation over Swifts Creek, Victoria. Mammatus Clouds only occur where cumulonimbus are present and are often the byproduct of strong storm activity
Alternative

A short interlude between insect noms :-) Quite a dramatic skyline of relatively uncommon clouds.

  • My interpretation of the image is that it's raining in the distance where the clouds are so dark. This is an effect which is best seen in the plains (and which I hadn't seen clearly myself until I visited the desert in southern Idaho). Mak (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for late reponse, the clouds were an excellent example and had very good definition. With a polarizer and correct exposure values the captured image was pretty close to this. Not saying that I didn't use some contrasting to enhance the visibility of the clouds, but I don't feel that this detracts from the image at all. --Fir0002 12:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What more do you want from a caption? It states what it is and where it was taken - any more and that's what the article is for! As a side note I notice you're supporting the arachnid nom above this which has a total of 1 extra word (number actually) in it's caption than this. But oh well if you really want something bigger. But may I remind you this is WP Featured Picture Candidates, not caption candidates and the primary focus of this page is identifying the best images not the best captions. All the caption on this page should have is what would be necessary in an article where it is placed. And in this case it is silly to restate what the article says like the caption on the Tawny Owl nomination. I think when I get a chance I'll go into this with more depth on the talk page, but for now I've tacked on a little bit from the article to accommodate your demands. --Fir0002 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to be come truculent. I see four editors here who have asked for a better description, and jfwiw, a good caption is part of the FP criteria, so the objection is perfectly valid. Oh and btw, the top quarter of the picture needs to be cropped. ~ trialsanderrors 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this picture could be promoted if it had a better caption. Moving to "additional input required" section. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support either. Move my vote if it's in the wrong place. The caption is fine, because as Fir said, any more would be reinstating the article. I agree with BirdKr in that the alternate would be better to describe the article, but the original provides some perspective. --Tewy 15:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what captions do. ~ trialsanderrors 05:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but not for the purpose of promoting an image or not. I think as long as the caption on the nomination page says what's unique about the image, or otherwise details the image itself, the POTD caption can supplement the nomination caption with information from the article. But not promoting an image because it doesn't have a full POTD caption doesn't seem like a good reason to me. --Tewy 05:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's a very good reason, because it shifts the burden of writing the POTD caption from the scheduler to the nominator. If you want your picture promoted it's perfectly fair to request that you also provide the context in which it will be presented on the front page. ~ trialsanderrors 07:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original only, very nice image. No problem with the caption. ~ Arjun 02:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original But since some people are rather particular recently, I guess an extended caption would be appropriate..... -Wutschwlllm 22:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mammatus cloud panorama.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The iconic Barwon Heads bridge is the major landmark for Barwon Heads. It is heritage listed and featured several times in the ABC television series SeaChange.
Reason
It adds quite a bit to the article both as the iconic image of Barwon Heads, and of course of the bridge itself. I like the composition, particularly with the two people standing on the jetty to the left. I'm not really sure if it's straight, so please rotate it if you prefer. This image is a crop of a much wider panorama extending to the right, which I can make available if anyone wants it. I just noticed a couple of clones in the image (see the vehicles on the bridge) - could be a problem.
Articles this image appears in
Barwon Heads
Creator
Stevage
Nominator
Stevage

Not promoted (withdrawn by nominator) --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


U.S. Army Sgt. Kornelia Rachwal gives a young Pakistani girl a drink of water as they are airlifted from Muzaffarabad to Islamabad Pakistan, aboard a U.S. Army CH-47 Chinook helicopter on the 19 October
Edit 1, larger version, noise reduced.
Reason
Swiped from Commons, a powerful picture depicting humanitarian aid, in particular the international response to the 2005 Pakistan earthquake. There are some blown highlights in the background (the light areas in the foreground seem mostly ok), but I don't think that detracts from the overall quality of the picture. Proposed PotD caption:

The 2005 Pakistan earthquake was one of the most devastating earthquakes in modern history, registering 7.6 on the Richter scale and killing more than 75,000 people. The disaster triggered a worldwide humanitarian aid effort, with governments, international and non-governmental organizations providing relief in the form of money, rescue equipment and military and civilian personnel.

