support a bit small and grainy, but this appears to be the norm for tornado images across the web. The composition is very nice though. Debivort23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose too small, and definitely too grainy since it is that small. And not that pleasing to the eye as many other tornado pictures. grenグレン03:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean too small? It specifically states on the criteria page that "Images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported...", and this one is 1024 × 679. That more than enough to be eligable. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is more than enough to be eligible but I don't believe it represents the best of what is on Wikipedia. This isn't a ridiculous nomination like some of the really low resolution ones, but I think there are better alternatives out there. grenグレン23:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beats the pants off any other tornado image here and challenges some of the best I've ever seen. It's not too small by any criteria, detail in the coulds (the whole point) is good and some soft graininess really isn't such a big deal for this kind of (film-shot) subject. mikaul18:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the use of this image in 1971 is questionable and possibly misleading. This pic was taken 1999, a photo of the 1971 events would be preferable. --Dschwen10:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maori students in Rotorua carving traditional Maori wooden carvingsEdit 01 by Vanderdecken (talk • contribs). Only minor levels adjustment, the image is perfect otherwise!
Reason
Illustrates the process of Maori wood carving quite well, of reasonably good quality and IMHO passes the rules, maybe except for the caption as I have no idea what else to add (see description page for the basic caption).
StrongSupport for both versions, slight preference for edit 01 - great photo, very encyclopaedic, I've adjusted the levels slightly. Good job. And for the caption: it's Māori, not Maori. So a new caption:
Māori students from The New Zealand Maori Arts & Crafts Institute in Rotorua making traditional Māori styled wood carvings. New Zealand has experienced a surge in willingness to preserve the Māori culture, and large numbers of tourists visiting the country to witness it has not commercialised the area.
Support, it has a good composition and is illustrative of the subject. It would be perfect if a bit more of the carving was visible! Jellocube2711:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, though I would also like to see more of the carving. I have no preference to which version (they are very similar).--HereToHelp13:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the votes below, I too much agree with them. A far better picture is possible, and this one really doesn't illustrate much of anything really well. Is it the culture, the carving process, or the carving itself? Such, I now Oppose.--HereToHelp01:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the carving is not really visible, the green tool is distracting, the composition is uninspiring. This subject could/should definately get a FP, but a better picture could be taken with relative ease. Even the Support votes above note that the carving is not visible. Wittylama23:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I want a picture of an actual Maori carving I would have just taken a picture of a finished carving, not a work in progress. Here you see the draft lines, some finished carved koru pattern, and an actual person carving them; although I do take the criticism of not showing much of the hand and thus the actual process of carving, the carving itself is really not the main point of the image. --antilivedT | C | G07:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This does not illustrate "Maori culture", it poorly illustrates "carving," with most of the tool and the carver's hands hidden. Also, the composition is messy, and this is the least striking image on the Maori culture page. Enuja16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 79th lithographic plate from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur (1904) depicts a variety of lizards, or Lacertilia. In terms of evolutionary relationships, these eight lizards demonstrate the diversity of the Lacertilia suborder, which has been replaced by an array of new suborders and infraorders in recent classifications. Unusual species of chameleon and gonocephalus are at the top; the second row has a flying dragon and a Texas horned lizard; the third row has a flying gecko and a common basilisk; on the bottom row are the aptly named frill-necked lizard and the Thorny Devil. As in many of Haeckel's prints, the colors and spatial composition are more of an aesthetic choice than a reproduction of nature; the lithographer Adolf Glitsch worked directly from Haeckel's sketches rather than from first-hand specimens.
Support It failed last time mainly because there are already some of Haeckel's work as FP, but maybe now people will have realised thats no reason to fail it. Chris_huhtalk10:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, I just don't think it's as good as others. And, the crop is a little off... too much white space on the left. grenグレン22:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose beautiful plate, but these lizards are overly idealized, and just don't look lizardy enough to me. —Pengo23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per limited usefulness (too few lizards have articles, questionable accuracy). + see previous failed nomination. --Dschwen15:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and comparing the photos in those articles with this tableau I see some strong discrepancies. I wonder what Haeckel based his illustration on. --Dschwen22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
anyway I'm not a reptiolgist :-) but I fear this painting is judged on prettyness, rather than scientific accuracy, which would be most unfortunate, given that this is an encyclopedia here... --Dschwen11:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He knew about the biology of the 19th century (proposing theories like Recapitulation theory - not complete crap, but inaccurate by today's knowledge). Heckel never made it further from europe than the canary islands, so I guess it is a legitimate question on what he based his drawing of a Texas horned lizzard. And let me quote from the article: Haeckel was a flamboyant figure. He sometimes took great (and non-scientific) leaps from available evidence.. So I suggest keeping a critical view even on acclaimed persona like Haeckel. --Dschwen21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images of exotic lizards were probably based on other naturalists' images. I recently discovered one such source on the Frogs plate, where the flying frog is taken almost exactly from Alfred Russel Wallace.--ragesoss18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really can't see why the number of Haeckel pictures already featured should make a difference to this nomination, it's a great picture. The colours may be a bit off compared to real life lizards, but most people will get a fair idea of what they look like in real life (which probably varies considerably anyway), so it's acceptable. I doubt we have anything better at illustrating these particular species pages at the moment (seeing as some haven't been created yet - maybe promoting it will get those articles written once it reaches the main page). Terri G16:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Ylläsfell (718 m high) in Finland is a popular destination for downhill and cross-country skiing.
Reason
I happened to see the picture while reading the article, and I was duly impressed by its outstanding beauty and clarity. Take a look: I hope you react the same way.
Oppose The picture is too small. If the picture was larger, perhaps I'd reconsider, but I still find the picture uninteresting. --Emery01:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NGC 4414, a typical spiral galaxy in the constellation Coma Berenices, is about 17,000 parsecs in diameter and approximately 20 million parsecs distant. Credit:NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope
NGC 4414, a typical spiral galaxy in the constellation Coma Berenices, is about 17,000 parsecs in diameter and approximately 20 million parsecs distant. Credit:NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope
Creator
A user called Tom on wikimedia commons. Originally took by a space agency.
Oppose — Nice quality but not a very interesting image on the whole aside from the exoticism of the animal, which is highly relative (a picture of a Jersey Cow might be exotic to someone in Thailand, but it is ho-hum to me). Lighting is a bit washed out, the animal is just standing there, the photo is just a front-on with little else going on in it and with no real depth of field. A good illustration of a water buffalo, but not an interesting photo beyond that. --Fastfission15:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, tight framing anf the posture of the animal is suboptimal. I'd rather like to see the head in profile. --Dschwen13:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support angle isn't the best, but seems to be in an appropriate setting and detail seems to be high (took ages for the picture to load up). Terri G16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An image to show the effects of ageing on the body. As can be clearly seen, the subject has many wrinkles, and wears a hearing aide. The subjects skin is clearly sagging. These are just a few examples of ageing.
Reason
Its high quality and accurately shows the effcts of ageing.
Oppose, the picture is nice... but I'm not sure that just an old person does such a great job of representing aging.... I think one of the seasons of man painting sets or something that actually shows comparison of different ages would be better After adding that it's in old age I'm not sure--since it represents that rather well. It definitely needs a description before I can make a decision. grenグレン10:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it, it's kind of interesting, just not sure it's FP material. The large, burnt-out white part upper left really robs the image of any subtlety and the repro here is a little over-sharpened. mikaul17:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this doesn't show anything I don't see on the street every day. A FP should be more remarkable than this picture. YechielMan00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like the subject, and think that showing ageing can be very encyclopedic. However, this particular image does not have the amount of information that it should have; the strict profile and distracting window in the background make me confused about what is going with the person's face shape, instead of clear about the changing in face shape with ageing. It's a very clear photo, and beautiful, but just doesn't carry enough information. Enuja16:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Like. How was it formed? Where did it come from? How big is it? Do you seem them all the time, rarely, or seasonally? Does it come in any other flavours? —Pengo04:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose - a nice shot for sure, with the crashing wave especially, but the highlights have a very unnatural looking orange glow. Debivort09:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Blown highlights on left side of subject, blurry background, no sense of proportion (how big is this thing?)--HereToHelp13:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good expsure under the circumstances (not a brilliant scan, but Velvia is very contrasty); nice depth (scale isn't a real issue and OOF b/g is almost essential); almost surreal, haunting feel to it and - last but not least - great enc material. Love it. mikaul18:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I can't tell how large the object is. It could be the size of a soft drink ice cube, or an automobile, or a mountain. Who knows? Spikebrennan
because in order to be a FP, the photograph is supposed to _illustrate_ the subject matter (that is to say, inform the viewer as to the attributes of the subject matter). This photo, while unquestionably pretty, raises more questions than it answers about the attributes of the subject matter. Spikebrennan22:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, nice pic, but it is not encyclopaedic as it doesn't explain its subject. Try getting featured photo at Commons? Wittylama23:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, It says in its article that it weighs 4 tonnes. I'm guessing it should be around the size of a car. 18:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Fourth Class Midshipmen lock arms and use ropes made from uniform items as they brace themselves against the Herndon Monument at the U.S. Naval Academy in an attempt to scale the obelisk. The monument was smeared with 200lbs of lard and the Midshipmen were hosed down during the annual event that teaches them much about their own abilities and limitations, as well as the advantages of working as a team.
Reason
The picture is a good representation of teamwork and tradition of the U.S. Naval Academy.
Oppose, too grainy for contemporary image. Good propaganda should be featured... and we need better scans of some of the U.S. / Soviet posters so I can put one up for FPC. grenグレン03:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see some good propaganda posters, as long as it isn't current propaganda which could inflame current racial or political tensions. —Pengo08:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good action shot, but not crisp and the composition is messy. Try again next year from a better angle with higher resolution! Enuja02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image of surface reconstruction on a clean Au(100) surface, as visualized using scanning tunneling microscopy. The individual atoms composing the material are visible. Surface reconstruction causes the surface atoms to deviate from the bulk crystal structure, and arrange in columns several atoms wide with regularly-spaced pits between them.Edit 1
Reason
This is an outstanding image because it shows the individual atoms that make up a gold surface. It is also a good demonstration of surface reconstruction, as the atoms rearrange themselves on the surface to form regularly-spaced pits. I realize that this image does not quire meet the size requirement (it is 500px square) but I believe is still has outstanding encyclopediac value since this is the only type one of the only types of microscopy which allows individual atoms to be seen. It takes a lot of effort and patience to get such a clean image, and I am glad that someone has released this into the public domain.
Oppose. Not bad, but we could do way better. In our faculty we have a group which specializes in imaging donor and acceptor states in cross-sectional STM. You can literaly see the doping effect in a semiconductor locally. They have some great pictures hanging on the walls, I'll ask around if they'll share one with us.--Dschwen21:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. If there are other atomic-resolution images that people would be willing to donate I'd love to see those too. Antony-2222:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conveniently, NewScientist just published a gallery — Jack · talk · 00:15, Thursday, 29 March 2007
Oppose Too small, but I would support a version that meets size requirements. Plus, if the image is in public domain, we should be able to crop/edit the signature out right?--Uberlemur21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose Signature on bottom, size (not just being bureaucratic, it really does need to be bigger), can only faintly see individual atoms. Not against a better execution, though; very cool subject.--HereToHelp01:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Atoms, by their nature, are fuzzy. This image will be right up against the technical and physical limitations. — Jack · talk · 13:49, Wednesday, 28 March 2007
Oppose watermark, not sure what is technologically the best size one can get with scanning tunnel microscopy... grenグレン03:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If - and only if - the watermark can be legitimately removed, and the "1nm" scale made prettier, I support — Jack · talk · 13:49, Wednesday, 28 March 2007
Question since this is my first experience with Featured Pictures. By size, do you mean the actual number of pixels, or the resolution? If it is the former, a larger image could be made just by duplicating pixels. If the former, I don't think that you really can get any higher resolution with STM (taking more samples would not reveal any new features), and scanning a wider field would not reveal anything new either - so I'm not sure that having a larger size would really be advantageous in this specific case. Antony-2219:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - I'm sure that's a picture of a beehive. ;-) Actually I really like the picture, and the concept, but I'm afraid it's way smaller than the size recommendations. Also, 'duplicating pixels' wouldn't really be satisfactory. I suppose you mean a tiled effect. How do you eliminate the text at the bottom of the picture? - Mrug221:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a point that has nothing to do with the voting: the picture is not a picture of the atoms, because that cannot ever be achieved. The electrons and the nucleus are in constant motion and, in Quantum Theory, don't even have a known position. It's a picture of the position of the atoms not of the atoms, so the caption should be reworded - Adrian Pingstone
weak support - too skewed, small and grainy for FP; I'd likely support a larger, corrected version. As it is, it's a nice exposure at an opportune time of day and very illustrative/encyclopedic. mikaul08:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - bad spelling. Caption is "colloseum" and the title of this section is "Collosseum". How could I support that? No, seriously, it fails the resolution requirement - great pic though. Stevage02:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A trick netsuke is a netsuke that does something special; one with moving parts or hidden surprises. This netsuke of Daikoku's hammer opens to reveal a carving of Urashima Taro. Urashima is made of ivory, but the hammer is lacquer, so the netsuke is not heavy. A person could wear it and be unaware of its contents, as Urashima was unaware of the contents.
Reason
A high-quality picture depicting a fantastic piece of art. The picture-in-picture, though it may be considered distracting, adds important context.
Comment I almost think to be a FP it should be the main picture in the article. As of now it's just one in a line of many pictures... and it doesn't seem that this "trick" one can be the main image. grenグレン03:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support strict white background is a bit harsh, but over all quite nice. The host article has a number of interesting images, and I don't think we should hold it against this one that it doesn't appear at the top. Debivort06:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support — Cool image, well-composed, the picture-in-picture does a great job in showing how this would look assembled. A beautiful picture which conveys a lot of information — as someone who has never heard of a netsuke before, much less a trick one, I was able, from this picture and its caption alone, to feel like I fully understood it almost immediately. --Fastfission14:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support very nice image of a beautiful object, definitely made me want to learn more about the object, which I think is a major plus in a featured picture. Mak(talk)17:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak support on the plus side, it's very sharp and detailed, well laid-out and reasonably well lit. The downside - scale - is significant, as I thought at first it was about six inches across. If some form of scale or ruler was added (what the heck, there's an inset shot there already) I would change to full support. mikaul17:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the inset picture bugs me, the background has a very unpleasant hue (which doesn't match that of the inset) and the caption doesn't help either. Maybe a composite is in order here? ~ trialsanderrors02:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too confusing, so not encyclopedic. Is this somehow a fastener? I can't figure out how it could be, and as such, it's not encyclopedic. I might be convinced to change my mind if the caption and article text were changed, but it isn't likely. Enuja17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support anything but the combined version. Not sure how this would work; maybe feature all of them as a set and link to the others on each description page? — frothT02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support all in one or trialsanderrors' arrangement Very informative, maybe combine them into one big diagram or hve 4 FPs from 1 FPC nom? --antilivedT | C | G03:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - if we can get this into one image - needs to function as PotD on the front page, some day. (The linear version could be left out... ;-) --Janke | Talk09:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say use just the quadratic on the front page and have it as a set.. I'll find/design the set template after classes today (or during classes if I get bored :P) --frothT13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess when the fractals go up we can do something like the thumbnail of the outermost image, the caption, and a "Click here to view the series" like the animation link. Then we can do the same thing for the beziers: have a frame of one of the animations (quadratic probably, maybe around t=.55?), the caption, and "Click here to view the series". --frothT18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Definitely. So that's how it's done! Perhaps just pic. 3 or 4 on its own, perhaps the last three combined? Mrug213:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Comment, I don't have the technology but I'd like to see one gif that is a 2x2 rectangle with time synced (putting "linear" on it's side and adding white space where needed so all four exemplars are the same dimensions). Can someone make something like this? --Cody.Pope05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe have 5 sets of identical points and apply each degree of bézier curve to each of them (ie. linear for the first, which would be sharp zig zag lines, etc.)? --antilivedT | C | G08:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support These make quite interesting animations that aren't half as scary as the maths that goes with them. I think Antilived's idea that they should all have five points in a set pattern and then apply the different degree of curve to them would be good, perhaps should avoid too many right angles though. Terri G12:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Holy cow, THIS is how Bezier curves work? I've always been confounded by these things, and here we are, a single animation that explains it all. Brilliant! --Golbez22:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You know, I've never had a problem using Bezier curves in Illustrator in Inkscape ... all the article did was make it a lot more confusing. :) howcheng {chat}05:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncommon? I thought that beziers were usually on the order of dozens of degrees for like edge tracing/smoothing, and that these were just for demonstration of how it works. Also, multiple degrees are important to show how the algorithm scales- otherwise it wouldn't be so "intuitively informative" so we shouldn't just feature one of them. And I have no trouble at all tracking quartic, although the one after the one after quartic is a little disorienting --frothT18:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. I agree with Janke that the set should be fitted in a single image. Also, a little more attention should be given to the details, like the position (not over the lines, please) and size of the labels, and the thickness of the lines, which should be consistent in all images. It is a nice and quite clear animation but can be improved. Alvesgaspar00:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very cool. I like Antilived's idea (as much as I can understand it, which isn't much), and the Mendelbrot set is procedure should be used as a precedent.--HereToHelp19:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, Strong support all-in-one version — I can see right now that my vote isn't going to change the outcome of this candidacy, but I think these images, even as animations, are FAR too small. We need higher resolution animations. Image:Bezier linear anim.gif would be a record for the smallest FP ever by a long shot. These are excellent animations, but they are incredibly tiny. ♠ SG→Talk03:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But do you actually gain any more information from a higher resolution image? These images could well have infinite spatial and temporal resolution with up and coming stuffs like svg animation but is it absolutely neccessary for them to be a few megabytes big just to have more than 1k pixels for one side? --antilivedT | C | G04:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, svg animations would be really cool. It also means that the stills in the article could be vectorized. Still, there's nothing wrong with the rasters.--HereToHelp14:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work on the new version! Not only were all of the animations added into one, but they were also made much larger than previously. As it stands, I would prefer that THAT particular image gain featured picture status, while the other versions (though I'd still like to see them larger) remain to be used in the article as they are and be linked to from the all-in-one version's description page. ♠ SG→Talk03:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Glad you all (well most of you:) liked my animations. I actually created them for another web page (that has never seen the light of day), and then uploaded them to wikipedia/wikicommons later. They were created using a rather hairy Bash script that outputs another script that invokes ImageMagick to create the GIFs and PNGs. I can resize, change colours, move the points around etc. pretty easily. About the only thing I can't do is increase the number of frames in the animations by much, because then the argument list gets too long! I think most complaints were about the size of the images and that they are different sizes. I created them for the Bezier Curve wiki page and not to a be Featured Picture, so I was trying to keep file sizes a small as possible while still getting the point across. I'll knock together another version, addressing these points. Oh, and if anyone wants the Bash script, they're welcome to it. --Twirlip17:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an image of 1st to fourth order curves. They don't work very well any bigger than this without increasing the number of frames in the animation, which I have problems with. I tried to keep this image true to to the ones on the Bezier Curve page, because that's what it's showcasing. Bash script on its way tomorrow... --Twirlip00:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I'd much rather have separate ones of the same width. Combining the images would be highly unusual and quite unnecessary. Great work twirl, keep it up
I've now put up some slightly bigger images an the originals (about the same size as they are in the combined image), and made them the all the same dimensions. Hopefully they'll make their way over from the commons soon... --Twirlip19:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I always wondered what the distinction was between these different types? I once bought S/N 000136 of the very first Adobe Illustrator a long time ago (bezier curves). Now I know how the others work. Very nice! Greg L06:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Support — While the images are very pretty, I don't think they're very effective at giving an intuitive idea of how a Bezier curve is constructed. The intermediate line segments don't seem to add anything of substance to the pictures - they don't seem to add any information. And the article doesn't give a good explanation of their purpose either. Take the quadratic case, for instance: I can choose a point P1-prime, distinct from and further out from the original P1, and arrange it so that the green line segment is tangential to the red Bezier curve for every intermediate state in that case as well. So, by this sort of geometric illustration, nothing about P1 uniquely defines the curve - two distinct points P1 can define the same curve. There needs to be more information in the picture; for instance, what determines the point along the green segment where it's tangential to the curve? --Paul17:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see an argument that given three points P0, P1, P2, the Bézier curve needs to be uniquely defined, but how does that translate into an argument that that curve has to be distinct from one defined by P0', P1, P2? Also, the location of the tangent point on the green line is quite obviously defined by t. I don't even need to description to see that. ~ trialsanderrors19:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your first question: it doesn't. You're right, and I didn't articulate my point quite as well as I would've liked to. I was only trying to state the first part of your question: that given three points (...), the Bézier curve needs to be uniquely defined. But I don't think that's illustrated very well with the graphical technique used. The information that seems to be missing are the visual factors determining the enpoints, Q1 and Q2, of the green line segment. Without that info, the choice of Q1 and Q2 seems to be arbitrary for any particluar value of the parameter t, and we could trace-out any curve at all in the absence of this info. But then, maybe I'm splitting hairs here. After all, the position of (for instance) Q1 along the line segment P1-P2 would be decided by another parametric equation that's almost a projection of the original, and that would be difficult to illustrate in a more intuitive fashion. Perhaps the most important aspects of this have been successfully demonstrated intuitively, and I'm just trying to hash-out the details for myself. --Paul22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, that would be P0, P1, P2, not P1, P2, P3 (have another look at the diagram for the quadratic case). Perhaps that caused some of the confusion? --Paul22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Labeling fixed, thanks. The endpoints of the green line are defined in the same way as the pencil point on the green line, it moves from Q1 to Q2 at linear speed (i.e. it replicates the movement of the linear Bézier). That's the same principle that governs every single movement of a point along a line in all versions. I see nothing arbitrary about this. Simplified, if the starting point is 0 and the endpoint is 1, the position of the moving point at time t is t. (To make it clear, I don't have any prior knowledge of Béziers nor did I read the article in detail. The algorithm is perfectly simple and obvious from looking at the animation.) ~ trialsanderrors22:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totally missed the fact of all the motion being linear / constant-speed. *smacks forehead* (and yes, it's very obvious in retrospect) --Paul16:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The actual algorithm for computing a bezier curve doesn't have to involve tangency. Take the quadratic one for example. The bezier curve is defined by the a point moving through space. This point is the midpoint of the green line. As time goes by, the endpoints of the green line go from P0 to P1 and from P1 to P2 respectively, at a rate of distance/time. For higher degrees of curve, P0 P1 and P2 aren't defined by the grey lines anymore- they're defined by a chain of parent functions that go all the way up to the grey lines through the same algorithm. So these intermediate line segments show how Bezier curves are algorithmically constructed, although mathematically the curve can still be expressed by
It's not the midpoint of the green line, the black dot (i.e., the "pencil") moves along the green line governed by the value of t. At t = 0, it's at the start of the green line, at t = 1, it's at the end. I haven't looked at the maths involved, but from eyeballing it's very plausible that it's always a tangent point. ~ trialsanderrors21:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've rescinded my original opposition. I think this does a damn good job at illustrating and giving an intuitive feel for how a bezier curve is constructed, in the ways that matter most. My initial objection was too pedantic. --Paul22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per my original vote, also, I'm comfy with any consensus choice. The combo image needs a little tweaking, the Po is touching the line in the first image. Having seen the combo, I really think the Quartic would be best as FP, with links to the others. --Janke | Talk09:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More comments: The combo above looks good, but the animations are not synchronized - but I don't know if that really matters. The linear could be drawn out a little, to fill the empty space in the upper left quadrant. --Janke | Talk08:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They can be asynchronous the first time you download the page, since animated gifs start immediately after downloading. The second time the files are already in your browser cache, so they should start synchronously. ~ trialsanderrors21:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still support cubic. Higher order curves a rarely used. "Quadratic and cubic Bézier curves are most common; higher degree curves are more expensive to evaluate. When more complex shapes are needed, low order Bézier curves are patched together." ed g2s • talk23:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the all-in-one version. Very, very nice. And what an excellent visualization. We need a lot more images like this. --Cyde Weys01:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My preference is for the four curves to be promoted as a set but kept as separate images. One can be selected as representative of the set when it comes to Main Page appearances etc. Pstuart84Talk15:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ON WHEELS!!!. I love the edit. It seems that you've actually enlarged the size of the photograph! Well done! ...but there's just something funny...I can't quite put my finger on it...did you by chance also sharpen it? --Tewy19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject of the picture is not clear. Is it the cars or the building? I know that when you read the appropriate caption you realize that the subject is the building, but since it is not obvious to the observer, I would oppose this. --Gabycs00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The STUNNING image CLEARLY meets the criteria for a featured sound, including the fact that it's loud and annoyingly boom-like, Exceptional size and detail, as well as that "wow" factor required of ALL featured pictures, not like those ridiculous ONION FRUIT shots...
I thinkknow it meets all the criteria:
Definitely high quality; I mean seriously here people! Who takes the time to take a picture when they're being shot at!? That DEFINITELY qualifies it for those special circumstances as well. Clearly.
It's HUGE! Just look at the thing! It's larger than a flopppy disk! And put it up on a projector and you've got an even BIGGER explosino!!!!111 Tha'ts like...l1000! pixels of explosions! Plus it would have exploded out of the frame if the shot was any bigger.
Definitely the best work. I need not never ever say more. It's a shot of a shot.
Look at that beautifl public domain license...shiney...a licence to kill
SCARES THE READER INTO SUBMISSION WHEN THEY SEE THIS PICTURE THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO READ THE ARTICLE BECAUESE THEY WILL KNOW THAT FIREBALLS ARE HUGE!!! itS LIKE AN ARTICLE IN ITSELF!
ACCURATE ENOUGH TO HIT ITS TARGET!
Ok I admit it's not really "pleasing to the eye", but then again, neither is Fonzo
It did have a good caption. Until it was destroyed. That's just the effect the picture has on things.
Oh yeah, it's neutral. What's more neutral than a fireball? So cute...
Plus, the other "bad images" aren't fireballs, so it's not a bad one.
What more could you ask for in a FRIGGIN FEATURED PICTURE?! Put your support in now, before time runs out!
Is this for indenting? 11:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)11:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment, the fire ball on the left has good height. The one on the right has good color. You need to fix the fireball in the middle for support. grenグレン11:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, the fireball on the right has a colour which should go on the tall fireball on the left, and if the fireball on the right was hightened slightly, or there were more fireballs, then it would be better and I would support. There needs to be at least seven fireballs on the image to be clear. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs11:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture was taken at an opportune moment, and really leaves me in awe of the power of man. But is there a caption other than the one shown here?
Weak Oppose Great photo; not sure if this is really Wikipedia's best work. Someone should fix the caption (as much as it is funny). If I could decide, this would very barely be FP. --Gabycs00:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support The picture is not FP quality. I don't even think it is very good quality. In my opinion, it is too bright and low-resolution. It is also not pleasing to the eye and cannot be considered Wikipedia's best work.Wwicki18:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I'd be an (April) fool not to support work of this quality. Possibly the finest pic ever put up for FP. Well done, let's have more like this. Lovely colour, very good focus and highly encyclopedic. - Adrian Pingstone21:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I seriously doubt that User:Sander.thillart owns a satellite or space ship of any kind. Thus the attribution in the nomination and, more important, the image page is lacking. This is most likely a licence violation. --Dschwen13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this and this seem to serve almost the same purpose. I'd feel a little odd about them both being featured because I think they would be used for the same thing in the same article. My opinions on copyright on are on the commons deletion request--but it's clear that we can't do anything until we have a source for the large image. grenグレン03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think they're perfectly complementary. We could even superimpose the graphic over the satellite image. What the graphic doesn't show at all is the urban sprawl and the tourist traffic, which the image does extremely well. In any case, if we're running this FPC under "if it were freely licensed" conditions, I support of course. ~ trialsanderrors06:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very encyclopedic, especially with all of the rest of the pictures on the ladybower reservoir page. A little blurry in full size. Not bad, but not quite stunning enough. Enuja14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A view of Everest southeast ridge base camp. The Khumbu Icefall can be seen in the left. In the center we can see the remains of a helicopter that crashed there in 2003. The icefall is found at 5,486 metres (18,000 feet) on the Nepali slopes of Mount Everest not far above base camp and southwest of the summit. The icefall is regarded as one of the most dangerous stages of the South Col route to Everest’s summit. The Khumbu glacier that forms the icefall moves at such speed that large crevasses open with little warning.edit 1 (downsampled to 800 x 4000)
Reason
Very high resolution panorama of a beautiful and dangerous area. Gives a very immediate impression of how dangerous the Khumbu icefall is.
It could be downsampled (even as much as 8:1). Where do you stand on the larger (less detail per pixel) vs smaller (more detail per pixel) argument? I know many people believe that any downsampling causes a loss of information, and should be avoided if it is just for the sake of generating the appearance of detail... Debivort07:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, I'd be willing to look at a downsampled version but I don't think it would be large enough at a level with no fuzziness. grenグレン08:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a downsampled version, definitely large enough (4000px on one axis). If you see blurriness in it, please point it out because I cannot find any. Debivort09:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really don't understand why there is so much discussion about resolution and detail; the image is fine in both respects. It falls flat for me solely in terms of composition. Panoramic is a very poor format choice, losing both foreground subject detail and a sense of proportion in the mountain. A 'straight' 3:2 format capture would have been a winner. mikaul17:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A pair of Type C Orcas (Killer Whales) in the Ross Sea. The bond between female Orcas and their offspring is strong and often persists throughout life. Type C Orcas are smaller than other types, and have a distinctively forward-slanting eye patch. They may be a separate species.Edit1, fringing on sides, noise reduction, colors, etc. -Fcb981Edit 2, cropped, color corrected, noise reduction ~ trialsanderrorsEdit 3 by MIckStephenson on March 28. Downsampled, colour improved
Reason
This gorgeous picture illustrates two important themes of the Orca article: the recent discovery of different forms of the species, and the mother-calf relationship. I believe this would be the first FP of a cetacean. I think it would be a sweet one for the Main Page on May 13, which in many countries is Mother's Day. I hope the pink and green stripes down the side can be edited out - maybe someone more Photoshop-savvy than I am could do it?
Neutral for all, preference for Edit 3. I'll give it credit for being a neat shot, but the technical aspects, such as the purple fringing and blur prevent me from supporting. I also agree that an edit would improve the sides. --Tewy03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 fringing taken care of pretty well, colors look better now too and of course the subject is marvelous. In fact so impressive is the scene I would have supported the original. -Fcb98106:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all edits The entire picture seems to be slightly out of focus. It's a nice scene, but it isn't enough to convince me to support it. --Mad Max07:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I hate to say "you missed a spot", but there's still a big hair in the lower right and a small hair on the belly of the mother. howcheng {chat}16:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I hate to hear you say it. I uploaded a new one (the string removed) over the old (I assume you're going to support now. ; p ) -Fcb98103:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not sure what it is, but it looks more like a still from a digital movie than a real photo. The quality is very poor, which is bizarre given the amazing subject matter and composition. Something weird is going on. Stevage00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/comment - the overall softness and poor definition is due to the scanner on which it was digitized, I think. It looks like the original, although sharp, may not have been a chrome but a color neg, which would explain the "color noise" (which is actually film grain) and lack of overall density. I feel I can't vote for this in its current form, not because of this but because of the noise reduction edits: a crop and clean-up were needed, but everything else has reduced definition still further. mikaul08:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have e-mailed the photographer asking if it's possible to have the original re-scanned at higher resolution. Thanks everyone for the comments, edits, and advice so far. Kla'quot04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not a photographer, so the technical criticism may be valid. But as WP reader, the picture is just amazing. Far, far above the quality of the average POTD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.114.213 (talk)
Oppose as anti-whaling propaganda..... but seriously, it's very nice, but too grainy, blown out highlighsts, and overly dull in some areas. grenグレン21:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a joke. This nom and this one have been opposed for being propaganda... which I think is an improper reason. So, I was just joking around. The second part of my comment is why I opposed. grenグレン01:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Oppose all) - edits have made some improvement but the original is very poor quality. Blur won't be fixable by any amount of editing, and there's also a lot of fringing. Looks to have been taken a long time ago with a not-superb-quality film camera, and deteriorated before being scanned. --YFB¿23:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also support edit 3. I assume that's the new option that Kla'quot wanted me to know about. It's as good or better than edit 2. YechielMan06:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry, and the colors somehow don't feel right. Something with the white balance, or the off-white orca with the whiter snow.--HereToHelp23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is what you were referring to, but I guess I should mention that the orca colourings are correct. Although most orcas are black and white, young calves are black and yellowish, and adult Antarctic orcas also have this yellowish tinge because of the diatoms in the water. Kla'quot05:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 3 improved the color a little, but there's still the band of blurry snow and another could always be taken. I now weakly oppose the image.--HereToHelp23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still no - edit 3 is nice, but it's still a very low quality image. And it doesn't add much to Orca that the other photos don't. Stevage06:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 3. This has always been a great 'moment' shot of very high encyclopedic value. Can I respectfully suggest that those opposing it on "quality" grounds read WP:FP? point 1, paragraph 2 and then make a decision. Any points it might lose on 'critical sharpness' criteria is more than made up for with the unique nature of the capture. This is a quality image by WP:FP standards. mikaul08:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're not extinct. Another picture could always be taken. There's nothing spectacularly informative about this one to override the quality issues. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still oppose all - We've seen some good editing on this image. That's of benefit to the article and to be encouraged, even if the result still isn't FP-standard. To me, this is a nice image but by no means unique or irreplaceable, even if it's a pretty rare scene - if it was a photo of a Great auk or a Thylacine then the quality would be acceptable. As it is, the quality of the original is just too poor, and the edits have very little to work with. An interesting and encyclopaedic photo, but not among our 'best' wildlife images. --YFB¿15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the image is, in theory, replaceable, mikaul's point is not far off. The Type C orca lives only in Antarctic waters. Photography in polar conditions is no joke. There are no captive or dead specimens of the Type C orca. There are few people who have seen Type Cs, and only a handful of closeup pictures available of it, copyrighted or not; this photo was taken by one of the leading scientists studying these animals.[1] As he is a scientist first and a photographer second he think he has lent the original to someone and can't find it anymore. There is strong evidence that the Type C orca is a new species, in an age when it is common belief that all the large mammal species on the planet were discovered long ago, and all the more poignant because we just lost a cetacean species. Add to this the fact that we are looking at an intimate moment between two individuals who, if what we think we know about orcas is true, will never separate. I believe this is an iconic picture of the most stable bond known in the animal kingdom. Can we forgive the fact that the snow doesn't look good? Kla'quot04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support my own edit, oppose the others. If the ugly discolorization of the original is fixed the picture meets the bare minimum for tec. Enc and art seem generally supported. I'd like to have a wider crop than my own, but so far no one has fixed the ugly border. The whales themselves are ok, barely. Edit 3 is also far too yellow on my monitor. ~ trialsanderrors07:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made an alternative version based on the TIFF at the LOC website. This one avoids the compression artifacts and has slightly higher contrast. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Arad's edit takes care of the dust, but I agree it's too bright, and some distracting shadows remain (upper left and upper right corners in particular). ~ trialsanderrors20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I added my own edit from the LoC tiff, mostly to bring out the rich details of her face, which have gotten lost in the other versions. Support Edit 4. ~ trialsanderrors10:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice picture, but not featured quality material, in my opinion. It would be more encyclopedic if it was a head-on shot. There's also not really a "wow" factor for me in the picture, and the picture lacks sharpness in a couple areas. -Bluedog423Talk22:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mirik, a tourist spot in West Bengal, India, is sorrounded be numerous tea gardens producing Darjeeling tea. They also add the the natural beauty of the area, which is captured in this shot.
Reason
This picture captures the scenic beauty the place has to offer to the visitors.
oppose - poor technical quality - chromatic abberation, sky is completely blown. Illustrates the topography of a tea garden well though. Debivort04:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent macro picture of a juvenile Large Brown Mantid, Archimantis latistyla. Taken in Swifts Creek, Victoria in Dec 2006. Specimen size is approx 3-4 cm.
Oppose with regret. Technically well done, but there are issues which prevent me from supporting: First, the artificial background, and especially the double shadows. (No, editing them out won't help - you need bigger 'brellas, or a shooting tent for stuff like this!) Second, the shallow DOF. If photographed in nature, I might excuse a somewhat shallow DOF, but not in a "studio shot" like this. --Janke | Talk06:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks washed out. I'm sure it's a pale bug, but if the background were darker than the bug, it'd pop out). The blurry abdomen and two shadows also ruin it for me. Enuja02:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, it's enc ok, but LadyofHats sets the standard here in terms of mcb svg's, and this one is nowhere close. Also, the circles around the numbers are generally considered distracting. ~ trialsanderrors22:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think this looks better than LadyOfHats' but it has less information. It's definitely a good image... but, I think it needs to be decided in terms of which image will actually be in the article. I like the circled numbers especially with imagemapping. and the transparency beats Lady's... --grenグレン03:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it looks like one of those Powerpoint cliparts to me. The way the Centriole (13) is rendered is completely out of sync with the rest of the picture. The Cytoskeleton (7) is a single scraggly line? And finally, is there a reason why there is no Flagellum? ~ trialsanderrors03:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because most animal cells (that we'd think of as belonging to animals) don't have flagella, rather they're best known for being attached to single-celled animals. The flagellum mostly helps the single-celled animal move around, although larger animals have them on some cells. —Pengo13:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose very poor graphics, perspective of different organelles does not match, difference between lysosomes and vacuoles (actually typical for plant cells, not animal cells) is not clear. Lycaon10:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not they're common, vacuoles do exist in animal cells. Lysosomes, vesicles, peroxisomes, and vacuoles generally look similar on these types of diagrams anyway.Primeromundo02:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A 3-4 year old Great Horned Owl, taken in Balsam Mountains, North Carolina. The bird is currently in rehabilitation after sustaining a wing injury from colliding with a car.
Reason
This is an excellent image with a spectacular subject. It meets all of the technical requirements of a FP, and demonstrates its subject very well. The picture also contributes a lot to the articles it appears in, and is very encyclopedic.
Cautious Support Some DOF problems, the scourge of all macro photography. Also, the subject is cut off. But I love how (in certain places) you can see the individual feathers.--HereToHelp01:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, mainly because of prominent halo from photoshopping (using unsharp mask?). Can we see the original, please? --Janke | Talk09:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks fake, and that's a problem no matter what caused the yellow halo, background that looks like a mottled sheet, and over-sharp edges on the owl. Enuja02:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Tirunelveli rainshadow is an arid region in south Tamil Nadu. The rainshadow is created due to the prescence of the Agasthiyamalai hills which blocks the Monsoon winds from the west and cutting it off from the Southwest Monsoon. The image shows the effect of a rainshadow on the local climate. The landscape is arid even though less than 20km away there are rainclouds and monsoon showers.
Reason
encyclopedic image that highlights a rainshadow region
Conditional Support I don't see blurriness anywhere except the left side; a crop can take care of that. (Also a bit blurry around background mountains, but not as bad and not and harder to correct.) The old nomination was rejected because a compressed version was uploaded first and that it did not appear in any articles. Both have been fixed. I await the crop.--HereToHelp22:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A taxi was submerging into a flooded water while at the background a horse carriage was trying to flee away.
Reason
This is a rare image I found at Flickr with high quality, nicely illustrated to the event (see 2007 Jakarta flood) to show the impact of the disaster and most important thing is that the image is free.
It's suppose to be blurry, isn't it ? The horse is running and it is not the focus point. Yes it barely meets the req. requirements, but it meets, doesn't it? — Indon (reply) — 17:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose because of technical inaccuracy: slide valves do not move "click-clack", they have a sinusoidal movement, coming from the eccentrics on the axle. --Janke | Talk15:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The caption is not clear; you would have to read the articles that this appeared in to understand it. Eye-catching but not really Wikipedia's best work. --Gabycs00:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why this complaining about captions lately, on this page? Usually there's a different caption in the article, e.g. here in this case on the steam engine page: "An animation of a simplified triple-expansion engine. High-pressure steam (red) enters from the boiler and passes through the engine, exhausting as low-pressure steam (blue) to the condenser." That's good enough for a caption - but the other technical issues remain. --Janke | Talk05:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colors; very nice pic. 03:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose the noise is the big thing. A tighter crop would help (the top black) and the composition is a bit unbalanced an edit with some high quality nosie reduction and I could support. -Fcb98102:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a nice picture, it really captures the essence of being above the clouds. Nice colors, too. Of course, if it's possible to take this picture during a thunderstorm, that would be quite fascinating.
Oppose I uploaded a photograph of stratocumulus clouds over the Rockies that does not suffer from the problems affecting this one. I don't think mine is of FP quality, and I certainly don't think this one is. Thegreenj00:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is not low res and stopped crying. It is a great picture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.244.92.4 (talk)
Original – Atmospheric perspective, or aerial perspective, is the effect caused by the atmosphere on the appearance of objects observed by a viewer. As the distance between the object and the viewer increases, the contrast decreases and the colours become lighter and more bluish, until the image of the object eventually fades into the sky. In this picture, the effect is emphasized by a series of mountains in different planes, photographed in a near contre-jour situation.Alternative 1 – An alternative image that may better illustrate the article. Not in an article as yetAlternative 2 – Another alternative, taken at the same spot as the originalAnother Alternative (3), this time by YFB¿File:Atmos persp beacons enhanced.jpgZOMGNPOV Alternative Alternative with greatly enhanced encyclopaedicity
Oppose — you're right, it does illustrate the atmospheric perspective very well, but there's little else that would make it FP worthy. Too little detail, and the trees are distracting — Jack · talk · 16:21, Saturday, 31 March 2007
Oppose. Agree with above, it does illustrate the subject but is aesthetically and compositionally quite unremarkable. I've just uploaded an old image I had lying around that I feel might illustrate the subject better and is a bit prettier to look at. Admittedly the 'silhouettes' don't seem to be as visible in the thumbnail though, but I think that is partially because of the comparative height of the image. Thoughts? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)20:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative. I like the alternative, but I think in the other one, the trees overpower the desired effect. └Jared┘┌talk┐22:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one: covers the aerial perspective and the tea fields below, and actually looks attractive. (Also oppose Diliff's alt for this nomination, for lack of blue shift). ~ trialsanderrors22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that one though is that the "blue" section is only a small splotch in the center by the time it turns lighter blue. I don't think that portrays the effect as well as the second image (the tan-ish colored one). └Jared┘┌talk┐23:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem with all nominated pictures is that in neither case contrast decreases, because even the foreground has very low contrast. The color range doesn't change much either, so the only thing that happens is that the colors go from dark to light. The tea picture at least has six layers of shading, from contrast-rich green to low-contrast blue. So it certainly does a better job as representing the phenomenon than the nominated pictures. Although this is such a frequently photographed topic, we should be able to find a better one. ~ trialsanderrors04:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would dispute the justification for opposing based on the lack of blue shift. As per this article, I don't believe the concept of Aerial perspectiverequires the shift to be blue (although perhaps the article should be amended to reflect that?). When the sun approaches the horizon (as with most sunsets), you get red/orange sunlight and the same aerial effect with those colours. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)10:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, there is not necessariy a blue shift in aerial perspective but a shift towards the colour of the atmosphere, which is normally blue (except in sunrise/sunset, of course). The thicker the air layer between the object and the viewer the fainter its own colours are perceived. Alvesgaspar11:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternate; Oppose original, Trialsanderror's alternative. The latter two have blown skies and look somewhat blurry. The alternative looks directly into the sun and yet the highlights are perfect. It doesn't include the blue shift because of the time of day, but oh well.--HereToHelp23:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info - I'm adding a new alternative, taken at the same spot as the original. The first plan is less distracting but the sky is a little overexposed (it could be fixed, I suppose). Several grades of gray/blue are clearly visible. Alvesgaspar23:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alternative 2 is the best of 'em, and the blown highlights along with the distracting tree ruin it for me. Enuja02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only "Alternative Alternative with greatly enhanced encyclopaedicity". Low quality, but it is so interesting! Joking. Support Image:Mount Feathertop, Australia - May 2005.jpg, Alternative 1 .Althepal21:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Man holding sign during Iranian hostage crisis protest, 1979 Alternate captions: A man exemplifying anti-Iranian sentiments during a 1979 Washington, D.C. student protest of the Iranian hostage crisis. His raised sign reads "deport all Iranians, get the hell out of my country" and "Release all Americans now" on the reverse side. Anti-Iranian sentiments were particularly prevalent during the Iranian hostage crisis. This photo of a 1979 student protest in Washington, D.C. shows a man holding a sign which reads "deport all Iranians, get the hell out of my country", with "Release all Americans now" on the reverse side.Edit 1 - Noise removed - a bit retouchedFor the curious... you can see through his sign. I flipped it and added emphasis- this is what the other side says.
Reason
Historical image, enc value showing clearly the Anti-Iranian feelings in USA in the months of Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979 following the revolution in Iran The hostage crisis was one of the most known, important events of its kind in world history. And plus that, the image has a very good quality and composition IMO. It's not the usual cliché "black" racism photo.
Weak support It looks somewhat grainy to me and there's not as much focus on the subject as I might like, but I like the picture overall. ShadowHalo02:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I don't find this racist picture very striking, but I do find it offensive. —Pengo 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC) (changed to strong oppose as no specific details for this image can be given). —Pengo01:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, IMO, the point is that it's so offensive toward Iranians that it's striking how people can be so racist on something that is not even the Iranian people's fault. --Arad03:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Edit 1). Hate the racism, but love the depiction of it. And I have to say that I disagree somewhat with ShadowHalo regarding the focus of the subject... Having the subject so distant gives a "lost in the crowd" feel, and the people surrounding the subject add to the chaotic atmosphere. tiZom(2¢)14:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - Very offensive. Imagine that you are an Iranian, and you see this picture on the main page or even the FP's icon in the upper part of the picture's page. I think you wouldn't like to visit Wikipedia anymore. Tomer T14:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already offended as an Iranian that you think they are the same. (joking) Well now seriously, Iraq was a part of Iran before but not now. They are different nations now so don't confuse them. --Arad16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm trying to defend Iranians by showing this image and the problems they had in those times, which is good for people to see on main page. --Arad16:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My fault. Arad, I think that the picture's presence on the main page wouldn't really make any Iranian happy. Tomer T16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine. Well, those who are intelligent enough with enough knowledge will see the image and think that racism is a very bad thing. I don't think anyone would take the image as "Yes it's a good idea to deport Iranians". At least I hope people will not think about it like this. Do you? --Arad00:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - does the sign have something else written on the other side? It looks like "release all americans now" - which is a bit distractiing. Apart from that, great image — Jack · talk · 15:33, Friday, 9 March 2007
Weak support - Support only because of enc relevance, quality is quite poor. Historical or journalistic documents may indeed be considered offensive specially when the events are relatively recent. However that fact should not affect their scientific value or prevent anyone to use or disseminate them. This is of course, the opinion of someone who believes in the freedom of expression, an important value of the western democratic societies. But the scope of Wikipedia is much larger than that, I know... - Alvesgaspar17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Alvesgaspar, as long as the image is contextualized in a proper historical prospective, denying it FP status because it might offend is against the NPOV policy. --Cody.Pope18:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really don't see any reason why an Iranian person should be offended by seeing this as a featured picture. It's not like Wikipedia supports racist behaviour by promoting this image. -Wutschwlllm20:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By putting this on the main page it will likely give many people the (hopefully mistaken) impression that Wikipedia does support racism. Already Wikipedia is dominated by American viewpoints, and US-Iran relations are currently at their lowest point since the crisis. Note that Iran was one of the three countries of George Dubya's so called "Axis of evil", and Iranians are currently treated with suspicion in the US, generally requiring additional checks at airports, etc. —Pengo21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I cite policy, the fact that the image can be seen as offensive is not enough to negate it's use or deny it FC status. If on the main page, the caption should clearly state it's historic context -- if it does in NPOV way, it should be allowed. --Cody.Pope22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm completely with Cody.Pope on this one. In my opinion, this is really ridiculous. Let's just say this image of Adolf Hitler gets promoted and it appears on Wikipedia's main page, does this make Wikipedia a neo-nazi club, or what? This is an encyclopedia, not a political platform, and I hate (unnecessary) self-censorship, just because of some weird opinions on political correctness.