Feel free to edit.
Articles this image appears in
International response to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, Humanitarian aid
Creator
U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Mike Buytas
Nominator
trialsanderrors
  • Supporttrialsanderrors 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support shows the good side of human nature Ahadland 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral Granted, it's a sweet picture, but that isn't a good enough reason for me to support it. --Mad Max 00:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a good picture but I have mixed feelings about the message it conveys. The young girl doesn't seem to need help drinking from the bottle, so the image looks contrived. I'd also prefer a picture which does more to challenge stereotypes of what aid is about. Kla'quot 06:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Corny, fabricated, and POV far beyond that of the Iraqi Leaders' Playing Card set. Spebudmak 06:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposed PotD caption seems a bit off-base here, all I see in this image is an attempt by the U.S. Defense Department to change its image in Muslim countries. Spebudmak 06:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually left out any reference to the US Army and stressed the international effort on purpose. I have grave doubt these issues would come up if this was a picture by the Finnish military. ~ trialsanderrors 07:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I applaud your efforts to lessen the emphasis on this being US military, but it would be impossible to show this picture without mentioning the the US military. Perhaps this problem wouldn't come up if it was the Finnish military, but the Finnish military don't have an recent appalling record of media manipulation. —Pengo 13:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This comment seems to be quite uninformed, at least regarding the picture at hand. From all I can tell it's one is a series of at least three (others here and here). All the other pictures I've seen by Mike Buytas from the Pakistan assignment are situational snapshots, so I find no evidence that this one was staged. I'm certainly no friend of the U.S. foreign policy of the last couple of years, but that doesn't keep me from looking at the U.S. military image repositories for high quality shots. I'm also not religious, but that wouldn't keep me from nominating religious motives for FP if they are of high quality. If you can't put your POV aside and focus on the image quality then I recommend you don't particpiate in FPC. ~ trialsanderrors 23:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • But Wikipedia readers have POVs too. What I'm trying to say, and perhaps what others are trying to say too, is that putting this image on the Main Page would probably backfire. The first thing I did when I saw the picture, before reading anything, was click on it. Then I noticed the U.S. flag on the woman's uniform and said to myself, "Oh sheesh, military P.R." This was, I emphasize, before reading a single word about where the picture came from. To me it just has an air of "P.R. photo" about it. Other readers will probably react the same way. Kla'quot 05:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no policy that sources, which includes images, have to be without POV (remember that Neutral Point of View does not equal No Point of View). They just can't unduly amplify viewpoints of small minorities. The FP criterion is accuracy, and I have seen no support for the claim that this image is staged. Also, some people here need to read the propaganda article, because the word doesn't mean what they think. ~ trialsanderrors 10:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I wanted to support, as I think the POV argument is silly... of course the U.S. wants a better image... but, it was still an important part of the response... and nothing says an image in itself has to be neutral... only a page. But... it's just too grainy (Army lady's hair + Pakistani girl's face). gren グレン 10:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support I strongly disagree that this shot appears fabricated, nor do I think its conception was first and foremost intended to propagandize the US relief effort. There is a spontaneity to the shot which is unmistakable; if it was set up, it was set up badly, with faces half-obscured; do we also imagine that the tear running down the child's cheek was somehow fabricated? The image is powerful, rather than cutesy, charged with emotion and compassion. Cynical responses to the caption, however, I can well understand. I would agree totally with trialsanderrors that the caption should reflect the wider humanitarian message which the image clearly conveys and would support cutting out the US military "branding" completely. With the caption thus amended I would change to full support without hesitation. mikaul 10:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • commentThe grain and noise is noted, and while not totally irrelevant, it's not bad enough to influence my support. This sort of image need not be technically perfect in order to achieve its primary function. mikaul 10:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The image caption (as opposed to the PotD caption) is the original from the photo and can of course be edited to apply to the article it's posted in. ~ 19:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Question sorry if this is a dumb question, but why does it look like the girl has a number 2 on her forehead? Is it just on the picture? Is it for identification, so she doesn't get lost? Mak (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not uncommon, when there's a risk of families being separated, to make some kind of identifying mark on kids' foreheads in case they get lost. I remember reading a report of a kid turning up at a Pakistani hospital with a cellphone number scrawled on her forehead, her parents later discovered to be in another hospital 200 miles away. mikaul 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - Not for political reasons or any POV bias, which I also find a little silly. Just because the quality is not good enough though the composition and human expressions are great - Alvesgaspar 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Propaganda photo. —Pengo 12:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Lighting through their hair is distracting, other quality problems. "Propoganda photo" and "POV" are ridiculous reasons for opposing. --frotht 18:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I'm