"Note that Iran was one of the three countries of George Dubya's so called "Axis of evil", and Iranians are currently treated with suspicion in the US, generally requiring additional checks at airports, etc." I know exactly what you mean. Since I watch Al Jazeera English I hate all the American news channels. Even CNN (I don't really need to mention Fox News) is so biased, they don't even invite Iranians to contribute to discussions (what Al Jazeera does, by the way). The bottom line is, I detest this sort of self censorship. -Wutschwlllm22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate, since that seems only to confirm that wikipedia is censored by saying this significant image is important but too offensive to be displayed. At least from an ideological stand point that seems far worse to me. --Cody.Pope23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the image and I'm Iranian. I wanted it to be on the homepage to show that how people could be so ignorant and racist against other nationalities. I hope people will take it in a good way, not that racism is good or that we are promoting it. If you guys think it's offensive to Iranians, then I would prefer a withdrawal. But I thought in this situation that Iran has currently with this Bush vs. Mullahs thing, it's a good time to show the image. I hope the captioning will be informative and not provocative. It wasn't Iranian people's fault that the hostage crisis happened. It was the government and I want the world to know that it still the same. It's not Iranian people's fault that their dictator government supports terrorism. They are trying their best to overthrow the government. But it's not easy. --Arad00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a news picture, and as such a witness to history. The image itself isn't POV, but it can be interpreted as such, in two ways: 1. As offensive to Iranians, and 2. As offensive to Americans. That's the essence of prejudice, to project the bad behavior of a subgroup onto the group as a whole. I don't think we should reject it based on its sensitive nature, but we should be careful in the way we put it in context. ~ trialsanderrors00:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & Question As far as pictures portraying racist sentiments go, this one is even worse. My question here is really whether this image presents a historic occasion or is historic by itself. I don't remember this one being used, but then again I was twelve when the hostage affair happened. ~ trialsanderrors23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion regarding censorship is silly in my opinion. In the lynching article there is an actual picture of lynching with a teenage boy hanging from a tree. It shows the horror of the situation in a way text could not. In an article on the Iranian hostage situation how can one justify not having a picture showing how some Americans felt during that time? How could anyone interpret this photo as a Wikipedia endorsement of Iranian deportation? The caption should be written carefully so as not to paint all Americans with the sentiments shown in the photo. This situation is not unique on Wikipedia and has been handled many times. I don't understand the furor in this case.Meniscus01:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for the moment. I like the image a lot and am willing to support it, but I would like to see a solid description (providing that context others have demanded) on the image page before I cast my !vote. A good extended caption is one of the featured picture criteria, and one that we have been letting slide for too long, especially on historical photographs. --ragesoss05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original (neutral edit, I think it loses some sharpness, harder to see man's features), nice image of important times. While this even in itself is probably not of great importance the hostage crisis is and this seems to be a good picture. Why? 1) it's from 5 days after the start of the crisis. 2) It's from MST. U.S. News & World Report Magazine Photograph Collection. Notable even from a notable magazine plus high quality image. It seems to work for me, although knowing more specifics wouldn't hurt. grenグレン08:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Obviously its a historic photograph! It is even located in the US govt archives: http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/09800/09800r.jpg which if you go here: http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/09800/ you will find tons of other historic images from that time period. I don't have time to dig there, but assuredly there is a description somewhere on that website. Furthermore this image is of strong importance (strongly disagree with Grenavitar above) as this is one of the very few clear instances of anti-Iranian racism in the US. Usually in the Diaspora Iranians, mostly due to widespread secular background and easy assimilation into the wider culture, cannot be distinguished from the rest of the populace and thus do not suffer attacks the way has happened with non-secular Muslim Arabs, Indians, and Pakistanis. Even after 9/11, how many reports do we find of racist attacks against Iranians? Most Americans couldn't tell an Iranian if one were staring them in the face, unless the Iranian was dark-skinned or wearing some kind of Islamic dress and then the American would not be thinking "Iranian" but "Muslim" and if he were racist, the American would think something even more ignorant such as "camel jockey." So in that case the bigotry is against the religion, and not the ethnicity since he is unaware and thinks that "Muslim" is a race! And also when Iran has been attacked in recent times, it has not been of a necessarily racist character but against the country and government. So clearly racism against Iranians in the US is a rare phenomenon, and even rarer is masses of Americans calling Iranians "camel jockeys" and demanding that we be deported. For this reason there is no question that the picture is notable and evidence of a rare and ugly historic phenomenon, which unfortunately may resurface due to the ignorants who continue running Iran and give these type of bigots an excuse. Khorshid11:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The front page for the collection is here. There are 1.2 million pictures in the collection, donated by U.S. News & World Report, and the fact that the collection is owned by the LoC now doesn't make all of them historical. It's very likely that most of them were never even used. "Historical" in this context means that it is a picture viewers would recognize as an iconic represeentation of that particular event, like Migrant Mother or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. ~ trialsanderrors18:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean to say is that the hostage crisis does not have one single iconic image that should be featured as does the Battle of Iwo Jima. The same clearly goes for anti-Iranian sentiment. Not being the important image does not make it unimportant or unfeaturable. (I hadn't read Trial's above when I wrote this) grenグレン18:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously historical photograph of great significance, also very troubling and thought-provoking. Definately FP material, and I agree- I detest wiki censorship due to political correctness. --frothT18:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify Guys please indicate which version you like the most. The edit or original. Thanks a lot for all the votes. --Arad18:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm looking through Google image search to find historicl images of the crisis, and it seems to me these pictures of the crisis are more iconic, at least in the English-speaking media: 1, 2, 3. The question is really if (assuming free licanse and quality photo) we would be prepared to feature picture #1 on the front page. ~ trialsanderrors19:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be nice to have a better description though; I wasn't able to find any more information on the LOC site, so I'm not sure more information is available. Basar20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support with caption (edit 1) Excellent photo and extremely historical. As others have said, iconic. I would like to see an extended caption, if possible. On the issue of contect, which I think should not affect its featured status: sure, it depicts American racism, and I think that is reason enough to feature it so that we don't forget the past. --Asiir23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll stay out of the whole racism debate. Either way its a great picture that demonstrates an important historic event. RyGuy1719:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to Oppose. The picture, which depicts at best a footnote to the Iran hostage crisis, fails WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. For one, no evidence whatsoever has been offered that the image itself is historic and has even been used in news article. In fact, it doesn't seem to be used at all outside Wikipedia. It elevates a reprehensible response to the crisis to a widespread response without any evidence that this sentiment was held by more than a small minority. (On the more prevalent response to the crisis, see loc.gov). In simple terms, it tries to shift culpability. On the artistic/technical merit, clearly the picture wouldn't even be considered if the sign said "Oppose Measure 16". ~ trialsanderrors20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that probably wasn't the most widespread response but it does an excellent job of conveying the extreme tension felt in the united states over the crisis.. there was a lot of fear and hatred flying around --frotht04:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but are we documenting this as it was covered by authorative sources or are we creating a reality for ourselves? Looking around on Google image search, I find many striking contemporary images, blindfolded hostages, the ill-fated rescue effort, yellow ribbons, the jubilant return. Between the two policies no censorship and no soapboxing we can only make sure this falls under the former and not the latter by showing that this is a historical relevant photograph or shows a historical relevant scene, as determined by authorative sources. I don't see anything like this here. ~ trialsanderrors06:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly and obviously notable and deserving of FP status as so many fine contributors here have demonstrated. To above user, please see WP:AGF. Your unfortunate comment comes across as a strongly bad faith and provocative insinuation. Please have some respect for others. metaspheres 23:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You yourself might want to read the full discussion here before making ill-considered bad faith acusations. I have no doubt that Arad offered the picture in good faith. It still fails both core policies for lack of evidence against the problems I pointed out. ~ trialsanderrors00:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think I'm qualified to weigh-in on the image quality or the historical status of the picture. But I do not believe it's racist to document racism, as long as it's done carefully and the context is clear. In fact, I think it's quite necessary to document it so that it doesn't get whitewashed. I realize I probably haven't put any arguments to rest, I just felt like contributing my two cents on the matter. --Paul19:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support a good illustration of reactionary behavior in America. "ReLease" Americans? I didn't know we could be rented in the first place. Debivort19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support My support gets stronger day by day. In my opinion it's not necessarily important if the image itself was important at the time it was taken, but just how it portrays a subject matter, like racism and how some people react completely irrationally (because it is irrational to "deport all Iranians", just because of the hostage crisis). -Wutschwlllm14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support i don't think that making this picture a FP means wikipedia supports racism. i'm jewish but if there was a really good picture of a death camp (from WW2) i would support it -Nelro20:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm suprised to see so many here describing this photo as a depiction of racism. Call it bigotry, prejudice, extremism, nationalism, jingoism, ignorance, xenophobia, isolationism, anti-immigrant sentiment, etc., but it doesn't seem to qualify as racism per se. With respect to all, the sign is rather specific in attacking members of a particular nationality, not a race. Please, no flames - I'm no apologist, but prefer precision in language. It's harder to denounce unethical behavior if we can't properly describe it. -Tobogganoggintalk00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing. Big deal. Prejudice we may call it then? Because Iran is made out of many ethinics, then it is in a way racism. It's racism to Persians, Kurds, Lurs, Parths, etc,etc. and all who live in Iran. That is in my opinion. --Arad 02:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC) --Arad02:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose, first I am Iranian and may have some kind of "conflict of interest" here. (me myself don't think so, but I am OK if you uncount my vote). let me frank, I don't see any good reason for seeing this Pic in the first page of Wikipedia; It may be offensive to some people, If you accept that it may be offensive, please stop this voting. regards,--Pejman4723:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Edit#1 Great picture, great imagery, classic. We need such a picture for Wikipedia, especially because of current events. No whitewashing, show the truth. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: im concerned if we promote this, whether people will see Wikipedia as promoting racism and anti-Iranian sentiments. Just a thought however. Ahadland13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Controversial, uncomfortable, and regrettable images bring the most attention to cultural mistakes such as this one. Do not place blinders on society to accommodate the easily offended - one sometimes must to see the needless hate of yesterday to understand the needless hate of today. - --Forzan04:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We don't know who this guy is, where the protest was (one might assume it's the Iranian embassy, but it's best not to assume these things), how massive was the protest, how much coverage this guy got, etc. In short, it's lacking a good extended caption that explains the facts around this picture. Instead, what we have is a bunch of people who are reading into it and applying their own assumptions. Now I don't think we need a POTD caption per se, just something that gives us more context. howcheng {chat}17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original — This isn't a racist photo; this photo shows racism. There is a huge difference between these two things -- that is why this image gets my support. I've looked for information on this photo or this particular protest, but the closest thing I came across was a Nov 12, 1979 Washington Post article, which I don't have access to. So, I don't know if we'll be able to find the exact location of this protest, but it is really irrelevant, as the purpose of this photo is to illustrate anti-Iranian sentiments during the Iran hostage crisis, not to discuss a particular protest. I also added a couple of different captions, maybe they'll sway you naysayers. ♠ SG→Talk21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Absent evidence that the picture is historic or shows a historic event this is still pushing an angle of the crisis that is, in comparison to others, fairly minor. Pictures of the blindfolded hostages and the downed aircrafts went around the world. This one, from all the silence by the support voters, went nowhere. ~ trialsanderrors23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The caption is well-done as far as it goes, but reveals the lack of much specific significance for the photo, and much specific knowledge about the photo's context.--ragesoss18:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Depicting racism is not a bad thing to do, but as trialsanderrors pointed out there is little evidence that this photo is historically significant. Most political protests have their share of signs written by whackjobs. If we were writers of a newspaper article or a history textbook, we would choose to depict a slogan representing the typical sentiments of the crowd, not the nuttiest slogan in sight. Kla'quot07:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe the historical context was indeed very significant. That particular time in history was also important in development of Islamic fundamentalism and it's relationship to the West and America. This picture a great example to show how all of a sudden two allied nations suddenly became enemies --Rayis18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy, bottom left edge is especially out of focus, the subject of the image is nearly a single blown highlight. Enuja01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this picture because it is beautiful! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.244.92.4 (talk)
Superb map of Livingston Island and Greenwich Island of the South Shetland Islands made by the Antarctic Place-names Commission (website) of Bulgaria in 2005 and kindly released under a free license along with all accompanying photographs (taken personally by Wikipedian Lyubomir Ivanov, Chairman of the Commission). Exceptional resolution and detail. Used in a number of related articles, including cartography.
Oppose - Yes, the map is beautiful. But important information is missing, like the scale, the labels of the contour lines, the units of the elevations (meters, feet?) and a legend with the elevation classes. The identification of the map projection would also be nice. - Alvesgaspar21:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I really didn't notice the information about the datum, principal scale and standard parallels. As for the other elements (legend, labels and units), I assume they are really missing (why should it be clear that metric units are used throughout?) - Alvesgaspar22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much information. If this were stripped of the surrounding images and the ubiquitous text, set as an image map to link to high-quality versions of the surrounding pictures, and if the jpg quality was improved then this would be a potential FP. As it is, it's a postcard from the 80's. ~ trialsanderrors23:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not only the elevation classes legend is needed, also the one with land cover classification. The way it is, there is some confusion between elevation contours and land cover limits. Definitely not FP in what cartographic quality is concerned. Alvesgaspar12:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would make a great poster to go on a wall, but the image of the island is dwarfed by the text. Images that illustrate wikipedia articles should exist for their imagery, not for their text. Unfortunately, with the fake background and chunky borders layered on top, I don't think it would featured picture quality even without all of the text. Enuja01:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uranium (chosen arbitrarily) has a high number of electrons; this diagram shows how they are arranged. :b An electron shell is a group of atomic orbitals with the same value of the principal quantum numbern. Electron shells are made up of one or more electron subshells, or sublevels, which have two or more orbitals with the same angular momentum quantum number l. Electron shells make up the electron configuration of an atom. It can be shown that the number of electrons that can reside in a shell is equal to .This image combines all the diagrams into one SVG image, at the nominator's request.
Reason
This nomination is for a set of images (think Mandelbrot), the entirety of which can be found here. While any one alone is obviously unworthy of featured status, together, the clarity that they demonstrate the concept of the electron shell (stemming from simplicity) may be worth "featured set" status. The set is comprehensive and uniform, released under an acceptable license, and every image is an SVG. It received support at picture peer review.
From the creator: My intention in creating this set was to produce a coherent set of images that demonstrated the electron shells (with the main audience being school students), they were produced to with a colour scheme to match the work already on Wikipedia so that any separate elements included on pages would not look out of place. Greg Robson21:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in
I didn't check every image, so this may be incomplete, but but the sodium image appears in electron shell and neon appears in noble gas.
Strong Support Wow! Very cool. Although perhaps not one of the most attractive image sets on Wikipedia, it is certainly one of the most illustrative. Jellocube2716:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support by creator Although not the most glamourous, they might go some way to helping some GCSE or A-level student grasp the concept in chemistry! A lot of time and effort was taken to create the different rings and get the spacings right in order to make what is an A0 (twice your standard flipchart) landscape poster! Greg Robson21:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Useful for high-schoolers only if high schoolers can find them. Convince me that the set as a whole is useful and linked in the encyclopedia in a useful way, and I'll support. Otherwise, these diagrams at lots of different articles might confuse people as to what electron shells actually are. It'll be even easier to convince me to support the periodic table version, but where would that version be in the encyclopedia? At the moment, it's linked no-where. Enuja02:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per below. Comment leaning oppose, but I'd first like to see how this is solved: 1. Neither of the two images here is in an article (a criterion). 2. Even if the table is put in an article, it's unrecognizable at thumbnail size, barely recognizable at image page size (1024px in my setup), and browsers aren't automatically equiped to handle svg's (at least mine, IE6, isn't). So there needs to be a way to display the image(s) in a recognizable form, or it (they) shouldn't be promoted. ~ trialsanderrors21:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops I should have been clearer: I meant to get rid of the old table altogether and make the new image gigantic. I did so, but in the preview at 2k px, the SVG looked blurry, while the PNG is sized at several times that, and looks fine at the size I added it in as. Go figure. (If the PNG renders better than the SVG, promote it instead — but there's probably some other reason that I don't know about.)--HereToHelp23:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support either - Very informative, and goes a long way towards making Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Mrug214:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Although I think that creator of these is very well intentioned and I applaud the effort, I do not see that these images are particularly encyclopedicly useful or informative. The only thing that can be extracted from these can be more easily stated in words or shorthand notation. It is in the present day very non-standard to routinely present this information in a graphical form and this particular graphical form is ripe for gross misinterpretation and is difficult to extract information from. For example you have to count the number of electrons in a given shell whereas the short gives you the number. There is almost no relationship between these diagrams and reality. Although there is historical precedence for these types of diagrams, they have long since been abandoned as anything but an elementary teaching tool. Some old periodic tables had these sort of diagrams but modern ones of the same detail have shorthand electron shell configurations. I believe that these have a place in wikipedia, but do not think they should be featured in their current state. I would suggest that the creator write a more detailed article about these types of diagrams, including the history of their use and why they are misleading and outdated. If they are to be featured they need more disclaimer and context than they currently do and should be presented as historical artifact and elementary teaching tool.They absolutely must not be presented as a standard modern chemistry tool. I understand the author to be a teacher and that is where these are most often encountered but usually just one or two diagrams are used to get the point across, usually following the discussion of the Bohr model, before switching to the much less cumbersome and more useful representations. I must agree that it is *cool* to have a complete set of these obscure representations. Keep up the good work.--Nick Y.21:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: I am not a teacher. I see your point, and most people would only deal with the first 30ish elements when looking at Alkane molecules and how the atoms bind and such. I think I got carried away to be honest! The later elements don't really exist long enough for practical purposes but were made as a matter of completeness. Greg Robson22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, in the name of science. What Nick Y. said. From a technical view these images are very nicely done, but from a scientific view they're next to useless, if not downright misleading. It shows an atomic model that is outdated for half a century. There's no distinction between subshells, and it even gives a wrong idea about bonds and angles. What's left is eye-candy that conveys no real information beyond what a simple enumeration would. This type of diagrams should not be perpetuated. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 5#Electron Shell Diagrams and Talk:Ununoctium#Bohr for earlier opinions. Femto22:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, Nick makes a great point... and this shouldn't be the lead image but I still think it is very well done and has its place in an article and can therefore be used. grenグレン18:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted . Unfortunately, the accuracy concerns are what ruins these excellent technical images, as the Bohr model only works for atoms with one electron. We simply can't pretend otherwise. MER-C03:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative version: Median filter faded at 25%.(Withdrawn original edit) Maison Kammerzell before 1900. Images merged.Version comparison.
Reason
Mesdames et messieurs, voilà: la maison Kammerzell (or technically, Meine Damen und Herren, hier sehen Sie: das Haus Kammerzell, since in 1900 Alsace-Lorraine was German).
Maison Kammerzell, adjacent to StrasbourgCathedral, is one of the best known examples of Renaissance architecture and one of the few secular buildings that has survived intact until today. Built in 1427 and transformed twice since, the current version dates back to 1589. This photochrom image by the Detroit Publishing Co. from the late 19th Century shows the façade virtually identical to its current state, exempting the restaurant sign, which is now in French.
Oh, and if anyone gets a chance to eat there, I recommend the choucroute aux poissons – fish on sauerkraut...
I think you're falling prey to the "bigger images create muddier thumbnails" effect here. The edit has significantly more contrast than the original. ~ trialsanderrors10:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To make clear what I intended with my edits (other than to remove the dust and some rather pesky discolorization): most of the changes were done to enhance the photochrom effect of the picture. So I didn't go for sharpness as much as for the impression of a very detailed watercolor that creates most of the visual appeal of photochromes. I could've pushed for more sharpness, but between the two it was more important for me to show that this is not, in fact, a photograph. (Well, technically it's a hybrid.) ~ trialsanderrors10:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think the Unsharp Mask looks good. The sharpness is nothing like the original and gives a distinctly different impression from the original. It does not look like a photochrom at high resolution at all, nor does it look like a watercolor — it looks like a digital image that someone ill-advisedly ran an Unsharp Mask filter on. If another edit was made from the original TIF which did not look so digitally manipulated (esp. in terms of sharpness), I would be happy to support. In this case though I prefer the original TIF to the edited version, primarily for the sharpness reason. --Fastfission14:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're talking about the median filter. The unsharp mask doesn't do any of the things you say (at a setting of 150%, the unsharp mask actually sharpens the picture, but at a 0.5px radius the effect is very localized). I'll see if fading the median does anything interesting to the picture. ~ trialsanderrors17:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support well, in any case very impressive and great for 1900 especially since there is an article about the building. grenグレン23:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose firsttentative support second - I don't like the photosopping of the first. The second shows much more detail, but it too has been filtered? Can we get a link to the original file from which these versions have been made? Debivort09:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, but gosh, now I'm more confused than before. Edit 1 with the median filter looks just like the original. Also, what does the panel of crops illustrate? Debivort18:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 90% of the photoshop effort went into stamping out dust and cleaning up discolorization. The contrast enhancement really isn't that big a deal, and I'm not sure why it's being made such an issue here. I believe the crop panels signify "I'm one of the wealthiest citizens of Strasbourg and I can afford to have my house decorated with the finest of woodcarvings". ~ trialsanderrors19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I like that I can more easily read the sign in the alternative than the original nom, by the way, more than I worry about the specks present in the original. I dunno. tough call. Debivort03:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can withdraw the first edit, if that makes the process easier. I don't think the difference is that big, and I corrected some minor mistakes in the alternative edit, so I prefer that myself. ~ trialsanderrors06:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent composition, great technical quality under hard conditions, highly encyclopedic since it's used in three articles, plus it's evocative of Richard Misrach's desert cantos. Proposed extended caption:
Salt mounds in Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia. The Salar de Uyuni is the world's largest salt flat, ca. 25 times as large as the Bonneville Salt Flats. It's the remnant of a prehistoric lake surrounded by mountains without drainage outlets. Salt is harvested in the traditional method: the salt is scraped into small mounds for water evaporation and easier transportation, dried over fire, and finally enriched with iodine.</blockquote.>
Support Awesome pic. An edit to the caption would make this a better picture. As much as I like this, there really isn't a wow factor to this pic. One of the best candidates for FP, though!--Gabycs00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a little iffy about the graininess in the sky, but, overall, it's beautiful and very explanatory. Enuja02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Images should be judged at 100% and I am hard pressed finding artifacts at normal resolution. Obviously if you zoom in far enough you'll see tons of huge square 'artifacts'... Pixles. -Fcb98115:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work. Very sharp throughout, and I disagree with Adrian Pingstone because I think the lighting is quite good. Some manual contrast tweaking could really make the pillars shine (which I would do if I had the time), but as is, it is still very good. --Asiir12:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Conditional support If someone could tweak the image a little and brighten the pillars slightly, I'd support, otherwise I'm neutral. --Mad Max21:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If your neutral why did you specify conditional support? Ahadland 15:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support edit 1 I like the contrast in edit2, but it seems a little excessive and unnatural at the bottom near the trees. --Mad Max01:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I tried to separate my dislike for the structure in general and the picture's quality... I don't know if I succeeded but I don't think it's FP material like many others. grenグレン08:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This watercolor shows Cleveland Tower as seen from just outside Procter Hall at the Old Graduate College in the noon autumn sun. The tower was built in 1913 as a memorial to former United States President Grover Cleveland, who also served as a university trustee. One of the largest carillons in the world, the class of 1892 bells, was installed in 1927. The Chapel Music program plays the bells Sunday afternoons during each semester, except during exam periods.
Reason
I, the painter, am posting a self nomination because two choices unusual for classical watercolor suit this painting particularly for illustrating the tower and the architectural style discussed in the article about Princeton University. Rather than use beige and gray splotches in a wet-on-wet technique to hint at the bricks, I used a fine brush to articulate the level of detail in the college's brickwork, which helps illustrate the collegiate gothic style. According to classical perspective, one would draw parallel lines for the vertical edges of the tower. However, this is inaccurate for lines that subtend a large angle over the field of view, and I preserved the curvature that one sees in reality in parallel lines giving a more accurate sense of the height of the tower.
Comment nice and accurate picture. It's funny, I think a friend of mine did one from the exact same place once, arch included. Be aware that paintings don't generally go through this process, unless they're uber-famous. Mak(talk)03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. It's those awful trees in the courtyard. You can't move much to the left without them blocking the tower, and if you walk to the right, you walk right into the dining hall. The facilities and maintenance person told me everyone takes the picture from that spot. Dliao03:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sheepish support - I'm inclined to support this. I think it delivers almost as much information about the place as a photo would. It is certainly a great painting. I think I am going to get wikibitten though... Debivort03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I'm puzzled with the perspective that was chosen, because our brain automatically corrects this type of distortion. I wonder if you used a photograph to paint the scene. Alvesgaspar08:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice perspective, color, detail, and medium. This is definitely an image unique to Wikipedia. I hope this inspires more wikipainters to contribute. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 13:27Z
Support a lovely, detailed painting, although the caption does have red links Ahadland 13:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The black shadowy portions in the top left and right hand corners (presumably the arch of some sort of entrance-way or corridor) is too distracting. It throws of the balance. The picture would have been equally encyclopedic (or more so) from a slightly different angle or crop that didn't include those corners as a framing device. The thumbnail gives it the look you would see in a crop of an image of extreme vignetting (such as in a fisheye lens). It is a nice painting though. (and I'd vote for it on the commons).-Andrew c02:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment(1) Hi Alvesgaspar. Indeed I painted the watercolor using a photograph, though I would say that my brain does not automatically correct for this curvature. Straight lines look curved to me, and I often draw them that way even when I'm not referring to photographs. My eyes also don't correct strongly for color temperature or color gradients. Pieces of paper look like orange sheets under incandescent light. They're shaded unevenly. I notice poorly adjusted monitors. I imagine this might be what it feels like for people who have perfect pitch to hear the same melody transposed from one key to another. (2) I should mention, Adrian Pingstone, that the stones are not accurate to the brick. I referred to order 10% of the bricks and stones from the photograph for accurate placement, and the rest were done to reproduce the basic distribution of shades, sizes, and shapes. Dliao04:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just read a little on handprint.com and thought about geometric optics. For a flat retina it's easy to show that rectilinear objects in the object plane project to rectilinear images. I haven't bothered to think about an eyeball whose retina is curved, and whose lens might (I don't know enough empirical anatomy) be distorted from the "ideal" lens to focus to a curved image surface. The curvilinear perspective is probably "real" to me because I wear a strong prescription for near-sightedness--I get significant fisheye lensing to which my brain cannot adapt. Dliao05:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Prairie Dog Washington DC.JPGA black-tailed prairie dog at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., looks out from a system of tunnels (also known as burrows), displaying its characteristic scanning of the horizon. Using its dichromatic color vision, a prairie dog can detect predators from afar and then alert others to the danger with special calls. Some researchers believe prairie dog communication is sophisticated enough to describe specific predators.Edit 1 (remove green fringing + shorter caption) A black-tailed prairie dog at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., looks out from a system of burrows, displaying its characteristic scanning of the horizon. On average, these rodents grow to between 12 and 16 inches (30 and 40 cm) long, including their short tails.
Reason
Used as the main picture in the Prairie dog article, replacing a low quality, small size government photo. There are currently no other pictures of prairie dogs of this quality so this photo fills an important encyclopedic gap. Granted, part of the prairie dog is cut off, but the photo illustrates a very familiar and common pose of prairie dogs: looking out of a tunnel system.
Conditional support. The caption needs to explain how large they get, since the image gives no indication of size. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-20 13:43Z
No, it doesn't have to! That's the purpose of the article, not a FP or PoTD caption. Taking it to the extreme, should the caption also tell us what they eat, how they mate, etc? The image doesn't show that either... Support, by the way. Cute, high enc, technically good enough for me. --Janke | Talk 14:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC
If the caption emerges as an issue, I will gladly collaborate on writing a caption that is more satisfactory. For those who aren't aware of the debate, please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Caption_Issues. ... How about this sentence from the prairie dog article: "On average, this stout-bodied rodent will grow to be between 12 and 16 inches (30 and 40 cm) long, including its short tail." --Asiir15:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The caption doesn't tell us if the thing that's pictured is an infant, juvenile, adult, male, female, and there's nothing to use as a size scale (is it the size of a horse or a horsefly?) This has nothing to do with the article, and everything to do with providing an accurate, encyclopedic image that isn't misleading or open to interpretation. It's simple enough to fix, so why not fix it? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-20 16:40Z
Comment - what's up with the green fringing on some of the stalks in the background? Oh, and the only portion of the caption that's really necessary here is the first sentence. howcheng {chat}16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered about the green fringing too. I can't remember if the background grass was actually partially green or if it's some aberration from the lens. --Asiir16:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - gorgeous photo, wish we had more like this. I'd like an even higher resolution version, but it meets the requirements. Stevage00:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Clear, beautiful, and very encyclopedic. -Bluedog423Talk
Support The FPC voters are currently undergoing consensus-building, which will result in the eventual promotion of the pic.--HereToHelp22:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jews Praying in the Synagogue on Yom Kippur, by Maurycy Gottlieb (1878). Oil on canvas, Vienna.
Reason
This seems to have become a popular illustration for all things Jewish on Wikipedia. It's featured on Commons for its quality; I'm nominating it here for its usefulness.
Comment. It needs a good extended caption. There is some good information in the description on the image page (and more on the museum page), but the prose is weak and it doesn't explain anything beyond a literal reading of the image and the personal connection to the artist. Why has this painting in particular come to stand for "all things Jewish"? What was Jewish life in Drohobycz in the mid-19th century like? Also, it says the title is "Jews Praying...", but according to the museum page it is "Day of Atonement". What's up with that? --ragesoss18:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Yom Kippur" is Hebrew for "Day of Atonement", so it's a decision in how it's translated from the original. The caption on the book I used was "Jews Praying in the Synagogue on Yom Kippur", which could as easily be read as "Jews Praying in the Synagogue on the Day of Atonement". The captions have been expanded in all articles except Judaism, which already had an acceptable caption (I think). grendel|khan20:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Extended caption" refers to the background and description material on the image page itself, which should be approximately what would go on the main page when it gets its turn on Picture of the Day. How it is captioned on individual articles is not necessarily relevant to a featured picture candidacy (though if you've improved the captions in those articles, that's a good thing in and of itself). See Wikipedia:Picture_of_the_day/March_2007 for examples, though with meaning- and context-rich images like this one, I think a longer version that can be trimmed to typically POTD blurb length would be better. Others may disagree with me about the necessity of going above and beyond a POTD blurb, but at a minimum the prose on the image page should be improved.--ragesoss04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand now. I've added an extended caption on the image page; the paragraphs I'd had previously didn't really fit into the Commons template for paintings. I've written a short paragraph for the image. grendel|khan05:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support have seen this image before its very good quality, and as a Jew I can confirm it is accurate. Although I do think they all look depressed, not exactly a celebration. Ahadland 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 22:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It is Yom Kippur--penitent and a bit hungry should be about right.grendel|khan
I was just saying, if its symbolic of all things Jewish people are gonna think all Jews are moody Ahadland 14:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Commment: How do we know that these are Ashkenazi jews, as it says in the Jewish identitu caption, whats the difference between an Ashkenazi and a Hasidic, I'm reform so I wouldnt know. Ahadland 15:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ashkenazi are of eastern European descent, and Hasids are a branch of conservative Jews. I think you mean to ask, how do we know they are Ashkenazi, and not Sephardic_Jews (who are from Iberia)? Good question. Debivort15:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ye but we dont know where these Jewish people are from they could be Hasidic, Reform, or Ashkenazi. How do we know?
Well, judging from their dress they could be Hasids, seem very unlikely to be Reform, and I think we have no way of knowing if they are Ashkenazi or Saphardic.Debivort01:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not Sephardi These people are not Sephardim, and you can tell because the two people in the lower-right are not wearing tallitim. It is the custom of all Sephardim that boys over 13 years of age wear a tallit for prayer. Ashkenazim only start wearing them after marriage. HaravM21:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without wishing to go into a Jewish studies lesson, and folloing the information here, the picture is of Polish Jews (hence Ashkenazi) in the 19th Century (therefore likely Orthodox, also separate seating for men and women). The painting is entitled "Day of Atonement", as correctly said this is the English name for "Yom Kippur". It's not encyclopedic for Yom Kippur or Jewish prayer as it's a very stylised scene. It may be encyclopedic so far as Jewish art is concerned, that's a matter for debate. Pstuart84Talk19:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a fine, compelling work of art. I say this as a Jew, but I think non-Jews will also learn something from it. YechielMan00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I feel like the voter to lurker ratio in the FPC pages is about 1:8 and every now and then an image comes along that pulls people out of the woodwork. Debivort03:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, whoa. That's uncalled for. The comment just says that people are more likely to vote on an image that speaks to them; I'd expect that a fantastic piece of LDS art would get a lot of Mormon votes, or that a great picture of the Alamo would get Texans voting for it. Please don't be so quick to assume the worst. (Also, please sign in. Judging by this edit, I think you're Ahadland1234, but I can't be sure.) grendel|khan22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I almost laughed when I saw this. This is most certainly not a depiction of devoted Jews praying to God with reverence, which is the real situation on Yom Kippur. This is also from a not-so-religious Synagogue, because the partition between the men and women sections is too short. In this kind of Synagogue, what do you expect other than some people who just think the day is all about sitting around waiting to eat again? Should not have been painted in the first place, IMO - it sends the wrong message about Jews and their real devotion. It has so much support, though, that I feel I'm helpless to prevent such a picture from seeming to others that Jews just care about eating - not praying. Oh, well. All is for the greater good. HaravM21:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I said above this was a stylised scene and therefore not enyclopedic for Jewish prayer/Yom Kippur. But it could be encyclopedic so far as Jewish art is concerned, and is certainly encyclopedic for Maurycy Gottlieb. Pstuart84Talk22:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, if it is not illustrating an article on Jewish art, why is it featured? If there is a beautiful picture of a frog which is only used on an article about flies because frogs eat flies, would that be featured (because it wouldn't really improve the article)? HaravM05:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' I would agree that the DOF may be small but I dont even see the focal area shallow or otherwise. The whole picture is strangely muddy probably from motion. Its also not particularly striking. -Fcb98115:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special about this picture, and it is not very good quality, nor does it display much photographic technique. Althepal21:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Astonishing. Great enc value, really evocative capture. My only grumble is the outrageous file size.. I have a 2mb connection and I nearly gave up waiting for the big version. Do we really need >8Mb images here? mikaul17:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Not nearly anywhere close to Prokudin-Gorskii's best work. What's the featured pictures we have already by P-G? The emir and the monastery, right? ~ trialsanderrors18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportA very serene image. I like the alternative less, partly because of the wrtiting on the stone, and the white clothing. But they're both nice. --Janke | Talk09:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose - doesn't illustrate the river as well as a modern image would. As for illustrating this photographic technique, fine, but we already have multiple FPs illustrating the technique. As for illustrating the photographer, both are pretty mediocre. Debivort09:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to disagree about illustrating the author. It doesn't clearly show him but I think the picture say something important about him and his work... so, while it may not be a portrait, its effect ends up illustrating him (as an idea) just as well. grenグレン03:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support original I really like this picture for some reason, although I'm not entirely sure why, but seems to be good quality for it's age (weak because I can see Debivorts point to some degree).Terri G16:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reguardless of texture, resolution, etc. of the first two pictures, which I'm no expert in, I oppose the two pictures, because the man is only one small bit of a larger picture. These are supposed to be portraits of a man, not pictures of scenery with a man plopped right in. The first two present a duality of focus that shouldn't be in such pictures, with focus drawn to both the scenery and the person. Kevin23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Very interesting picture, but it is not of high resolution, and the scaffold. Perhaps you could take a picture of the front of the building. ~Steptrip15:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The scaffolding has been here for several years (it was last time I went, and that was almost three years ago!) so that cannot be really repaired. The tilt can be retouched a little bit, so I'll conditionally support pending an edit. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)05:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bad shot, but unfortunately the fine detail in the fly is lost. It's fuzzy - and fuzzy, too... But do keep trying! --Janke | Talk17:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A good attempt, but not quite up to FP standard (slight blur). Windy days aren't the best for taking macro shots! Also, FYI it's a grape hyacinth not a bluebell; these are commonly confused. --YFB¿17:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the implied motion blur (Windy days), but the picture should be renamed. It's an ok macro shot. But: if the fly is the subject, its to small (too little detail), if the flower is the subject the DOF is too low. Top-notch equipment like the stuff used by Mdf (1Ds + 6000$ telelens) or Fir (pretty decent macro lens) has set the bar quite high quality-wise. --Dschwen21:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, it's not really motion-blurred, just not super-sharp at full resolution. Lens quality is probably the limiting factor here, although Dschwen is right about the DOF. If I'd taken this I'd be pretty pleased with it, but it's not an FP. --YFB¿22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to inform, it was a windy day. I did my best to avoid windy moments. And the lens/equipment is comparable to Fir's (although most likely not exceeding it). It's a Sony Alpha 100 with a Tamron 90mm Di XR II Macro lens. Not a $5000+ setup for sure, but it's most likely me and my relative lack of experience that's the limiting factor on my photos. -- KirinX23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This is as much in principle as in the name of the photo; I don't want to alienate new photographers, nor set the bar so high as to make it impossible for anyone without a few thousand dollars in equipment to take FPs. A little less blurriness on the fly's hair (I've seen images where could make out details that small), and a more in-focus flower (multiple DOFs are a real pain, so I won't complain too much) and it might be something I could support even more fully.--HereToHelp01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week support edit 1 - As a matter of fact the bar HereToHelp is referring to is pretty high, not (only) because the reviewers are quite severe in WP:FPC but also due to some exceptional pictures from our talented photgraphers,like this one. Alvesgaspar21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWeak support Ooooh, I'm a big fan of Edit #1. Come up with a good extended caption, and I'll be an enthusastic supporter. Enuja 22:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Very nice image, but it is true, as Stevage discusses below, that this isn't better than the current hoverfly main image. Enuja13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Has a good caption. The picture is displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption. The image description page has an extended caption that is suitable for featuring the image on the Main Page.
Thanks for the link! This stuff keeps changing. However, I can oppose for whatever reason I want to, and the closing admin can completely ignore me. Enuja13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I'm torn. It really is a good photo, and I really want to encourage the photographer to take more photos and submit them. However, according to the rules, it has to contribute a lot to the articles where it appears, and unfortunately that isn't the case - Fir0002's hoverfly pic is that little bit better, and thus is in the main image position. Please do nominate other photos though, and consider nominating it at Commons:Featured picture candidates? Stevage02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regardless of the merits of other photos, this one is both technically excellent and provides a good perspective on the subject. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good effort, but as biased as I am, neither is close enough to the quality of the two existing Hoverfly FP's to be worthy of becoming a third hoverfly FP. The first based on comp, and second with it's improved comp suffers from a lack of sharpness and poor lighting. Sorry! --Fir000223:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iconic image by one of the foremost female American photographers. Proposed extended caption:
Fashion photograph at Weeki Wachee spring, Florida. Toni Frissell was born into a wealthy New York City family and took up fashion photography professionally only after she got fired as a caption writer for Vogue. Even though her work spans the spectrum from society photography (amongst others, the Kennedy–Bouvier wedding) to social issues (ranch life in Texas and Argentina; Frissell also volunteered for the American Red Cross during World War II), she is remembered as a fashion photographer and recognized for her stark imagery and as being among the first to take fashion models out of the studio into nature, as this 1947 picture at the newly opened Weeki Wachee Springs roadside attraction shows.
Support. Very nice find. Good caption, but it should have something specifically about this photo as well. Who is the model?--ragesoss18:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The idea that all photographic collections gifted to the LOC are free is a lovely one, but I think it's on pretty shaky ground. Note on the LOC website for this collection "There are no restrictions known to the Library on the use of images with original negatives, with the exceptions noted below. Photographic prints for which the Library does not hold negatives may have been produced as "work for hire" and copyright may be held by the original client. Privacy and publicity rights may apply." Do we have any other evidence that this is in fact free, and not work for hire? I'm not trying to be wonky, but this is a free encyclopedia, and our FPs should be impeccably free. Sadly, the LOC does not always get it right in terms of copyright, and while they aren't going to get in trouble because of it (probably why they aren't that careful), re-users may very well. Mak(talk)23:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the link in the license box: [2] The picture is LC-F9-02, so it falls into the category where Ms. Frissell asserts that she holds/held the rights. The images have also been available commercially for a while, so if Harper's Bazaar asserts copyright then I'd think they would have taken appropriate steps already. Also, the fact that the image was published by Harper's (a Hearst publication), Sports Illustrated (a TIME publication) and in Ms. Frissell's book lends credence to her ownership claim. ~ trialsanderrors23:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that with limited preview the Google books I found have her biography but when it comes to talking about her work the pages are inaccessible. Maybe I'll stop by at the library next time I'm on campus. The name of the picture indicates it's been taken at Weeki Wachee Springs. Does that help? ~ trialsanderrors18:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is still original research and I can't confirm until go to campus next week (it's Spring Break here and I'm working from home). The Weeki Wachee Springs roadside attraction was opened in October 1947 and picture was first published in Harper's Bazaar in December 1947. So it's likely that the picture was used to illustrate an article on the new attraction. I contacted the media manager at WWS to confirm, and hopefully the December 1947 issue is available at the Berkeley library. On the "iconicness", Frissell was among the first photographers to take her models outdoors, and this is an–admittedly extreme–example of this new trend of outdoor photography. ~ trialsanderrors19:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this has to remain original research for the time being, as the Dec 1947 issue of Harper's is missing from the Berkeley library. I adjusted the caption accordingly to reflect what seems uncontroversial. ~ trialsanderrors20:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentContrary to the information on this site and the Library of Congress (!) this picture is not published in the December 1947 issue of Harper's Bazaar. I own a pristine copy of this magazine and the Frissell photo is not to be found.
Oppose Blown headlights everywhere! The sky is completely white, and the waterfall, the subject of the photograph, is blown to the point where almost all detail is lost. Combined with visible JPG artifacts, general overexposure, and a general lack of sharpness, this simply does not pass featured criteria. Thegreenj22:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:QingmingshangHetu Full.jpgAlong the River During Qingming Festival; this panorama painting is an 18th century Qing Dynasty reproduction of the famous original by Chinese artist Zhang Zeduan (1085–1145 AD) of the Song Dynasty. This elaborately detailed handscroll painting, supposedly depicting the old medieval city of Kaifeng, is among China's greatest visual masterpieces.New, bigger, cleaner version from National Palace Museum, Taiwan.
Reason
This enormous 18th century Chinese panorama painting is simply incredible. In many ways it is slightly superior to its original, painted first by Zhang Zeduan (1085–1145 AD), while this painting is a more elaborately-detailed reproduction done 7 centuries later (during the Qing Dynasty). In my opinion, it is one of the greatest panorama paintings ever made.
Oppose there is some pixilation/artifacts, and some minor stitching errors, but there's a big stitching error between a fourth and a third of the way from the left, just to the right of a bridge.--HereToHelp21:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Iconic, but certainly could be better. JPEG artifects too appearant, and why is there a break near the right? --antilivedT | C | G01:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I can see what the above users are saying about the artifacts. But it illustrates the articles well. ~ Arjun02:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Amazing image, but bad JPG compression - I may make an edit from the original source if I have time, but don't count on it. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ08:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I don't know how besides in paint which could mess with encoding quality, but) I think the best bet is downloading them all and hosting them so they are easy for someone to get. If you can download them and then e-mail them to me I can host them, I'm sure, if you can't. Then they will be easy to get for anyone with the ability to do the photo editing. (and I can try in paint, maybe + I e-mailed you my e-mail address ~_~) grenグレン03:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I got them all, pretty impressive. I'll try to put them together via Photoshop. If I can't get it to work, I'll post the html code. ~ trialsanderrors08:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've sticked them together using ImageMagick montage, and now uploading it. Should I create a new nom since this nom is near its closing date? --antilivedT | C | G10:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link which has all of the images... in case someone else wants to try. But, trialsanderrors version looks pretty nice if you download it and look at it on your computer... I'm not sure what needs to be done to it to make it work with mediawiki. So, probably no need for getting the individual ones. grenグレン10:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that about progressive scans and MediaWiki. I'll do a slight brush-up and post it as standard compression. But we should start a new nomination. ~ trialsanderrors17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to meet the FPC criteria. In WP:PPRUser:Dincher wrote "I really like the simplicity of it. The photo shows the structure of the bridge. It shows how the bridge works from an exterior view. Most covered bridges look quaint and rustic, but the photos don't show the arch that is the key to holding the bridge. This photo does. As an added bonus the photo also shows the effects that a creek has on the creek bank. Note that Larrys Creek is in its normal stream bed in this photo, but that the effects of the recent winter melt can be seen in the grasses that have been flattened on the creek bank. Looking at the picture tells me a story."
Oppose By no means is this a bad photograph. It nicely illustrates the bridge. However, if you take a look at the current featured pictures of architecture, the bar for a featured picture is higher than to what this photograph reaches. It is a nice picture, really, but it just does not have the crisp feel or the wow factor that featured pictures demand. If you are serious about getting a picture of this bridge featured, try a different angle (I find the tilt as well as the trees distracting), and take several shots to try to capture the "feel" of the bridge. A sharper focus would help, too. Thegreenj16:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with J, not inspiring when compared to current FPs. |→ Spaully°τ 16:18, 7 April 2007 (GMT)
Comment - I agree, it's an important American sport, but the picture is pretty blurry, especially when compared to sharper photos with faster-moving subjects.-129.170.50.2711:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blury. It is interesting that we dont have many really good sports shots considering they are some of the most photographed events. -Fcb98115:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that's because the quality of sports photography we'd expect for FP requires a very fast lens and access to the touch-line (rugby terminology... what do they call it in American Football?), which is pretty much reserved to pro sports photographers whose livelihood depends largely on them not releasing their work under free licences. --YFB¿18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Illustrates the concept of a fjord pretty well. A bit blurry on the right in the shadowed areas and brownish trees, but I'll overlook that in favor of the overall composition. You should definitely try for FP status on the Commons.--HereToHelp01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kjosnesfjorden is not mentioned in the article Sognefjord, so it isn't very encyclopedic. The blurr in the shadows on the right isn't as bad as the blown out highlights of the snow on the right. Enuja06:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is a little boring (too symmetrical IMO) and photographic quality is not good enough for FP. Note the lack of detail and unsharpness in some places. The darker smudge in the sky, at right, should de removed. Alvesgaspar20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Chinese bamboo book, open to display the binding and contents. This copy of The Art of War (on the cover, "孫子兵法") by Sun Tzu is part of a collection at the University of California, Riverside. The cover also reads "乾隆御書", meaning it was either commissioned or transcribed by the Qianlong Emperor.
Reason
The subject matter struck me as something I hadn't seen before, an unusual artifact. The photograph, in addition, is well composed and interesting.