shocked that some of you are opposing because you think it's a "propoganda photo." If we cut every photo that sent a message, there would be no more photos on wikipedia. --Iriseyes 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shocked? First of all, there is no question that this is propaganda by definition, given that its source is a U.S. Army press release on the Army website. Also, (unlike Finland) the U.S. government is clearly involved in an active campaign to change the way it is perceived in Muslim countries, e.g. the State Department report discussed in this CNN article (admittedly old but the first thing I found on Google). I did not oppose solely due to the POV nature---as I said, it is also corny and fabricated---but I do think that the caption should at the very least reflect this fact, and that the POV arguments below about the Iraq card set, the Noodly Appendage, etc. should apply here also. Spebudmak 22:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A seperate issue is that the arguments by trialsanderrors about the photo of the anti-Iranian American holding up a sign not being sufficiently notable or representative of that conflict (the Iran Hostage crisis in that case) should be applicable here. If we have one FP to represent the Pakistan earthquake, is this really the best choice? Spebudmak 22:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the Pakistani earthquake, certainly not. As an image of humanitarian aid I think it's iconic. The difference is that the Iran Hostage picture is really not a high quality picture, and the only reason it gets this amount of attention is because of the message it conveys (as I posted there, I doubt the picture would have been nominated if the banner said "Oppose Proposition 16"). This one is a high quality shot, at least from the response at Commons, and the discussion on the origin distracts from the discussion on its quality. ~ trialsanderrors 23:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Spebudmak. Mahahahaneapneap 09:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I thought about nominating it myself. All that fuss about staged propaganda is ridiculous to me. The U.S. Army (sometimes) also helps people, you know. I'd also support any picture which shows the flip side of the Army (e.g. these iconic examples, but unfortunately either the resolution is not high enough, they lack of overall quality or do not have an appropriate license).-Wutschwlllm 11:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. This is not only engaging and has historical value, it is Encyclopaedic in the extreme! I strongly doubt it was staged, but even then it it still a great photo that represents its subject. Witty lama
  • Support per Iriseyes Tomer T 11:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not encyclopedic. This picture only adds beauty, not information to the two articles it is in. These two individuals are not important, and giving water is not a terribly epic humanitarian act. Airlifting people, yes, that is an epic humanitarian act, but you can't tell that they are in the air, or the relationship of these two people, or really anything else from this picuture. Enuja 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Per Tomer T 8thstar 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Looks a bit too much like propaganda to me. highlunder 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Oh sure, it's horrible propaganda because the photographer did such a wonderful job of capturing altruism and empathy. Politicizing a featured picture candidate is a sad waste of time. Take away the context and you're still left with an apt depiction of humanitarian aid. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both It has to be a propaganda pic, since the US is doing humanitarian work, right? I am alarmed that the majority of the oppose votes are solely due to political reasons and paranoia towards the "message" the pic is trying to convey. How about evaluating the pic based on its technical and encyclopedic merits? I do have a bias in my opinion, but the fact that some of the users would consider the pic to be less offensive (not sure why the pic is offensive in the first place) if the Finnish military had been the one providing care for the child does cast doubt on the oppose reasons. Are users afraid that Wikipedia will become a vehicle for blatant pro-US propaganda? That'll hardly be the case given the stanch opposition to a pic with a slightly positive image of the US. Wikipedians are suppose to be open to unorthodox and new concepts (in this case, the pic), instead of simply shutting it out due to personal political opinion. Anyways, I see no major difference between the cleaned-up and original pic, so I support both. Unique/striking pic and encyclopedia for the earthquake and humanitarian aid articles. Oh...and maybe mention something out the 2 on the girl's forehead in the caption. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 06:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Propaganda claims are absurd. From a encyclopaedic point of view, a larger shot could illustrate more, but this is a really great photo and still shows enc. qualities. Iorek85 12:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Table salt and peppercorns.
Reason
Wonderful artistic picture of salt and pepper
Articles this image appears in
Salt, Edible salt
Creator
Jon Sullivan
Nominator
Tomer T

Not promoted MER-C 11:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A jar of honey, shown with a wooden honey server and scones.
Reason
I think this is a great picture, and I'm surprised it's not featured yet.
Articles this image appears in
Honey, Soul food, Scone (bread), Biscuit, Cuisine of the Southern United States
Creator
Scott Bauer
Nominator
Tomer T
Unless you've ever had raw honey, in which case, you'll never think of this kind of picture as "real" honey again.--ragesoss 23:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Willie Wagtail Rhipidura leucophrys sitting on nest
Reason
clear and informative, shows the nest and chicks.
Articles this image appears in
Willie Wagtail
Creator
--Benjamint444 11:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator
Benjamint444

Not promoted MER-C 11:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Photo portrait of First Lady Lady Bird Johnson in the back yard of the White House.
Reason
Encyclopedic picture in high quality
Articles this image appears in
Lady Bird Johnson, First Lady of the United States
Creator
Robert Knudsen, White House Press Office (WHPO)
Nominator
Tomer T

Not promoted MER-C 11:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]