Weak support, blurry (but I don't know if that can be fixed, it being a focus issue) and cut off, but I do like the composition, and it does illustrate the subject. However, I would prefer a wider shot to show the whole thing, like the whole cover. --Golbez06:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the "blurring" was depth of field, helping to communicate the shape of the object, and the "cut off" aspect was what made the composition so interesting. (is one allowed to comment on one's own nominations? sorry, I'm new-ish) stephan.com01:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, there's always the right of response and defense. :) I agree, the depth of field isn't a bad thing in itself, but it seems particularly pronounced here. As for the composition, it'd be just as interesting if the shot were taken from this same angle, but not cut off about 6 inches in each direction. --Golbez21:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current license is non-commercial. I'm not sure what the mechanics are for such a case, if it previosuly had a free license and was confirmed as such, is it still acceptable as FP even though the license was changed since? ~ trialsanderrors09:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, assuming the copyright status is sound. Despite the slight noise and blurriness in the top left of the photo, the rest of it is technically fine. Very enclyclopedic. -Panser Born-(talk)10:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A yellow badge, was a mandatory mark worn on the outer garment in order to distinguish a Jew in public. The Nazi regime forced Jews to wear an identifying mark under the threat of death
Reason
Historical value, plus it has no major technical flaws
Oppose The photograph is noisy and blurred a full size (probably having something to do with an unsteady hand an the 1/8 second exposure). Furthermore, the muddy backgroud is not ideal. A much better photograph could easily be taken under better circumstances. Thegreenj18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pin is holding it in place, and your notion that more pictures could be taken is laughable. Lets say that you had to wear a badge like that. If, on the very slight chance you survived, wouldn't you want to throw it away? Also when people were forced into internment camps, they had to wear a uniform, not a yellow badge, thus very few of them survived; hence, why it is a museum piece. --HadzTalk18:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had not meant an entirely different badge. Since this example is on display at a museum, a better photograph could be taken, or, better yet, someone with access to the badge could place it under better conditions for a photograph to be taken. Not that any that matters. The picture is of very poor quality. Just because it is a photograph of something rare does not make it featured. The poor quality is compounded by the fact that this example does survive, no matter how many may not, as you suggested, and as such a better photograph may be taken. That said, my oppose stands. Thegreenj01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that images was on the commons, I transferred it to Wikipedia and gave it a more relevant name. It is an original, hence why it is accepted into a museum. Well how else would you hold it down? If you can suggest alternative ways of taking a shot they would be much appreciated. Replicable? Fewer of these survived than you think.--HadzTalk18:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I {{NCT}}-tagged this version and moved the Commons one into the nomination here. We don't replicate Commons images on en.wiki just because they have a German file name (which is perfectly proper btw, Judenstern means Jewish star). It's replicable of course because it's still in the museum. ~ trialsanderrors19:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I generally agree with Thegreenj. Technical details could be fixed, but I'm not sure I'd ever support a version of this with the museum backing. If it is the case that this is so rare that we could never get it under better conditions then it is possible it just shouldn't be featured. But I am not sure that it's the case... it may take a long time to get a featurable picture for this subject but I think there might be one (and maybe it's not a closeup, it's a photograph with some people wearing it.) grenグレン04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are rare at all. There is a different version on eBay going for 20 dollars (although I'm pretty sure this is against policy to sell this on eBay). ~ trialsanderrors07:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can by anything from ebay, my relatives may have one, I'm Jewish. I've just never asked because its a sore topic.
A very small jumping spider of the genus Sandalodes
Absolutely tiny subject at 10mm in size, by far the smallest I've taken photos of. The difficulty in size was compounded by the fact that the little critter never stayed still!!
Shot at f/13 for as much DOF as possible without compromising sharpness, I feel this image has plenty of DOF. You have to take into consideration the subject matter here. --Fir000202:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, DOF is as good as it was going to get. you could have killed it and used a focus bracket <Its still april 1st here> but its good. I think i'd support a tighter crop, a bit too much white for my taste. -Fcb98104:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually contacted a few australian entomologists and they all said that it is probably an undescribed species. --Fir000202:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - better than the previous, but this, too has an artificial feeling - look at the shadows. Fir, have you tried a "shooting tent" to get rid of all shadows? Any thin, white canvas bag should do, the flash is outside the tent, on the inside you will have almost shadowless light... and, it will also keep your cozy critters from running away too far! ;-) --Janke | Talk09:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Janke's right about it looking artificial. But other than that, this is a nice shot, especially in terms of the ever-popular DOF-on-small-creatures complaint. It's nice to see the entire body (and half of the legs) in focus. --Tewy18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The out-of-focus legs are mirrored by in-focous legs, you can see much of the face, I'm pretty sure a taxonomist would be able to identify the spider from the picture, and, best of all, it's crisp and beautiful. It'd be even better with and extended caption on the page description, though. Enuja01:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. In addition to Janke's comments, I think the encyclopedicity is compromised by this being an unidentified (possibly undescribed) species, where even the genus may not be definitive. Also, was this taken in January 2006, as stated on the image page, or in 2007 like some of your other recent animal pics? - ragesoss
I don't see why the enc is compromised, a literally millions of insects (particularly the very small species) have not been described. But yes you are correct it was taken in 2007 --Fir000211:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry. =( Great pic overall, but there a few significant technical problems. The pic looks blurry and a bit hazy. There are also some artifacts, especially outlining the runners. Will support if a better version is found. JumpingcheeseCont@ct13:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality (looks upsampled, tilt, composition). As Witty lama said, the event is replicable. Other pictures could easily surpass this one. Thegreenj16:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think people should have a good idea which pictures could make FP before they nominate them here, and I don't think Tomer has. That's what peer review is for, to get a better idea which pictures might pass. ~ trialsanderrors04:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The animation illustrates the use of a marine sextant at sea, for measuring the altitude of the Sun above the horizon. This information, coupled with the knowledge of the exact time and the position of the Sun in the celestial sphere at the moment of the observation, allows the determination of a line of position, with an accuracy of about 1-2 nautical miles
Reason
This is a revised version of an animation already nominated in WP:FPC. I believe it helps to better understand the basic principle of the instrument and illustrates cleary its use in celestial navigation. The picture file contains a detailed explanation of the numbered frames.
Support Much improved! Just one suggestion, there is actually one last step: 5) read the elevation from the index bar. You might have the measurement "40°" circled briefly. It would make clear the purpose of the device. --Bridgecross02:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Perfect! I never knew how to use one of those things, and after just looking at the thumbnail image for a couple loops, it makes sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-09 13:26Z
Question: Would you really see the sun as a full circle? Wouldn't it just be a half-circle? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-09 13:28Z
Answer - Yes, a full circle whose size depends on the telescope in use. On the left part of the horizon mirror, which is in fact a transparent glass, the sun's image is dimmer because the reflectivity of the glass is lower. In practise, our eyes seem to melt both images. Alvesgaspar13:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is possible but I don't have the time right now. I'll have to go back to the (Corel) drawing board and double the number of frames. - Alvesgaspar20:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Brian0918 question made be realize the animation had a mistake: the white boundary line between the glass (left) and the mirror (right) should also rotate. It is fixed now. Alvesgaspar18:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Much improved, indeed, but I still don't like the simple "squishing" of the instrument when it is tilted. There really should be some perspective in that part of the animation. --Janke | Talk06:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disc for a phenakistoscope created by Eadweard Muybridge.Simulated mirror view of the above disc.
Reason
A little exercise in animated GIFs. The fixed image of the disc is from the Library of Congress, I just centered the image and tried to remove as much wobble as possible (accepting that this was probably not cut on a high precision machine), and rotated each copy by 360/13 degrees. The mirror simulation is just one variant, check the image page for the others. Proposed extended caption:
The phenakistoscope is one of the first devices to create moving images and a precursor of the zoopraxiscope and, in turn, cinematography. Conceived as a simple disc to be held vertically in front of a mirror and spun around its axis, the subjects appear to be in motion when viewed through the slits of the disc. This disc was created by Eadweard Muybridge in 1893 and differs from the standard format in that the slits are located towards the center of the disc, and not around the perimeter.
Note: The disc belongs to a phenakistoscope, and not to a zoopraxiscope as the description claims, and was probably part of a patent application filed for the zoopraxiscope in 1893, the year he presented his invention at the Columbian Exposition in Chicago.
Neutral Beautiful and well executed and I'd probably support this if I hadn't first seen a bunch of much more bizarre and fascinating phenakistoscope discs (is that what they're called?) in Media Magica which is a video (dvd) of many of these things which was exhibited at ACMI a little while back. I'd love to see more discs scanned and animated like this one. —Pengo16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Feantastic; great scan and of course the gifs are wonderful. Pengo - upload it if you can find a better one! Leon21:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment If this is indeed a phenakistoscope and not a zoopraxiscope disk, then why does the disk itself say "zoopraxiscope"? (On the bottom of the image.) Enuja23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The zoopractiscope, at least what we call a zoopractiscope today, is a precursor to the film projector, which used glass discs with motifs printed on them: [5]. But today's terminology doesn't always work retroactively, for instance the phenakistoscope was also called fantascope (see here for more detail and some nice animations). My guess is that Muybridge did not want to use the word phenakistoscope because it referred to someone else's invention, but instead wanted to draw attention to his own invention. But it's clear that by function this disc here is what we today call a phenakistoscope. ~ trialsanderrors00:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Will this be a set, then? And if yes, should some or all of the other related images (shown on the image pages) be part of the set? --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the mirror view is the one to go on the front page. I don't think the others are that relevant. If it were to be promoted as a set then it should contain this one: , but that was never nominated, and the set is incomplete anyway. ~ trialsanderrors18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This pic is similar to Image:5-54-Mark-45-firing edit.jpg in that it captures both the gun muzzle flash and projectile in the same frame. It goes a step further by adding in the human element, which makes the pic more interesting. All nine members of the M198 crew are also present. The only technical problem I can see are the blurry sandbags in the foreground. They can be cropped out, but the Marine in the lower left corner will also be cropped out. Relatively minor problem and doesn't detract from the overall quality of the pic. It's also the "Selected picture" for Portal:United States Marine Corps. Very unique and encyclopedic pic.
support Really surprised by the low noise. I'd be even more enthusiastic about a down-sampled version (maybe to 2500x1800 or so) that would make the noise pretty much dissapear. Debivort05:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! A lot of military photos get nominated because of sexy hardware, with no regard to photo quality. This is in a whole different class. --Bridgecross21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, awesome shot. There's no need for downsampling, because the software does that on the fly and people can always use a lower res on their own if they want perfectly noise-free. We need a gallery of shells-in-flight images. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazingly timed, very sharp, and demonstrative of subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raliugar (talk • contribs) 01:54, 11 April 2007
So...what good will the picture do for us if two-thirds of it is out of focus? I have nothing against tilt shift, but it doesn't exactly present the subject in a clear manner. ;) JumpingcheeseCont@ct08:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said anything other than it's a cool picture. It's copyighted anyway, so it's of no use to us. It's still always a good exercise to look around what other photographers did with the subject, an exercise far too few editors undertake. (And of course a good tilt shift picture can always be used to illustrate the tilt shift article.) ~ trialsanderrors08:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO that is not even a tilt shift photo. Bokeh certainly won't look perfectly round as in this case, the transition between in perfect focus and out of focus in the hills is way to abrupt, and I think it is just a photoshop with a layer mask on a blurred version of the image. --antilivedT | C | G08:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent! Although, I'd add to the caption some sort of reference to size and possibly maturity of the creature. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-05 13:22Z
Support mainly because its a striking subject. The technical quality is so so, and where the creature transitions to the digital black the cut out is obvious. -Fcb98115:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice detail, especially on the eye. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-05 13:25Z
Oppose - Ugly whitish border around the animal, most visible near the mouth and legs, probably resulting from light reflections off the white background. Shallow DOF. - Alvesgaspar15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for two reasons, the former being the text above and the latter Pstuart84's reason below. Not a fan of the shadow, nor the background itself. -Phoenix00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm slightly put off by photos that take a creature out of its natural environment and put it in such a sterile environment when what we are trying to capture is encyclopedicity. We lose all the value derived from context. Pstuart84Talk18:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is precisely for the value of enc that I put it on the white bg. Here you can see the frog in all detail without any distractions - why do you think scientists and sites like CSIRO use images of insects etc on a white background? Anyway it's natural environment is not very aesthetic.
I love the dark frog on the sandy background! If the whole frog was in focus, I think the picture you linked would be much better than the one you nomiated for featured status. Additionally, you wouldn't have the white edge reflection problem that's got me on the edge on support or not. Enuja03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very high quality image. As with just about any macro shot, DOF could be better but everything that needs to be seen is in focus - only the far side of the frog is OOF and we can safely assume that the frog is symmetrical. With regards to the sterile white bg vs natural habitat, I think both images may have their use in the article (particularly if there are no superior images) and you will have benefits and drawbacks to either. I agree completely with Fir0002 that it is both common and common sense to photograph objects on a neutral white background in order to isolate the subject from its surroundings. It doesn't make it unencyclopaedic. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)19:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support People sure seem to be hesitant of giving Fir more featured pictures! This is extremely encyclopedic and high-quality. Jellocube2700:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This photograph shows a 1 meter section of the GISP2 ice core taken from a depth of 1837 meters in the Greenland Ice Sheet. Annual layers are clearly visible.{{sofixit}}: Here's the crop we all wanted. It also reduces the file size somewhat.--HereToHelp15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason
Ice cores are difficult things to photograph well and few people have access to them, which I think makes this photograph quite remarkable, even if it isn't going to win any awards for artistic quality. I acquired a copy of this image from NICL staff while recently doing work there. I can't imagine a more informative image for illustrating the concept of an ice core with annual layers, and have never seen an ice core image with anywhere near this resolution. For the record, the grainy texture in close up is a property of the ice, and not the image.
Support if black border is cropped out. A down-sampling might also be helpful. Also, there is no sense of scale (a problem with our last ice nom, if I remember correctly)--HereToHelp02:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supportifcropped per HTH, except of course it's a meter long, so we don't need a "sense of scale" here. It's a scientific specimen. And the caption rocks too. ~ trialsanderrors03:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to, but I wanted to preserve the old version so the archives would make sense. Also, the new version allows it to be posted to the Commons.--HereToHelp19:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supportiff cropped, the black border adds nothing but a buffer. Agreed on sense of scale, we know exactly how long it is. --Golbez06:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the cropped version. Beautiful, encyclopedic, and the crop makes the slight background noise around the ice core almost impossible to see. Enuja20:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (either version) but it could be made more obvious that it's 1 meter long and which side is "up" (in the description). —Pengo23:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support cropped Very nice image. I love the detail, expecially how you can see the little specks of dirt scattered around the ice core. --BeefRendang
Support cropped Very nice detail, definitely makes one interested in reading the article. Does anybody know why the layers are tilted somewhat? Was the core drilled at an angle? Or can snow/ice be sloped and maintain its shape over 38 years? --Interiot00:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great enc, not blurry by 1945 standards, high rez, and good composition. It's just old. The black and white is pardonable; but I'd much prefer a dust and scratch removal edit.--HereToHelp00:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be a super-duper featured pic if it was taken in color. Very encyclopedic and good quality (minimal noise and scratches, but nothing major) for a rare WWII pic. JumpingcheeseCont@ct09:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree With Jumping Cheese. Isn't there a program to put color into black and white pictures, or did I just dream of it? Flubeca17:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Very good image. But my only concern is the blown out sky. Looks like I didn't pay enough attention. --Arad14:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, it must have been hard to assemble, as (I assume) it was shot from a boat. Please comment on the realism of the colors. --Dschwen15:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was shot on a shaky boat so the stiching was hard to do. If anyone knows how to fix the obvious error I would greatly appreciate it. As for the colors I believe they are all the same as when shot (I'm not exactly sure what MattWright did), but I know a little bit of blue sky was added to the top left to make the picture even. Remember15:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you give me the originals I could try a restitch. I cannot promise anything if there was too much movement between the shots, and it won't make the pic an FP for me either because of the exposure issues. But for the article a fixed stitch would definitely be worth the trouble. --Dschwen08:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - Blown sky and the loss of detail in the shadows to the right are minor detractors, but my major concern is the huge jump in the shore about one third way to the right. It just jumps up! Thegreenj14:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for the feedback. I was pretty sure this was going to fail, but I a variety of positive feedback on the picture so I thought I would give it a shot. Any idea how I can remove this picture from being nominated? Remember13:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As much as I hate to throw this back at you, the photograph is not sharp, crisp or bright. The photograph is also poorly framed and has a distracting background. Thegreenj22:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The entire picture barely meets size requirements, but the five individual components don't come close. Plus, the full size shot of the battle of normandy is already featured.--Uberlemur14:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Collections only work as FPs if they are a "complete" set IMHO (e.g. the hot-air ballooning one recently). Not only is the normandy shot already an FP, the "red flag over the reichstag" too. Wittylama17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hydrangea macrophylla "Nikko Blue" petals. H. macrophylla is unique in botany, in that flower color is dramatically affected by the ph of the soil. In a low ph (acidic) soil, aluminum ions are absorbed by the roots and transmitted to the flower buds, producing a blue hue. In high ph (base) soil, the roots cannot absorb aluminum, and the flowers will remain pink or red.
Reason
Beauty of the image, also serving as an illustration of a very unusual capability posessed by H. Macrophylla. Well suited for computer wallpaper.
Oppose A bit fuzzy. It looks like the picture has been artifically coloured blue rather than natural colour. It would be more encyclopaedic if there were pink and blue flowers in the same photo. Wittylama06:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominatorPlease note: There was absolutely NO digital alteration in this photo. The color was painstakingly produced through gardening Shmoopy12:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you, I do not mean to appear otherwise - it just looks digital. If you could get a pic with the different types of colours then this impression would not occur. Wittylama17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - although it's clearly not been tweaked for colour, it could have been better lit and you really can't expect even the best of lenses to produce FP-quality macro shots if they are set to f2.8 ... fairly encyclopedic, but not enough (agree with "both colours" comments) to forgive these errors. mikaultalk09:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject is cut off, backgound is poor (the road is distracting and the portion of another automobile is even worse). Portions of the car are blown (mainly the engine). Also, some smaller distracting features are very small halos from sharpening and very slight, but still noticeable, amounts of chromatic abberation. Also, when nominating, it usually is better to give the virtues of the image rather than of the subject ("A rare and beautiful GP car") because featured pictures a chosen as being exceptional images, rather than snapshots of exceptional subjects, as this one is. Thegreenj21:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx for the comments. The photo is straight from the camera with no sharpening, cropping or alteration so any jpg artifacts, halos, or chromatic abberations are probably the result of a crap camera. This is my first attempt at a 'featured picture' so I'll try harder next time. Russellsmithies00:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the "crap camera," the majority of my oppose stems from your angle, exposure, and background. Try again on the same camera with a different composition; you will be amazed at the increase in quality you alone, as the photographer, can make. Also, though I am not a huge fan of excessive photoshopping, it can't hurt to clone out those purple fringes, and your camera probably has has "sharpness" setting that you can lower just a tad ensure that you do not have halos or other sharpening artifacts. Thegreenj03:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No you are not. But this is absolutely irrelevant. From Copyright: work once created from originality through 'mental labor' is instantaneously considered copyrighted to that person. This has nothing to do with the license, and in fact the image page states: the copyright holder allows the image to be freely redistributed, modified, used commercially and for any other purpose, provided that their authorship is attributed, which is a perfectly acceptable licensing for FPC. --Dschwen14:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An historical picture I could support, but this photo can be taken by any visiting tourist - therefore it should be an especially good photo. Unfortunately this just doens't have "it". Also, the people are distracting. Could do with a crop too. Wittylama15:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The place has been littered with people since its inception, its like a tradition. The facty that it is so "littered" with people would I think make it more valuable, as it suggests that humanity is beginning to learn something to prevent it from happening again --HadzTalk16:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I caused any offence, I chose my words carelessly. But I think that this photo could benefit from better composition; it's a snapshot, albeit of a site with enormous significance. Pstuart84Talk16:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I don't really mind the tourists so much as to the quality of the pic. It's high-res, but not very sharp. Very important piece of history though. Will support if a sharper version can be found or taken. JumpingcheeseCont@ct20:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sometimes you can get great shots with a point-and-shoot, if you set it to 'highest quality' and get the lens to stop down a bit. I'm afraid this isn't one of those times; despite 8mp and nice flat lighting there are big jpeg artefacts and general softness due to being shot with a wide-open lens. Compositionally, that left-hand cluster would have to have been out of frame and/or the main cluster better isolated from the rest the rest before it was anywhere near WP:FP anyway. mikaultalk14:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An animated naval gun turret, based on a British 15 inch turret Mark 1. Ordnance is loaded into a hoist at the shell room, then powder magazines are added from the powder room. The hoist then transfers this load to the top of the turret, where the shell and gunpowder are loaded into the gun barrel and discharged. The cycle then repeats.
Oppose Enc OK (maybe - shouldn't there be people moving the stuff from storage to elevator?), but no "wow", nor graphically appealing... --Janke | Talk05:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose I really like it, but it needs polishing. Not sure where... maybe show people, not necessarily animating them loading, but just having them there to 1) show scale, and 2) place them where human interaction is needed, like loading the magazine into the lift. As for scale, I understand the whole thing might not be to scale (but if it is, awesome), but it is specifically based on a 15 inch turret, so it would be nice to have a human scale for that. But honestly, I like it a lot. --Golbez06:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- I agree it needs polishing. The animation should be smoother and maybe a little slower. Suggest that the shooting moment is emphasized. Alvesgaspar11:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Weakest oppose. If you can make the motion smoother, I'll support. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-06 13:09Z
Very weak oppose In addition to the above (slow it down!), I'd like a little bit of whitespace at the top of the animation so the gray doesn't extend all the way to the top. Also, can we get some kind of blast from the end of the barrel?--HereToHelp14:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Excellent animation that aids understanding. Always liked Emoscopes' clear animations, so support - with a few of the above tidyups, strong support. M0RHI | Talk to me22:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per above, the shooting moment should be included. Also the magazine section is not smooth compared to the rest of the animation.Wittylama23:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question How do the bits in the magazine move into the lift thing in trunk? In an animation, drawing arrows for movement are unneeded shorthand. (it'd probably help if the bits and the lift thing were labeled too.) —Pengo23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludicrously weak oppose It is an extremely good picture, reasonably high resolution, and very informative, but the part where the explosive charges are loaded from the magazine into the lift could be made clearer (i.e. how the charges are carried from the magazine to the lift). Otherwise, this is a very good picture. BeefRendang04:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it would seem that TomStar81 has notified Emoscopes about everyone suggestions, so you should seem some improvements soon. Its a very good find on his part, and a great addition on Emscopes part. Well Done! 70.254.22.16406:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I am a fan. Comment, great image... I agree with some of the opposes and I only don't vote support in hopes that it will encourage someone to make a few fixes with the image.grenグレン18:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, from the creator so I shan't vote. I have incorporated the above suggestions, and there is a labelled and unlabelled version now, with numbers only, to make it more multi-language friendly. EmoscopesTalk12:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a great bit of work; Emoscopes is to be commended for responding to the requests for changes so quickly. If I might make one further small suggestion, I'm not sure whether the gun returning to zero elevation for each loading is accurate - surely that would greatly reduce the firing rate? I'll conditionally support based on someone correcting either me or the animation :-) --YFB¿17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Large guns of this era either loaded at a fixed elevation (when the rammer was fixed in the gun house), or at a limited range of elevations (like this gun, where the rammer is carried on the cradle). You have to bear in mind that a shell and cordite for each gun weighs well over a ton, and it is mechanically simpler, and the cycle is actually quicker, to have the gun load at a low or fixed elevation, and then rise to the required elevation to fire, before returning to load. This particular gun could be loaded between -5 and +20 degrees, (hence the "S" shaped upper hoist track) but I really wanted to emphasise the loading limitations in the drawing. These guns could elevate through a 35 degree arc and with a rate of elevation of 5 degrees per second, when the whole loading cycle takes around a minute, you really aren't slowing things down. Later weapons, such as the BL 16 inch /45 naval gun returned to a fixed loading elevation due to the enormous weight of ammunition. Hope that clarifies things! EmoscopesTalk22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I previously withheld from voting because the original version seemed to only marginally meet FP standards. The edited version is much better and takes all the critiques into consideration (constructive criticism does work!). Very encyclopedic and lovely animated pic. JumpingcheeseCont@ct10:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Parts of the red line, labeled "main deck" but seemingly part of the turret, have different thickness. Is that on purpose? It looks implausible. ~ trialsanderrors19:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's on purpose, I forgot to clarify in there annotation that this represents the armoured portion of the ship. The barbette is clindrical, so the section is cut through it, hence the difference in line thicknesses (imagine looking at it from the front). EmoscopesTalk06:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- A beautifully accurate diagram, everything from the blast doors on the lifts and the cordite magazine in a simple, aesthetic and easy to follow illustration. I'd love to see this on the main page, my only negative point is that I didn't think of this first! well done. WikipedianProlific(Talk)22:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted, shallow DOF is not appropriate for this shot nor is the small part of the photograph in focus important (the spedometer), blown background, fair amounts of noise for a photograph where lighting can be staged, subject partially cut off, chromatic aberration around blown portions of steering wheel... Need I say any more? Thegreenj21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it is true that the 1930 Phantom provides a nice contrast, it is destracting. Try to keep the subject the only point of interest in the photograph. The people as well as the other automobiles in the background are distracting, and the completely blown tents and sky are major detractors from the picture. The portions of grille frame and the ornament are also blown. Before I forget, there also is chromatic aberration around the trees , tents and background cars. Poor image quality too. Did you read the criteria before nominating? If not, please do so. Thegreenj21:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do thank you for the depth of your constructive criticism, but a slightly less patronizing tone would be very much appreciated. My editor did put this photograph on the front page of the newspaper in 2005, and it appeared in the company newsletter, so while it may not be up to your standards, I hardly think it is the piece of trash you make it out to be. By all means oppose it, but please voice your opinion in a way that is, for lack of a better phrase, less cruel. Jagvar22:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise. I assume when you say that I made your photograph out to be a piece of trash, you refer to my comment that it is of poor image quality. I should have specified that I meant that the image didn't have the photographic quality of a featured picture, having present, though tolerable, amounts of grain and lacking the crisp feel that many FPs had and that would be appropriate. If there was something else I said that was "cruel," tell me, and I will be happy to specify in a more objective manner. I try not to be overly opinionated and there is something that I can physically point out in the photograph for each of my objections, if you request. Otherwise, I hope you know the very high quality expected by Wikipedia's featured status. A newspaper photograph need to illustrative and clear, which this photograph is. However, a featured picture goes beyond that; it rises far above most snapshots. I am always impressed with every single featured picture. Give them a look, and then ask yourself, "I know this is a good picture, but is it that good?" Thegreenj23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your succinct explanation. It seems I merely misinterpreted your tone before. Lord knows I am always open to constructive criticism; I'd never improve without it. Jagvar23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This narrowly missed out on a previous nomination and in my view it lost unfairly. I believe this is an excellent picture and is of high quality, it is also striking and illustrates earwax in the best possible way. The fact that the object of the picure is an everyday thing does not affect its encyclopedic value.
Oppose per previous nomination. The photograph does not illustrate anything particular about earwax. The swab takes up most of the photograph, and places the earwax in a very unnatural position. The earwax, which this photograph tries to illustrate, is just an amber spread of jelly tangled in the fibres of a swab, not to mention that the actual wax takes up far less than 1000 pixels in any direction. Just for example, perhaps a picture under a microscope might reveal something new, something words cannot describe as the picture can. The blown top is also a very minor portion of my oppose. I really cannot see anyway to take a photograph of earwax that is featured quality. Sorry, but this just doesn't cut it for me. Thegreenj00:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC) check out the time![reply]
Oppose Though it is high res, the pic is not decriptive of ear wax nor of cotton bud - I do not understand the subject more having seen the pic. As per user:Thegreen a microscope pic of ear wax would be a better representation. The pic is replacable, has an out-of-context subject and is uninspiring. Wittylama01:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Anyone with a Canon 5D or better can take the same shot a million times. Maybe the only thing that makes it special is that the person hadn't cleaned his ear for years for taking this picture. As said before in previous nomination, If I take a very good quality of a urine in toilet, does it mean it's FP? Although I admire the quality of the photo, but the credit goes only to the camera. --Arad02:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is the photographer, not the camera, who takes the picture. Admittedly, having good equipment helps, but even though I'm trying to assume good faith, your comment seems to place the credit of image quality in spite of the photographer. Please, don't make accusations that the only reason a photograph looks good is that it was taken by a good camera despite an inept user. Anyone with the money could buy a 5D, but not anyone can shoot a picture like this one. Thegreenj02:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Arad merely sees it as an ordinary shot with a high quality camera. I don't think he's trying to belittle anybody, just state his opinion that the work isn't special. So, zip-a-dee-doo-dah, and it's only a different view on what makes for good photos. grenグレン02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you gren. Of course the author is the one who created the photo. I just wanted to say that the picture doesn't have much artistic value IMHO. As mentioned above I really don't want to belittle the author. I admire his contribution of such a good quality photo to Wiki. It's just that this pic is not special enough IMO. It's certainly a QI though. --Arad03:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I have mostly stopped contributing images now due to comments exactly like the above. It's simply not worth doing high quality work, and doing low quality quick work isn't personally fulfilling. Leaving a computer running an unattended pywikipedia bot gets more appreciation than careful photographic work. For most of my macro work (including this one) I machine custom mounts for the object, backdrop, and lighting... I shot well over a hundred exposures trying numerous variants on the image, subject, lighting. For each exposure I captured a color calibration target (well, except for the UV sources, since thats somewhat meaningless). It's easy for people to criticize the image "oh you should have tried X". Well guess what, for any X I probably did, and it didn't work for me. Under a microscope? Did it, totally uninteresting. In someone's ear? tried it, couldn't manage to find a composition where you could both see the wax and tell what you were looking at (which is incidentally why I had the high brightness UV sources, I was hoping it would make the wax in the ear more obvious). The cotton specimen swab was recommended to me by a nurse, and I wasn't able to find anything better... although it never was as cool as I'd hoped, it at least has yuck value. In any case, I don't much care if you feature the image, but could you at least spare me the "anyone can do as good/better". At least when I've said things like that, I've gone out and done it. --Gmaxwell04:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about "anyone could do it". I tried to get a nice image of pralines and you can see the results. I think part of it is a lack of understanding of what it takes to do good photography (at least on my part) but my only point was that while it may be misguided, it isn't meant to be impolite. Back to the subject, earwax is one of those things that it's almost impossible to find a good context for... unlike Image:Oktava319.jpg which is an incredible shot--even if it's only because you have a good camera :) That is definitely FP material. grenグレン05:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gmaxwell, I understand what you're saying and that the technical quality it very good. And that's all because you took the measures needed to take the picture. No doubt about that. But still the image is not special. And I think, the quality is much because you have a good camera :-) (not to discredit you) + you have experience. Nominate it for QI and I support. --Arad21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and <rant> - I'm struggling to find adequate words to support not just the nomination but the sentiments expressed by Greg above. I find this selection process a HUGE disincentive to uploading top quality work both here and on COM:FP for the simple reason that it suffers from this unbearable "photo-critique website" factor. The first oppose for this image is simply astonishing in its inappropriateness. Really, photoSIG and the like are great (recommended, in fact!) for those wishing to hone their skills, either as photographers or photo-critics, but Wikipedia is not the place for either of these things. This should be a place to recognise the best in encyclopedic illustration in as objective a way as possible, period. Who cares if you don't like to look at pictures of <insert object/subject/substance>? Criterion 7 has such a lot to answer for.. </rant> By any criteria, this shot is clearly the best we are likely to get of this subject - well-lit, carefully considered, sharp and well-resolved, with great colour balance and accurate exposure: generally, a well executed illustration of an extremely difficult subject, cleverly scale-referenced (you don't know how big a q-tip is?) with top encyclopedic value. That's what makes it "special". mikaultalk10:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. And a great camera alone doesn't take good pictures, it just enables a good photographer to make the best out of his skills. Support, like last time. --Dschwen18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I'm aware that Greg sees the opposition to this image as an indictment of the FP process. For what it's worth, I've had a look at his Commons contributions and there are a lot of great images there, many of them featureworthy in my opinion. Grenavitar has highlighted one above. To me, though - disregarding the yuck factor - this one just doesn't say 'featured picture'. It's technically good and I appreciate that a lot of work went into it - maybe it is the best possible representation of earwax, although I doubt that: the cotton bud dominates the image and the cotton strands lend a fibrous texture which is misleading. I'm inclined to think that a top-down, neutrally-lit view of the earwax on a lightbox background might be a good way to shoot it. I don't have access to a lightbox so, before you say it, I can't fix it. Even then, would it draw the reader's attention, inspire curiosity? I think Greg hits the nail on the head when he says "Did it, totally uninteresting". Some subjects just fundamentally do not possess the visual excitement needed to make a great photo. Decry the injustice of the process if it rejects genuinely interesting images for being aesthetically unpleasing, but I don't think that's the case here; only a few days ago there was a minor controversy because the main page FP was someone undergoing what looked like fairly horrific eye surgery. That's never going to be nice to look at but it does grab the interest of passers by, in a way that no earwax photo is ever likely to. AFAIC, that's a large part of what Featured Pictures are all about. --YFB¿19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear. I don't see that people don't want to support this image as an bad mark on the process, rather I see the "oh anyone could do that" as a mark of broken and harmful culture. We should expect people who are saying "anyone can do this/better" to step up and actually do so... W e Seperatly I also think we have a systemic bias in favor of "gorgeous" images vs ones with encyclopedic merit, after all FPC is our best images not pretty-photo-gallery.com's best images. ... but I would probably select a different image than this one to make that point. As far as your suggestion... we have such an image, look at German Wikipedia. I think it's without scale and confusing, but perhaps you'll like it better? From a get people's attention perspective, I think this one does well. Opinions are expected to differ. --Gmaxwell20:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I think the bias issue is important too, since it over encourages people to create 'beautiful' images rather than really excellent images that we need.. but it's not what I was complaining about here. --Gmaxwell20:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't very clear either. I was referring to this discussion where you mentioned that this picture was originally nominated as a 'test case' to see if opposition was based on wallhangability rather than encyclopaedic merit. I totally agree with you about "anyone could do that" comments and it's true that there have been a distasteful number of those, particularly on nominations of 'everyday' subjects. Equally, we need to be very careful that "OK, go take a better one" doesn't become an acceptable reason to disregard an oppose vote.
I find your comment about the de.wikipedia image somewhat disingenuous; it's not backlit (which would illustrate the translucency), it's poorly photographed and we both know that with the right equipment, a much better example could be produced. A scale reference could easily be provided - maybe your cotton bud, or perhaps something smaller for a closer viewpoint - without it becoming the main subject of the photograph. I still wouldn't necessarily expect it to be featureworthy, but it might be closer to 'the best possible photographic representation'.
As far as 'getting people's attention', this is subjective and opinions will differ. Wikipedia is built on consensus and if the balance of opinion is that something isn't all that eyecatching as a representation of its subject then that's not a reflection of a broken process/culture/whatever, even if the consensus turns out to be that the subject is inherently not eyecatching.
I don't know if I agree with you about systematic bias in favour of 'beauty'. We don't actually have that many 'pretty flower' FPs and nominations of that sort tend to get a very picky reception. Nature provides a vast array of potential subjects so there's bound to be a lot of nature FPs, but by no means are they all beautiful by conventional standards. --YFB¿20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I find your comment about the de.wikipedia image somewhat disingenuous" gah! I haven't looked at it in many months. In my mind it's perfectly a perfectly backlit image. :) In any case, my own reason for not posting an image like that is because I though it was uninteresting and useless without scale. For more detailed subjects that works but here? I dunno. --Gmaxwell20:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't believe users are citing lack of relevancy. If an article is on earwax, and the nominated picture is of earwax, then it's relevant--especially since it's Google's #1 hit for large picture searches of "earwax." Rant's over, but this picture is (1) of high quality, (2) encyclopedic, and (3) in the form most observed by everyone (on a swab).-DMCer07:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A technically difficult photograph to take, in spite of some inaccurate implications to the contrary. Highly encyclopedic in my view, although admittedly not pretty. --MichaelMaggs17:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article is very illustrative of its subject, high quality, and actually visually compelling--not an easy feat for a picture of earwax. Calliopejen100:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as last time. I realize Greg put a lot of effort into making the image, and I appreciate that effort. But the amount of work that went into making an image is not a criterion for judging feature-worthiness. -- Moondigger15:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The website this images comes from doesn't list the permission given in the template. Its license says sharing the image is prohibited and the image is a possible deletion candidate on the commons. - Mgm|(talk)09:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original – Mont Saint-Michel in Normandy (Manche), France at night.Edit 1 – another version taken a few minutes beforeEdit 2 – This version doesn't have the lights from the car coming the other way, nor the red backlights of some car on the left. Dark parts have also been brightened slightly.Edit 3 – Edited the most recent alternative for less bright highlights and brighter shadows.
Reason
This is a beautiful capture. More importantly, detailed pictures of Mont Saint-Michel are rare, one usually finds pictures taken from hundreds of yards away. Also, the minimal noise level (despite the light in this shot) is difficult to achieve.
Oppose While it may have been a tough exposure, the lighting is blown in places as well as the shadows in others. What a beautiful place though -Fcb98115:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, it is blown out in places and that is something you get in night shots... and it's surprisingly crisp, but I don't think this image really does a great job of representing the subject. Part of it is that maybe for old structures like this night shots are out of place because the lighting doesn't fit, and part of it is because it's difficult to see the main structures. Definitely a lovely place. grenグレン18:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm user Benh from commons and the author of the picture. I uploaded another version of the candidate which has brighter dark parts since it was taken a few minutes before. It's also post processed to help. I also rotated it slightly to the left since it was tilted. Unfortunately, there's a car coming the other way which spoils the picture... Blieusong12:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original The headlights in the lighter version does spoil it. Although the original does have a few blown highlights, it's not more than expected from a long exposure night shot. The lighting also creates a more dramatic images compared to the lighter one. Besides the few blown highlights, the images suffers from no other significant problems. Very unique and encyclopedic pic. JumpingcheeseCont@ct14:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've found another picture, taken after the first two ones, which may addresses most of the flaws mentionned above. Blieusong17:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Edit 3, it looks quite good this way, only some bits are still a little bright. If it were any darker though the other bits would be too dark, so I suppose this is the best that can be done. typhoonchaser06:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original or Edit 2 Only I love the dark sky of the original. The most important thing that I love in this picture is the mood of the dark sky and the castle. I like the detail in edit 3 but it's too bright for me. So I support those with dark sky. Only one question, Are those white dots dead pixels or stars? Because they look weird. --Arad02:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
they are stars (look at picture in chronological order, edit1, original and then edit2 to check) and I yap I found them "weird" too. Since I'm here, I Oppose Edit3 which looks too unnatural/overprocessed to my taste. Blieusong19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common Jassid Nymph, Eurymela fenestrata on a eucalyptus branchAlternativeVersion 2 of Alternativerotate and crop of V2
Pushing the envelope again in regards to extreme macro. This time the specimen clocks in at around 10mm - absolutely tiny! Before focus brackets get mentioned I just want to remind people that this was taken in the wild on a breezy day so this was a moving target! Taken in Swifts Creek, Vic, in January 2007
The alternative, though not as close up, better shows the symbiotic relationship between this species and Meat Ants.
Comment: I like the alternative (not the original) a lot, but cannot fully support it because the ant is cut off, and there is a cut-off leg (of this, or another nymph?) on the left. A great shot of a difficult subject, for sure! --Janke | Talk07:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've uploaded a version with less cropping, but due to the congested way these insects live it's pretty much impossible to isolate one. I can provide an even less cropped image with more of the LHS nymph if you want - or I can have a shot at cloning it out :-) --Fir000208:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For one, that would mess with the human-intuitive natural lighting. I won't go on with why that'd be a bad idea beyond the purely technical level. —Pengo22:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support alternative or alternative v2 weak oppose original - I'll switch to strong support if the images are included in myrmecophile. Actually I'd prefer the rotated and cropped version I just added. Debivort04:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative 2 - Another great one from Fir0002; keep it up! :-) - just a bit of info, in case you didn't already know - I think the ant is 'milking' the nymph, or rather collecting its honeydew secretions. Is it possible to include that in the caption? Mrug221:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative version 2, oppose rotated and cropped version, since the effect of gravity and lighting make it very confusing. Mak(talk)20:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. — Although this is a really impressive (pair of) photo(s), the angle and positioning of the front leg makes it really hard to see the head. — The Storm Surfer01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Buzz Aldrin's footprint. Taken by himself on the first manned mission to the moon July 20, 1969. It was part of an experiment to test the properties of the lunar regolith. It is possibly the most important thing left on the moon by humans.
Reason
Historical Significance, Irreplacability, Recognisability, Representative of Topic, High image quality.
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. But then again, I suppose it would be easy enough to hire out the hollywood soundstage and re-recreate it :-P Wittylama08:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it's hard to tell if someone is being sarcastic or serious online compared to the real world. For all I know, fcb981 could have been dead serious (maybe I read the talk pages of the conspiracy pages way too much). There was no context clues that suggested that fcb981 was being sarcastic. A "yeah" or "totally" would have suffice. =) JumpingcheeseCont@ct08:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have two problems. Do we know that the + signs are part of the original photograph? If they aren't we should try to find a version without them. Also, I'm not fully sure this really represents either of the two articles so well. I suppose an FP doesn't need to be the central image of its articles, but it helps. grenグレン08:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All lunar pic taken by the camera has + crosshairs (not sure why, positioning?). Currently, the pic on the right is used on the regolith page, which is especially representative of the page. I guess the original pic can be replaced with the FPC on the regolith page. JumpingcheeseCont@ct10:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation of the crosses: First, they are indeed in all space photos taken with Hasselblad cameras, specially modified with a glass pressure plate to keep the film flat (image area equiv. to 120 type film, but these cameras used 70 mm film, without backing paper). The crosses are on the glass for measurring purposes; first, their exact position is known, and any distortion in the lens can be corrected for. Second, they can correct for any shrinkage of the film itself. Just so you know... --Janke | Talk14:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not perfect quality, but you can't expect that from a picture taken by an astronaut on their first moon mission. Historic value alone is enough to feature. - Mgm|(talk)10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rosie the Riveter is a cultural icon of the United States, representing the six million women who worked in the manufacturing plants which produced munitions and material during World War II while the men (who traditionally performed this work) were fighting in the Pacific and European Theaters. This "character" is now considered a feminist icon in the US, and a herald of women's economic power to come.
Reason
Some monthes ago I tried to get this image through FPC and it failed, mainly due to my inability to locate and upload a higher resolution version; however it has come to my attention that this new version is higher resolution and better quality. I therefore renominate this image for FP status. I wish to thank User:Pharos for finding and uploading this new version. This nomination is as much mine as it is his.
Support Flawless scan, assuming that the speckles are halftoning artifacts present in the original poster. The poster could not be more iconic or significant, and deserves to be a FP all the way. Thegreenj22:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's funny that nobody mentioned the fact that this kind of gesture is considered rough (or even obscene) in some countries. I would never considerer the possibility of hanging such a picture in my office! - Alvesgaspar07:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bwah ha! I never considered that! She's rolling up her sleeve, of course, the universal symbol of Getting Down to Business. Just a slight change in her fingers and it's a different gesture. Perhaps that's what the artist intended; "I'm gonna build a plane, a ship, and put THIS up Hitler's butt!" --Bridgecross14:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really relevant here though unless it got picked up by a secondary sources, in which case it can be worked into the caption. What's more relevant here is that this is not Rosie the Riveter at all. This is the actual Rosie the Riveter. ~ trialsanderrors21:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ya'll gotta learn to take life in broad strokes and umbrella terms, otherwise you'll miss out on lots of life's simpler things. In this case I am using Rosie the Riveter in a broad sense to include most/all of the women who replaced men in the factories. Under this definition the painting does indeed show "a" Rosie, even though it may not actually be "the" Rosie. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about me missing out on the simpler things in life, "Rosie's" non-Rosie-ness is just something that should be noted in the caption. ~ trialsanderrors04:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Is Rosie a real person (as noted in the article) or a cultural icon? Was the pic what coined the term or is it an illustration of the "Rosie the Riveter" icon. JumpingcheeseCont@ct11:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paris' Périphérique by night at Porte d'Italie (Paris is on the left side of the picture). The Périphérique was built in the early 1970s on the empty space left abandoned after the destruction of the defense wall of Paris in the 1920s, and completed on April 25, 1973. It is the generally-accepted boundary between the city proper (approx. 2 million inhabitants) and the suburbs (more than 9 million inhabitants), as it is situated along Paris's administrative limit (excluding the Paris heliport and the outlying woods of Boulogne and Vincennes).
Reason
It's a really stunning picture, and it also does a good job at highlighting the sheer volume of traffic that passes along the Peripherique.
Oppose, cool to look at but isn't very encyclopedic and I disagree with that statement that "it also does a good job at highlighting the sheer volume of traffic that passes along the Peripherique" - I can't tell how much traffic there is at all. User:Veesicle03:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Your nomination says said “It is rather rare” but on the article page it says “It is a widespread and common resident breeder in coniferous forests throughout central and northern Europe and in deciduous woodland in France and the Iberian peninsula.” Pstuart84Talk14:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are either of the comments referenced. If so assume that the referenced one is true, if not, do some digging :-P. HadzChat 19:24 GMT
Oppose It's a good picture, but there are more impressive ones at Hoodoo (geology). One problem with this shot is the edge between the shadowed cliff on the left and the sky; it's got some kind of edge artifact. Enuja05:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It certainly looks over-sharpened; the older Canon compacts are usually quite soft around high contrast margins but they do show a lot of colour fringeing, which seems greatly exaggerated here. To be fair, you are asking a lot of this sort of camera to deliver the detail people expect here. It could use a fairly heavy left/top crop and I'd still want to see more of the scene off the bottom of the frame, I think. Not a bad-looking pic though. mikaultalk15:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right about the compacts are usually quite soft around high contrast margins but they do show a lot of colour fringeing. The same thing happened here Image:Bryce Canyon Hoodoos 4 edit.JPG
Oppose - Not sharp enough for a photo of a static subject like this; the composition and lighting aren't bad but there's a lot of fringing and not much detail. As others have said, you're really going to struggle to get a featured picture out of this camera; you might manage if you can make a many-image mosaic and downsample heavily, but it's a lot of work and far from guaranteed to give good results. --YFB¿00:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is just too bizarre to pass up on nominating. The photo says so much about the unusual institution that is the Stanford Band and about Stanford University's culture in general. The color mix is aesthetically pleasing; the composition isn't perfect, but its imperfections don't distract too much from its main focus; and it's funny as all hell. [Full disclosure: I am closely associated with Cal, Stanford's arch-rival, but I've admired the Stanford band ever since they got themselves banned from the entire state of Oregon after their infamous "Spotted Owl Show" at UO a decade and a half or so ago. --Dynaflow18:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Strong Oppose This may be a interesting subject but this photo in no way represents it. I am none the wiser having seen it - therefore it's unencyclopaedic. Also, too small, bad composition. Wittylama22:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. It was the first submission to this the particular area of Wikipedia by an editor who's only been very active in Wikipedia (elsewhere) for a few months. Please assume good faith. I withdraw the nomination and change my vote to oppose in light of more experienced editors' comments. Thanks for your consideration. --Dynaflow12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Built between 1924 and 1933 the four original buildings comprising the Cook Law Quadrangle at the University of Michigan were constructed using funds donated by William Cook, an alumnus of the school.The National Jurist magazine has ranked the University of Michigan Law Library fourth out of a total of 183 law school libraries in the nation. [7] The Library's original quarters have been augmented by an extensive addition that has received architectural awards for its creative use of underground space.
Built between 1924 and 1933 the University of Michigan Law Library has received architectural awards for its creative use of underground space.
Reason
I feel that the image is an accurate and striking example of the Interior of the University of Michigan Law Library, it would be hard to understand the feel of the Library unless you can see it.
Now that the timestamp has been cropped, I can look at the merits of the picture, and I agree with the below. Maybe if it was centered in the library, and maybe looking a little up to catch more of the architecture... --Golbez22:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find any reference to parts of the Law Library being underground and winning architectural awards. Is that somewhere in one of the articles? If not, it counts as an unsourced fact. If so, does this picture show underground bits? If so, where? Enuja01:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeAnimal pr0n!!! jkjkjk I don't mind the chimp nudity, but the subject is cut off and there's blow highlights on the concrete and surrounding the mother chimp. Also, a bit of fuzziness. JumpingcheeseCont@ct10:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A sweet violet (viola odorata) is a common flower in Europe and Asia, growing around 2 to 5 cm tall.
Reason
Well illustrates the sweet violet flower and is helpful for identification. Because I am still quite a novice, I appreciate in depth comments so that I can improve.
Picture Peer Review could be an icredibly powerful tool. However, in depth commenters seem to have been abandoned it in favor of just voting for featured. Fcb981 seems to be the only dedicated reviewer. This picture was taken under Fcb981's suggestion and was at peer review for several days without response. I like the photograph and wanted to see how it would fare here, picking up critisism on the way. Out of curiosity, is the "strange fringing" a lens artufact or something fixable? It seems to appear in many of my close-ups. Thegreenj14:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, though the File Links on the image page do not include Peer Review, hence my remarks. It's a shame that FPC appears to be a better peer review process than Peer Review itself. I leave it to someone better versed than me in photography to explain how to avoid the fringing. Pstuart84Talk15:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the article at Purple fringing - your pic shows two or three types of fringing and at least one of them (the purple at the top) would seem to be an inherent property of the lens. The example at Chromatic aberration shows the same sort of thing. It's not unusual for a "Jack of all trades" lens to be less than perfect at everything and macro (along with landscape work) is probably the toughest task you could give it. Try stopping down the lens to around f11 (you'll need a tripod) and see if that helps, and perhaps pull back a little (it's worse towards the edges of the frame) and crop the image down later. These two things will probably help with the depth of field problem you have here too. mikaultalk16:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose; I'd like to see some stem/something apart from the flowering part if this picture is in the article for the entire flower. Ishaana21:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The illustration is way too small for FP. I do not know about the animation; it is in QuickTime format if anyone knows anything about that. Thegreenj05:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This is a brilliant photograph but as has been mentioned simply doesn't meet the size criterion (unfortunately) --Newton212:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
External and cross sectional views of a Trident II D5 nuclear missile system including the outer dimensions. The Trident system is a strategic nuclear deterrent used by the USA and UK. It is a submarine launched inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads up to 8000km. Trident missiles are carried by fourteen active US NavyOhio classsubmarines and, with British warheads, four Royal NavyVanguard class submarines.
Reason
The diagram clearly and (I hope) aesthetically shows the various stages which make up the trident II D5 ICBM, one of the most important and powerful pieces of modern military hardware. It highlights just how enormous these devices are, something which is so often lost with pictures of them airborne or being launched. It is drawn precisely to scale. The diagram deliberately avoids technical detail as a technical drawing of a Nuclear warhead loaded ICBM on Wikipedia amid the worlds present political climate would not be appropriate. Instead it aims more from an educational point of view to illustrate the various stages of the rocket motor and show how the three rocket fuel tanks are arranged inside the missile. It is drawn at 3000x2000 pixels (high enough for any modern monitor) and can be printed comfortably with a high DPI at A4 or A3 size giving a wonderfully sharp and professional looking printed diagram. It avoids the SVG format as a result of the shading which is important in illustrating the cylindrical shape of the device. ;Articles this image appears in:Trident missile, UK Trident program, ICBM, SLBM HE HE HE HE
Comment - I'm a bit puzzled about a lot of your reasoning. What do you mean about technical detail being inappropriate in the present political climate? It's not like you're going to expedite the nuclear ambitions of Iran or whoever with a diagram based on public-domain information. Shading is perfectly possible (indeed, being vector-based, it's actually better) in SVG than PNG and printing resolution isn't the only reason to prefer vector graphics: there's also the ability to edit the text (e.g. for translations) which would be particularly difficult with this image because it's on a gradient background. As far as illustrating the scale, I don't find it particularly informative as the length in metres is pretty meaningless without a suitable reference (e.g. a to-scale person standing alongside). It's reasonably aesthetic but next to a lot of your other contributions, it doesn't really stand out. Some parts are pretty unclear, like the "Electrical equipment" section which points to an apparently empty region occupied by a rocket nozzle. Sometimes simpler isn't necessarily better. --YFB¿23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't want to be rough but the 1st of April was two weeks ago. According to the nominator, the illustration "aesthetically shows the various stages which make up the trident II D5 ICBM, one of the most important and powerful pieces of modern military hardware". Because aesthetics is the only "appropriate" way to illustrate the subject given the present polytical climate. Why do I feel I am being fooled? Alvesgaspar00:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, can you add the sources for this drawing so it can be verified as being accurate? I also think the blue line used to indicate height looks ugly when it comes down to the left of the nose spike... it just looks off center. I think I'd give weak support if it weren't for those two issues. It's definitely a good image. And I know your opinion on SVG, but I think the translation and editing issues are important for diagrams, but I won't oppose on those grounds since this is the English language Wikipedia. grenグレン07:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per YFB. I don't see any reason for the SVG or the vagaries in terms of content. I don't want to pimp my own work but compare this one with something like this, which contains substantially more information while also including information about use, etc., and can be scaled to any size. I don't think the shading does much on the nominated image, certainly is not worth using PNG instead of SVG for. (SVG is valuable not only because it can be scaled, but because it can be easily edited, re-used, etc. all of the good things we really like in free content). In any case I don't think the line/fill work is very good, when zoomed in you can see all sorts of mis-aligned and overlapping bits. --Fastfission23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an amazing falls with a good picture. The picture shows the scope of the falls, doesn't appear to have any artifacts or other problems, and is beautiful. It isn't fantastically huge, but I do think it is clear enough. This is the best of the pictures on the Spanish, Portugese and English pages for Iguazu Falls. I found it because of an old failed FP nomination of a picture of Devil's Throat.
Ooops! I've recently started voting (mostly opposes) and I figured it would be good to be constructive, too. But apparently I didn't do enough research. How do I get rid of this proposed nomination? Enuja23:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to remove this. You can nominate an image more than once, although it's usually best to wait some time before doing so. But, October was a while ago, and maybe opinions have changed since then. If you want to nominate another image, just be sure to check the bottom of the image page to see what page(s) it's in. --Tewy01:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Blown highlights on the subjects, bottom a little cut off (though possibly unavoidable). Stunning image, but just a few too many minor problems. --Tewy23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wow, this is good…would have loved to be there…but there the bottom is cut off, there's that metal thing in the bottom left corner, and general other small things. It's hard to pass up, though.--HereToHelp00:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By "that metal thing in the bottom left corner" are you referring to what looks very much like a vine in the bottom left corner? If you look at the bottom right, there is also up-close foliage, so I strongly suspect that the picture was taken from an overlook, and both the vine on the left and the plants on the right are on the sides of the over-look. Enuja
It's the long, thin, cord-like thing in the very bottom-left the goes out to the right and then coils back on itself. It looks unnatural to me. (But I wouldn't change me vote over it.)--HereToHelp01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great subject. composition that everyone doesn't like (bottom cut off) looks first class to me. Actually the angle it's taken from is one of its best aspects. white highlighs on white subjects are fine. -Fcb98106:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think we're too harsh here. And if Mohammad would see this, he would regret his idea of paradise with a river, 2 tress and a honeycomb. I keep my support if Diliff is not going to Argentina ;-) --Arad21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think that picture is difficult to take especially in high clarity. It is strong in color, very viverant, and is high resolution, and great detail.-- Penubag 04:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support- i support this because i believe that there needs to be more panoramic pictures of moving water in the featured picture list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.62.121.126 (talk)
During the bushfires we had to cut down a number of young eucalypts around our house, and after we did so we needed to drag the branches etc a distance from the house where they wouldn't burn. Anyway to cut a long story short the next day when we went to move the branches all of them were swarming with these critters who actively patrolled up and down a branch chasing off any other beetle it saw. Had nasty looking mandibles and crazy yellow antennae which vibrated wildly so I was pretty nervous when I took the pix - bit disappointed when I found out it was only a beetle, I thought it was some kind of wasp! Anyway, nice shot, good comp and excellent sharpness.
SupportComment Are those pale spots on the body missing bits or normal coloring? In the full resolution image, they kinda look like damage, although they probably aren't, I'd like to be confident that this is a normal looking specimen. Also, The tips of the (amazingly yellow!) antenna are out of focus, which is a little bit of a problem. I don't like the caption, because the identification of the limb makes me think about the tree, which makes me wonder what angle the beetle is at. Your further explination here clears it all up, but that's not in an extended caption on the image page. Please add some of the information about the circumstances of the picture taking to the image page, as the angle of the branch is confusing. Enuja 18:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC) editedEnuja21:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes those markings are entirely natural - all the beetles had similar spots. As for the caption, please, please keep current with the WP:FPC talk page! As discussed here, extended captions suitable for POTD are not a requirement for a FPC nom! If you don't like the caption feel free to edit it, we're looking for excellent photos here, not excellent captions! --Fir000222:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking for the best content possible, and with pictures, that includes the associated descriptive information.--ragesoss03:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I must have been away when they changed it to Featured Content Candidates, but then again my browser doesn't seem to have updated either... You can't just make up your own rules, as discussed hereand here there is no valid reason to oppose an image based on caption. --Fir000209:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't opposing just because of the caption, I was trying to be constructive in building a good caption and enough information to build good POTD captions. Also, please don't be too confrontational about comments about captions; criteria #8 on Wikipedia:featured picture criteria hasn't been edited yet. Enuja21:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I used your nomination story to expand the caption some. It still needs a link and/or bibliographic information for where a viewer could verify the species identification.--ragesoss04:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the guidelines/rules which specify the need to add bibliographic information to an image? Do a search in google for the species if you're that keen. --Fir000209:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the rules require it, I'm saying it would be useful. I did a Google search, and I didn't doubt the correct identification in the first place. What source did you use to identify it?--ragesoss15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The interior of the Santiago Bernabéu Stadium in Madrid, Spain. The stadium is home to the Real Madrid football club.Version 2: the colors are a bit brighter/livelier. I could brighten it more, but the colors begin to look unrealistically florescent and neonishVersion 3: a little less neony compared to 2, and with more contrast in the dark parts as well as brightness
Reason
I think it's a high quality photo, and that it does a good job of showing the size of the stadium.
Oppose - sorry, but it's a bit too dull, the right side is out of focus, the left is noisy, and there are some tourists/supporters which mar it a bit. I'd give it E7T5A5. Do you have any other versions, and are you able to go there again and take another one? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ15:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - we just had a goat photo nominated by the same photographer. This photo seems to have the same strengths and same weaknesses. This is practically a renomination; let's wait and see how the other nom goes. Debivort19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taken to it's logical extent, this becomes an obviously valid reason to oppose: "You can't oppose this nearly identical goat picture! This one has 5 blades of grass instead of 6!"Debivort07:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't serious about my comment above. But I still believe it's OK to have 2 feature worthy images of same subject. Also this is a mature goat (the real subject) the other one are baby goats. --Arad09:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm going to buck the trend here for what its worth. This is a quality image and does illustrate the domestic goat pretty well. I'm starting to see some pretty anally retentive opposes in voting here these days. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hate to be the voice of dissident, but the pic does fit all the FP criteria. The only relatively minor issue is the background, which I don't see as distracting at all. The out of focus background gives a setting to the subject and doesn't detract from the pic. A background is distracting when the eyes are repeatedly drawn to the background instead of focusing on the the subject. That's certainly not the case for this pic. I like how the leaves are blown back by the freezing rain and later frozen in that position. Horizontal icicles are also interesting. Very sharp and encyclopedic. JumpingcheeseCont@ct10:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it could so easily have been so much better: opening the lens up from f10 to something like f5.6 (or wider if you have a decent lens) would have blurred out most of the distracting backgound detail. Shame, it's a really interesting shot otherwise: no problems with either upload size or image quality, either in my opinion or according to WP:FP?. mikaultalk17:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inmates of Auschwitz Birkenau Buchenwald. These people are incredibly thin, suggesting that they have been malnourished. The inmates were used as a labour force for the German war effort. The inmates were given no food as this was part of the German policy of "Extermination through work". Elie Wiesel is second row, seventh from left.
Reason
It demonstrates historic and encyclopedic value. Clearly demonstrates that inmates in the concentration camps were malnourished. And given that it was taken between 1942-45 it is a surprisingly good picture. It is not easily replicated without ruining encyclopedic value.
That doesn't necessarily mean they own the copyright to the picture -- lots of museums and other web sites claim blanket copyright on their pages for things they don't necessarily have the copyright to. Under German law IIRC, the copyright belongs to the photographer himself. There is no concept of work-for-hire, so it wouldn't be the German government/army that holds the copyright (unlike in the US). But let's assume for the sake of argument that the Auschwitz museum DOES own the copyright -- what makes you think you can declare it GFDL? howcheng {chat}21:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Displaying and owning the copyright have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Howcheng is right about the copyright and I must add that there were no copyright transfers from axis to allied forces as a result of the outcome of WWII. The rights stay with the photographer until 70 years after his death. And the passing of this period cannot be safely assumed. Most likely mislicensed and definetly not well documented. Was a permission letter sent to permissions@wikimedia.org? Can the museum plausibly claim copyright? --Dschwen22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hadz is a childhood nickname based on my surname, Hadland. As to how copyright clashes with GFDL, your guess is as good as mine. The Hadz is a fairly recent thing too --HadzTalk22:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for "203647-s" (i.e. the number on the corner of the picture) lead me to this page, which says the photo was taken by Harry Miller, a private in the 166th Signal Photographic Company, that it is of the Buchenwald concentration camp (rather than Auschwitz) and that it was taken on the 16 April 1945 (making it a few days short of 62 years old). "Works produced by civilian and military employees of the United States federal government in the scope of their employment are public domain by statute" says WP:C. Furthermore, the version seen at that link seems to be a much better digitisation of the original photo. Mike1024 (t/c) 09:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: See item 178 - "These are slave laborers in the Buchenwald concentration camp near Jena; many had died from malnutrition when U.S. troops of the 80th Division entered the camp." Pvt. H. Miller, Germany, April 16, 1945. 208-AA-206K-31. This picture is public domain. Mike1024 (t/c) 09:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great job, I changed the license tag accordingly, and would like to request the uploader to exercise caution concerning the licensing information. Plus there is commons, the central image archive to which all images with sufficient licenses should be uploaded! --Dschwen15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: since the personally went to the national archives to digitize a copy the request an anual fee of EUR 100.00 for the pic to be available on Wikipedia. Too bad. Maybe Noclip our man in Washington could visit the Archives and make us a decent scan :-). --Dschwen09:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some companies offer a service where you give them the item reference number (in this case 208-AA-206K-31 I gather) and they get it out, scan it, and e-mail you copies (or produce reproductions etc if you want that). However, as commercial companies they charge for this; for example (from one supplier) scanning a photo at 300dpi and e-mailing it as a jpeg costs $9.50 to get it out of the archives, $10 for scanning, and $5 for e-mailing, a total cost of $24.50 for a single photo (and a 300 dpi JPEG, at that). If we're going to buy every historically important photo in the national archives at $25 each, we'd need a lot of money. Mike1024 (t/c) 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and neither are we paying commercial companies to write articles for us. That's why I was implying/hinting, that a local volunteer could do the job. --Dschwen15:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can always visit the College Park, MD archives (which is where the negative of this photo is located) but I don't have a decent scanner. Aside from that perhaps it'd make sense to come up with a list of many images we could use and they could all be scanned in one go. Noclip22:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rant: Sigh, this whole nomination was a piece of sloppy work. Not only the license was wrong, the caption is unprofessional, the picture misidentified and placed in the wrong article. Hadz, from your talk page I see that you seem to be emotionally overwhelmed by the topic of the holocaust, which is pretty understandable when you just started familiarizing yourself with the historical background and the gruesome details. But please note that the purpose and quality of WP:FPC should not have to suffer under historical education attempts. --Dschwen15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Ahadland, you need to make sure you have all this clear before the FPC nomination. If you need help, there are plenty of people to ask. Proper licensing of images is crucial and cannot be taken lightly or simply assumed. I suggest that when you don't know the particulars, you first upload it to your own web site (or photobucket or some other host), and ask for help at Wikipedia:Reference desk. This image in particular can stir up a lot of emotions, so it's important to stay rational and keep focused on the details. howcheng {chat}16:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, sorry for such a cock-up just it came up on a google search I did for Birkenau. Sorry anyway though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs)
Oppose there are still some outstanding issues. I'd say close this nomination, and work on trying to get a new scan, assuming copyright is legit, and then renominate the new image. Besides that, this is a very, very iconic image, and historically significant.-Andrew c17:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
High quality macro shot of the common Christmas Beetle, taken shortly after Christmas in early January. I had a few attempts at a focus bracket but it kept moving so was not able to do so. However focus and sharpness are excellent in the important bits (IMO anyway).
Oppose. A couple of the characteristics I always associate with Christmas beetles are the way they have a shimmery effect on their back and that they look like egyptian scarab beetles. See what I mean here. This side-on picture doesn't show that and as such I didn't recognise the beetle - a beetle I'm already farmilliar with. It's certainly a good shot, but not what I would want in an encyclopaedic shot of a christmas beetle. Wittylama15:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please don't take this the wrong way but do you have anything to say about the photo as reason for your support? Even Fir0002 sometimes doesn't get his photos through FPC. Pstuart84Talk12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of cource. I really do think that the picture is good. It is well focuced, sharp, good contrast, no noise, etc. My aboive statement was just supposed to be humorous.-- Penubag 04:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral sorry for the pointless vote, but it's a pointless nomination. It's not representative of the species and hence of really limited encyclopedic value. I guess -minor quibble- I'd have chosen a slightly less side-on view to avoid things like the leg emerging out of the head. The fact remains that is a really good, interesting and well-exectued shot which works on many levels and would get my support on commons, but here it's a bit of a waste of time. mikaultalk13:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I wanted to support this, but now more than one person has mentioned that its not representative of the Christmas Beetle I can't give it my support. Shame because it's a wonderful shot :( Ishaana21:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question I was hoping to get more information on whether this was a typical Christmas Beetle or not from Fir0002 before I voted on it. Why doesn't it look like the beetles Witty lama recognizes as Christmas Beetles? Enuja01:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're guess is as good as mine. I know what Witty lama is saying, but the vast majority of the christmas beetles I see around Swifts Creek look like this. Maybe it's something to do with varying maturity levels? Coz this specimen was collected off the kitchen window which he'd been crashing into for half an hour! Maybe juvenile's are much shiner? I really don't know --Fir000212:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there isn't a single species of Christmas beetle; the name is the common name for all 35 members of the genus Anoplognathus. The christmas beetle article is wrong.--Peta02:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the situation here and fixing the article! It does make a lot of sense that "Christmas beetles" are a genus. I did some more looking around, and Fir, have you identified your beetle to the species level? It's labeled as Anoplognathus olivieri in the taxo-box, which is a different species name than the name that Christmas beetle originally gave (A. pallidicollis). In some additional looking around, however, and I did find a photo of Anoplognathus olivieri from a company that sells them (odd, that) [8], and it's shiny, too. Also, the text of the article at the time you added your picture to it said that Christmas beetles have differently lengthed forelegs. I would interpret that to mean that of the front legs, the one of the left is longer than the one on the right (or visa versa) instead of that there is a short middle leg. Now that I know that this beetle had been crashing into a window for about 30 minutes before you photographed it, I'm concerned that his beetle is simply missing part of its leg. Any more information? How did you get the species ID? Enuja05:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Three things that keep me from supporting: 1. there's scanner dust all over the picture; 2. the (I assume digital) coloring is inconsistent with the hatching, most noticeably in the strap of the shoulder bag; and 3. the background doesn't fit with the style of the foreground and is a bit kitschy. And the caption is on the short side too. ~ trialsanderrors22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) How do you know that's scanner dust and not just part of the image? Even if it's dust, it's easily removed. 2) Haven't you ever seen artwork where the coloring is not always "inside the lines". This is normal, even in the strap. 3) The coloring in the background is only there to replace the white. The background is rightly without detail, so as to keep the focus on the subject. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-30 04:57Z
Could be either, but should be removed. The Dufy effect is not what I'm talking about. The artist isn't clear whether to use the hatching to signify shades or dark areas. If it's the former the facial stubbles shouldn't be hatched since they're exposed to sunlight; if it's the latter the strap should be hatched. The background doesn't need detail, but it needs to be in keeping with the over style of the picture. There is in fact absolutely no need for background in this picture. Sorry, but I had to accept those kinds of criticisms myself long enough to know what I'm talking about. ~ trialsanderrors06:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A pleasing image. The technical issues are minor. Any dust (apparently graphite pencil diust on the drawing itself) can be removed. Yes, the image appears to be hand-drawn but software colored. Nothing wrong with that. However, has anyone looked into the copyright issue? Name of artist and uploader doesn't match, the given website leads to a commercial archery site, etc. If there is certainty this is a free image, I'll support. We have far too little free original artwork of this type. --Janke | Talk06:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, and your comment on Fir's picture belies this. We're not amateur hour here, we're trying to find freely licensed images that can compete with professional/copyrighted alternatives. Also, to repeat, I'm not applying "professional" standards here. "Whatever approach you use for your drawing, use it consistently throughout your composition" is one of the first lessons learned in an undergrad drawing class. And lastly, I'm focusing on the things that are fixable rather than the ones that aren't. ~ trialsanderrors19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be so sure. That looks like it was user submitted and likely didn't give the possibility for the user to change the license. I have pictures I've taken on sites and they could easily seem copyrighted even when I uploaded the same ones here and made the public domain... grenグレン15:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyright violation. The picture was uploaded by User:Peltast, the artist is Johnny Shumate and these are one and the same person. Johnny gives his e-mail address on the image page, I contacted him and, referring to the URL I sent, he replied:
Great..!
I saw it on your website! I'll have to tell everyone I made the "bigtime"..!
Oppose, I think a man using a sling would be more effective... great work, yes, but, I don't think a drawing is the most encyclopedic at all. And the speckles are a problem too. grenグレン15:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peltast 14:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Please click on the illustration and read the licensing: "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible,
I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." My other illustrations can be found on this website. Look up, "Hoplite", "Peltast" and "Hypaspist". Johnny Peltast14:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)18:35, March 30, 2007}}[reply]
support I would rather see a couple images, at least one of which shows a sling in action. That said, this image is so evocative of illustrations I had in my childhood encyclopedia that I have to support it. Debivort03:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: to whoever who wants to give comments here, please do sign. There are a lot of unsigned comments by the nominator, by User:Peltast who said that (s)he is Johnny or Johnny Shumate a.k.a Hoplite a.k.a. Hypaspist, etc. Now I am confused who owns the copyright of this image. That's why I said it is possible copyvio. Unless the names are fixed to know definitely the copyright status of the image then I will support for the FP candidacy. The e-mail claim evidence is also not convincing for me. — Indon (reply) — 09:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As unattributed fact, non-matching background, and the subject being more the person than the sling.Enuja02:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "subject being more the person than the sling". What does that have to do with the suitablility of the picture as featured picture? Gaius Cornelius15:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. What is meant is that this image is supposed to illustrate a sling. However, the image is only 10% about the sling, and the most dominant feature is the figure. When you look at the image, you don't think "whoa, this is a very encyclopedic image of a sling". I think "hmm... this is an illustration of an old-time looking guy, in the style of biblical illustration... oh, and I guess he is holding a sling". The image isn't even a demonstration of how a sling is used, or some other example of how including a figure could improve the encyclopedic value. This image just doesn't illustrate "sling" in an appropriate manner. I may reconsider if this image was attached to another article. Oppose.-Andrew c17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Im not very technical when it comes to photo's so i dont know the terminology but i'd say the water is too bright and the picture is quite grainy --Childzy(Talk|Contribs)21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The rainbow's quite nice, but the water is overexposed. If you have a raw file, you can try to convert it to jpeg using a darker setting, or use other techniques to get some texture in the water. Fg211:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose something is off about it - like the original was quite blurry and then a radical unsharp mask was applied. Debivort07:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I can understand where you're coming from, there's only a minimal USM applied here. Though with the bark being out of the DOF (including the fly's legs), I can see that confusing the eye. -- KirinX08:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me it looks like some motion unsharpness on the wings - there appears to be closely spaced double highlights. --Janke | Talk16:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderfull macro picture in my opinion, the above requirements are extremely difficult to the point of impossible to achieve with such a small subject. I'd be very happy to see this on the front page and I'm sure it would complement several articles very well. WikipedianProlific(Talk)16:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I get the feeling this one ain't gonna pass though. According to FPC standards these days, I guess I just have to freeze time and the wind when I take pictures or really catch the spirit of a dead insect, that's all. <sarcasm />-- KirinX16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I do appreciate that macro shots can be difficult, I have to add that it shouldn't be too much to ask that the photo be sharp and not out of focus, motion blurred etc. I can't imagine that wind played the major factor in the lack of sharpness in this photo. Its far more likely to be hand shake or simply not being in focus properly. It also looks very 'plasticy', as if it has had overly strong noise reduction applied. There is almost no texture on the fly or the background. I have to say that I don't believe that its FPC standards that are unrealistically high, its that this image simply has uncorrectable faults that could easily be resolved with a reshoot and some patience. I've taken plenty of shots like this. I just kept shooting until I got a better one. ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)22:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should point you at that ol' sarcasm tag at the end of my rant... ;) — I do believe in hard work and patience (I'm usually too patient), but in this case, this was the best I got due to the little sucker flying away right when I got the focus and exposure close to perfect. Truth be told, until I 'feel out' the FPC criteria, I'm gonna keep submitting things that aren't completely perfect but which I still believe might just pass. And all the while, I'll be getting better. It is my goal to be considered alongside users such as Fir or yourself as Wikipedia's best. -- KirinX23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 19 April 1989 the #2 Turret of the battleship USS Iowa exploded, resulting in the deaths of 47 sailors. At first, NCIS officials theorized that an improvised explosive device had been used in the turret, but this theory was later abondoned and the cause of the explosion, though never determined with certainty, is generally believed to have been static electricity igniting loose powder.
Comment, I was going to weak support... but there is already an FP from this boat... if there was an article about the incident then I could see making this an FP (because of its historic importance, despite its obvious quality issues), but I am not sure now... grenグレン22:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a vote supposed to be based soley on the photo? Moreover, our current Iowa FP is of a broadside, not a disaster that prompted a scandal. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you are right or wrong. I tried to bring up this question in the talk page explicitly, suggesting that we make redundancy with other FPs a reason not to promote additional nominees, but with this was shot down - apparently in favor of people preferring a nebulous system in which we let people natural inclinations dictate the response on a photo by photo basis, rather than make a rule. Debivort00:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the image best represent the subject? Since we are often unaware of the many different ways a subject can be represented an often useful way to tell is by looking at other representations of the subject. The photo you nominated has many technical problems. If it had been well executed I would have supported it, but since it wasn't I try to ascertain if a technically problematic photo does the best job of representing the subject. My conclusion was because of the time bounded nature of the explosion it likely represents that pretty well; however, there is no article about that. So, does it represent the ship or live firing exercises very well? I am not convinced and one reason I don't think it represents either very well is because the other FP on this subject does both jobs more satisfactorily. So, my main reasoning is that while the disaster is probably important, it probably isn't important enough to make a technically problematic image a featured picture for the two subjects (even though I haven't yet opposed). And 1906 San Francisco earthquake has two FPs in it... and I think they both deserve to be featured. Hope that helps. grenグレン02:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the key issue here then is not so much the technical aspects of the photo, but the fact that the photo doesn't exist in its own independent article pertaining to the subject matter specifically; in this case, the concern is over the absence of an article detailing the 1989 explosion of the #2 turret aboard the battleship. Hypothetically, then, if an article on the subject was created, that would be a suficent reason to weigh the crappy technical aspects of the photograph against its historical criteria. Thats what I understand form this discussion, so my question here is: Is my read on this nomination correct? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In certain circumstances technical aspects of images become less important. For this image its low resolution was ignored because it is important and non-replicable. There is not much rarity in depicting the Iowa so it should have a good quality or otherwise extraordinary photo to represent it. If there was an article about the explosion of the gun and the death of the sailors then the guidelines for what would be the best to represent the article would change since we would have to look at criterion 5, "Adds value to an article", differently. It isn't necessary to include this image in either article it is presently in. It would not make or break the article. It would (providing there are no better images of the explosion) make or break an article about the incident itself. The guideline even says "[t]he encyclopedic value of the image is given priority over its artistic value". So, I mentioned the other FP because that is a good image of the Iowa and inclusion/exclusion of this won't make or break the article especially since there is already another good image for it. As for your read on the nomination... if you mean that a vote should solely be based on the photo then I'd say no, because rules 3 and 5 (and even 6, 8, and 9) mean that we need to compare to outside images/ideas. grenグレン10:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The featured picture we already have is 'Not' depicting the same thing, i removed the image for comparrison because it is comparing chalk and cheese --Childzy(Talk|Contribs)21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this was a real accident; in fact, the incident holds the US Navy record of being the worse loss of life under 'peaceful' conditions. Its in live fire exercise because the accident occured while the ship was involved in a live fire exercise. Its listed there to illistrate the dangers involved in a live fire exercise when go wrong. Frankly, I am wondering if I may have better luck creating an article on the incident and then renominating the image. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another find from the Library of Congress archives in high quality, with high enc (used in 20+ articles and today's "Did you know?") and high entertainment value. Proposed caption:
Two sets of late 19th Century collecting cards, depicting historical events in ballooning and parachuting history from 1783 to 1846. The cards show first flights, military accomplishments, triumphs and tragedies, such as the death of Tom Harris in 1824, who sacrificed his life when his balloon lost altitude and threatened to kill Harris and his fiancée.
For the accuracy of the depicted events, I recommend reading the article on Sophie Blanchard.
Support as a set of individual images Looks good but I think it should be prmoted as a set of all the individual cards, not 2 overviews of the cards. --antilivedT | C | G03:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, but the individual cards won't make the size requirements... are we ok to waive that since it's a set? If there's consensus in that direction, then I'll support. tiZom(2¢)04:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, what exactly is supporting as a set? Do we have a way to deal with that... feature picture sets? I would support as that if there is a way to deal with it... because I don't think having this many entries of the same type into FP is a good way of dealing with it. grenグレン05:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The featured set template wasn't around when the Mandelbrot set set (ha ha) was nominated. That's not to say it couldn't replace the generic template we have on it now.--HereToHelp13:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Comment: there are only two images here, Tomtheman and Grenavitar. There are 20 cards, but there are two uncut sets of 10, and so only two pieces of paper and two images. Support because they illustrative, historical, and fun to look at. Enuja05:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason we are talking about sets is because this image isn't the greatest resolution whereas each individual one is. I'm not particularly impressed by the usage of the uncut cards in the balloon article, but I am very impressed by the whole set and how they are used throughout Wikipedia. grenグレン06:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two versions to the full cards ("higher" and "highest resolution", this is easier to see on Commons). The only reason why I had to downsample the cards is because in the 13 megabyte version it wouldn't create thumbnails. ~ trialsanderrors07:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support cut up version By having the individual cards available, the event they portray can be illustrated without 9 other distracting images. As for the "lead" image, it should be the first card (chronologically).--HereToHelp13:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd support promoting all 20 images, but only tagging for the front page one or both of combined images (so I guess that would be 22 images promoted). These images are well scanned, historical illustrations. They not only illustrate ballooning, but they have art historical significance. -Andrew c17:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is noisy, and I agree with the above comment that it is not eye catching. Hardly a beautiful picture. Jsc8318:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So now you have to be BOTH encyclopedic and beautiful? Gosh that'll be hard... I don't consider the eye-surgery or the decapitated mouse very beautiful, we should delist them. The Background is not noise, it's the pattern of the table (I've never seen noise that's affected by DOF); The meat could be more fresh (or is it supposed to be that colour?), and the lighting could be softer but I don't see major problems with it. --antilivedT | C | G01:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable to expect food shots to look appetizing, whereas expecting that of something like eye surgery is obviously absurd. This has been poorly arranged and shot under fluorescent tube lighting on a too-large, dull-looking plate, sitting on what looks like a kitchen benchtop. You could replace the steak with a surgically removed internal organ and it would look no less appetizing. Sorry, but it's clearly not FP material. mikaultalk08:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not very 'professional' looking, for lack of a better word. For featured food we have Image:Iran saffron threads.jpg which does an incredibly job of just isolating the object itself and Image:Cheese limburger edit.jpg which makes a nice scene out of the cheese. This doesn't really do either. It does get blurry closeup and I think a better job could be done. (even though it wouldn't be easy) grenグレン12:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Does not meet resolution "guideline", and has some spots where the subject or background's highlights are blown to whiteness. Interesting composition (nice to have two of 'em), but I can't see much of the front or underside.--HereToHelp01:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A pack of opened matches on top of an aerogel brick, which displays the substance's insulative properties by preventing the matches (even the ones near the edge of the aerogel) to ignite.
Reason
This picture greatly improves the clarity of the "Properties" section of Aerogel, it has great image quality and basically fulfills all of the FP criteria. (Not to mention was considered as a replacement for Image:Aerogelbrick.jpg as a FP.)
Comment Even though I did put it in the delisting nomination for people to compare it with the other one, I still think this one also is not up to FP quality. It's easily reproducible and the quality is some how poor. But the subject is indeed very interesting. --Arad00:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how is the aerogel suspended above the flame? It's a little too hard to figure out for me, it looks a bit too photoshopped, even though I don't think it is. Mak(talk)02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it's not suspended above the flame. The aero gel is the flame. It's made in a way that makes it look like a flame. Right? --Arad02:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the aerogel, it's the, well, gel-looking square. The flame is from the torch below it. But how is the aerogel being held up? Is it the clear plastic circle you can see? What is the circle made of? what is it attached to? I don't like having to ask all these questions about an FP, but maybe I'm being picky. Mak(talk)02:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is more that it is difficult to tell what is going on in the image than that the image is fake or anything like that. Mak(talk)02:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: The aerogel support is the gray bar that is visible if you look at the top right hemisphere of the image closely. The aerogel is the blurry (and it looks that way because of the way light is refracted in the substance) substance immediately below the circle and above the flame. The clear circle, which I'm fairly certain is just plastic, is there so that the matches do not touch the aerogel directly. Hope that cleared everything up, ~Magnusanimum(aka Steptrip)02:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict... Magnus/Steptrip, I'm afraid you're a bit off) - Hi Makemi. These aerogel images are rather cool, but I don't think this is the best illustration. You have to get matches pretty hot before they spontaneously ignite. The Crayola image here is a better example and also answers your question about what's holding it up. The aerogel is supported on a steel loop stand thingy, which is much more visible in this shot. I don't think they're photoshopped, it's just that the lighting is darker on the matches photo. --YFB¿03:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, I understand, I'm just saying that the illustration is not great because it's not immediately clear what's going on. Mak(talk)03:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(od) Uh, sorry... just spotted that this has already been pointed out above. Oops. Do you have an opinion on the Crayola image as an alternative? --YFB¿03:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
739x882... OK, I'll just go to bed now and in the morning, can we pretend I didn't just say any of the above? :/ --YFB¿03:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If even the nominator can't tell what's going on, the average user won't either. The flame blends in too much with the aerogel in this particular picture, and the caption in the Aerogel article isn't very descriptive. There are better alternatives for pictures: one of more than sufficient quality at Image:Aerogelflower.jpg, and another picture of a hand on an aerogel block, if someone can obtain and upload the higher quality version of it (the lower-res version is terrible). Phony Saint04:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a difference between the nominator (who liked the image) and the creator (the person to whom all questions should be directed). Also, the flame is easy to pick out because it contrasts sharply with the black background. I'll take a look at the other aerogel image shortly. ~Magnusanimum(aka Steptrip)16:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, you should be able to explain why the problems are trivial or do not affect its nomination. The creator has nothing to do with this nomination. Phony Saint16:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. In that case, I'll rephrase my answer to the main question: The aerogel support is not the subject of the photo, and as such, it is trivial, but you can see it in the top-right hemisphere of the photo. Also, as you can see, I can answer almost all of the questions asked. ~Magnusanimum(aka Steptrip)03:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose not particularly attractive, and very little information in the thumbnail. For example, the potomac river runs through there, but is completely unlabeled. Adding it would improve both the attractiveness and encyclopedicity. Debivort05:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I live in DC, and ride the metro almost everyday, so between that and google earth, I think the accuracy is good. But thats original research and I don't feel right using that as justification. Also, the caption is misleading. I wouldn't call it geographically accurate if there is no geography in the picture. --Uberlemur02:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A featured picture would show the political boundaries between DC, VA & MD. The captions are too small relative to the overall size of the image. Also, no indication of scale. --dm(talk)20:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Breathtaking beauty. This is just how a tourist sees the valley when emerging from the tunnel. There's some slight sharpening artifacts above the trees at left. If the "almost blown" highlights can be adjusted, I might support. --Janke | Talk12:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, nice photo, and I don't see any obvious flaws in it (besides that it could be bigger, and the sky is a little grainy). Although it's nice, I don't see it as anything spectacular and worth an FP. grenグレン12:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. This is almost there. The lighting looks a little harsh ... maybe midday? Early morning light would suit this a lot better I think. howcheng {chat}20:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice place, but it's still not very rich, and I doubt altering it can help. The sky is VERY pixelated/blown (a cloning tool can help with that).-DMCer06:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I wouldn't want to see this on the WP front page - and the still picture is only 200 px wide, so it (er, the photo ;-) isn't big enough. Sure, WP isn't censored, but still... In the article it is OK, since those who search for it know what they're looking for. --Janke | Talk16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and this should be closed. For something almost 50% of the adult population can do I think we can manage a technically better picture. Iff that happens then we can get into a serious discussion about the main page... but for now this picture is merely a joke. grenグレン16:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and delist as vandalism - user has vandalised WP before, image fails every single criterion and yes, I know about AGF but I think we have enough evidence to show that this is not a serious nom. Anyway, an image on the bad images list couldn't be shown on the main page. If, however the user submitted a high quality diagram of the ejaculation process (or animated diagram) then we would consider. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ17:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marijuana users and pro-cannabis legalisation campaigners gather in Victoria, British Columbia to celebrate "420", the unofficial annual National Pot-Smokers holiday, on April 20th, 2007
Reason
Striking and emphatic photo illustrating the widespread popularity of April 20th as a celebration day. High-quality photograph, high-definition etc. with encyclopaedic use.
Obvious Oppose - So many reasons. It's VERY poor quality, bad chromatic aberration, blurry, easily reproducible, ..., low enc,... --Arad17:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but as others have mentioned, it has serious image quality issues. All the people have purple auras due to chromatic aberration. Were you using a wide angle adapter lens or something? I've got a Canon S3 IS too and never seen such bad chromatic aberration from it. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)22:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry, it was wrong of me to nominate this from the looks of things. I know nothing about photography, i didnt take the photo, and iv never seen a featured picture nomination debate before. I just liked the photo. Should have done more research :/ Jdcooper00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK. There is no problem with nominating, but something we (the voters) might go harsh on some of them. Better luck with your other FPCs. ;-) --Arad14:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not clear, purple fringing. Not even close to FP quality, and that is from the photographer. Many of the problems may be due to haze in the air and in my lungs at the time. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)01:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
Oppose I have nothing to say that has not already been said, but when the photographer opposes, there is definitely something wrong with the situation. I forgot to sign J Are you green?03:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd say that when the photographer opposes, it doesn't mean there is something particularly wrong with the situation. They're just honest about their images. I've opposed some of my nominated images on occasion. Not every image we contribute to Wikipedia is destined for FP. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)16:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject(also known as yellow-throat goana) is cut off, somewhat blurry, and has a significant portion of its leg out of focus. Also, there is some chromatic abberation in tree bark and out of focus areas of leg. It doesn't bother me too much, but I'm not a huge fan of the muddy background either. It is a very nice picture, though, and I do not disagree with your nomination, but I think that its detracting qualities are just a few too many. J Are you green?15:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really don't understand why this was promoted to COM:FP. While colour and exposure are good, I suppose, and composition isn't bad, it has this awful, front-on lighting. Because of this it looks really 'flat', showing us little in the way of form and structure, has poor textural detail and there's almost no discernable fine detail at all, probably due to heavy JPEG compression. Sharpening would only make this lack of detail more obvious, although substantial downsampling might stop the viewer looking for it. mikaultalk12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the angle of the image and how it illustrates the observation deck (with people visible) and revolving restaurant, but because it was taken from very far away at ground level the underside is still visible. I've been waiting for a long time to self-nominate one of the many photographs I have contributed and I think this one is high enough quality. I still have the 4372 x 2906 original RAW file (though it required some straightening) if anyone would like to suggest improvements.
Comment Is it possible that you do a vertical panorama and have the whole structure in it? Also did you resample the image? There are some moiré pattern near the top which would be correctable if it's caused by improper resampling. --antilivedT | C | G04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From this angle (3000 ft. away at ground level zoomed to 400mm) a panorama wouldn't contain much the structure due to obstructions. To get much more than half of the tower you pretty much need to be elevated. I took another photo from a different location that turned out pretty good, but I'm not nearly as fond of that one and the prespective from the north makes the tower appear much larger (in relation to other buildings) than it is. As for the moiré on the solar panels, it seems to be like that on the RAW file and I'm not very skilled at post processing. Thanks for the comment. Cacophony06:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose a (diliff style) shot of the entire tower would be more apropriate for FP. also I would prefer the picture taken against blue sky instead of a white cloud that hides the subject. otherwise fine but building shots are quite reproduceable and should have little in the way of flaws. and I personaly like your other full tower picture better -Fcb98103:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, but I do agree that FPC is becoming ever more picky on the non-issues lately. Now the pass rate is like what, less than 1 in 5? But you have to consider that we don't have an article of the top of the Space Needle, and if it became a FP it would be a lot more appropriate for the whole structure to be shown if it's linked to Space Needle --antilivedT | C | G10:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the reasons for opposition are the exact same reasons that I nominated it. Just because it dosen't contain the entire structure (90% of which is not interesting) is a piss poor reason to oppose it. This, this, this, and this, don't contain the entire animal, this, this, and this picture dosen't contain more than half the body, and this picture doesn't contain the entire atmosphere. The examples are endless. Saying that a Dliff image is just about as useless, we might as well close nominations to everyone that isn't a professional photographer. Cacophony20:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think other parts of the structure is also quite interesting, and I would have full supported the alternative version if the photographer opened up the aperture a bit and used a lower ISO (quite a bit of noise and seems diffraction-limited), or even did a vertical panorama if he could; I would have weak supported this nomination if I remembered to vote, but my half vote still wouldn't make too much of a difference. --antilivedT | C | G05:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Landing supplies at Normandy shortly after D-Day, 1944. Thus began the push which was to mark the turn of the Second World War for the Allies.Edit 1: a rough rotate and crop for comparisonEdit 2: dust and scratches removed, slight tonal tweak, tiny crop for residual print border
Reason
Iconic, Irreplicable, Represents one of the biggest military actions in history, large image size.
Support, the technical problems are obvious, but I really like this... later at the beach landing when they are unloading equipment (and the barrage balloons are pretty cool). I think it could use a nicer summary. grenグレン08:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportSupport original and edit 2 Very historic, capturing the moment in an truly irriplacible irreplaceable way. Thegreenj 02:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I really ought to check my spelling more carefully! Thegreenj21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support both (With preference for the edit) - I wish that the picture was more clean and clear and it also has a bad tilt. But it's obviously huge (the army)! Amazing shot. --Arad00:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is there some guideline advising against retouching of historical images which I might be unaware of? This one, like a number of others I've seen, has an inordinate amount of dust and scratches which I'd be happy to clean up.. I've heard arguments in the past warning against the potential for lost 'siginifcant detail' if the retouch was less than respectful, that's all. For example, there might be a temptation to correct the skewed horizon, but the crop would lose detail at the margins. Just wondered; offer stands. mikaultalk12:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally against the editing of historical photos (beyond cleaning up the image) - and this includes rotation and colour adjustment. There are arguments that this could lose elements, or that it changes the copyright status, but I say that it simply doesn't feel as "true" a picture anymore. It becomes reconstruction rather than just restoration. Wittylama06:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. This crop loses quite a bit of detail around the edges and on an image with so mcuh detail, we simply have to live with some idiosyncrasies. I've downloaded it to retouch, which I hope to get done today sometime. mikaultalk06:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is (Edit 2) I've been super-sensitive to what *might* be original detail and have left most stuff which (I believe) was on the original print, like chemical burns etc. mikaultalk13:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Along the River During Qingming Festival; this panorama painting is an 18th century Qing Dynasty reproduction of the famous original by Chinese artist Zhang Zeduan (1085–1145 AD) of the Song Dynasty. This elaborately detailed handscroll painting, supposedly depicting the old medieval city of Kaifeng, is among China's greatest visual masterpieces.OriginalEdit 1
Reason
See also original nomination, which has already dropped below the "attention horizon" before we figured out how to retrieve the higher quality version. The version by antilived is the original, mine the brushed-up version, to see the difference between the two you can check the version comparison on the right.
Strong Support Great improvements; the original is a B&W thumbnail by comparison. One problem: how is this going to fit on the Main Page?--HereToHelp01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose edit and Support original. The edit just ups the contrast for no reason. The image is centuries old, we should expect some fading, and who says the contrast was even that great when it was first created? All I can say is this edit added extraneous 'pop' that isn't necessarily, and probably not representitive. Furthermore, the edit was sloppy. It lost some subtle color information by 'blowing' the blacks (blown shadows). -Andrew c17:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are, from my estimate, about 20 different versions of this image online. You can see some in the Along the River During Qingming Festival article and some doing a Google image search. Very few have the low contrast of the National Palace Museum, so unless anyone actually saw the original at the museum we have no information about the actual contrast level, but likely it is higher than the NPM version. On "blowing out the blacks", can you actually point to an area of digital black? ~ trialsanderrors19:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Any Been a long time since a picture on this page has made me go 'Wow!' Centy 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Broadway Tower is a folly located at one of the highest points (1,024 feet above sea level) of the Cotswolds, England. On a day of clear weather, thirteen counties of England can be seen from the top of the tower.Edit 1 by Arad - Removed the red dot on the window and also those white distracting spotsEdit 2 by Yummifruitbat - The edit that this image actually needed, cropped the bloke wandering off the edge of the frameEdit 3 - Also removed one of the tourist and the flags and red light.File:Broadway tower Edit4.jpgEdit 4 - people edited off but kept width, and removed dead grass to right.
Reason
I feel that the image is quite striking and is an accurate and detailed depiction of the tower.
Support woa. Everything is nice to me on this picture. The people to the left help to have an idea of the size. Perhaps I would have loved to have a very bit more sky above, but this is just me. Blieusong10:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit2 the crop does it. I added this to the nominations for FP candidate on commons (next to arad's edit nomination). Blieusong20:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support In this cases, the two tourists in the pic actually adds to the pic. I like how the tower seems to stick out of nowhere. Very sharp and imposing. Encyclopedic pic. JumpingcheeseCont@ct10:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are some photoshopping ideas: remove both the tourists, the red light in the window, the "flag", the dead grass, and while you're at it...the entire tower itself. The resulting pic will be a good illustration of a grassy field on a clear day. ;) I'm actually wondering if someone can actually convincingly pull that off...since the tourists, red light, and "flag" were all removed without any tell-tale signs. It'll be a good example on the photo editing page. JumpingcheeseCont@ct08:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Edit 1 - I took the freedom to upload the thit and the original on Commons for more access to all projects. Also, about the edit 1, I removed the red dot and white spots from the castle which I found distracting on this beautiful image. --Arad13:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too tight? Cropping the man only reduced the total width of the image by 3.5%, on the opposite side from the actual subject. That seems a strange basis for an oppose. --YFB¿21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 or 3; normally, the tourists would be distracting, but in this they add useful scale and a sense of wonder. Also, generally beautiful pic. --Golbez13:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so. What does a complete white flag add to the image or a blown out light? I did what I thought would help the image, If it didn't help, then there is always an original to vote for. I wanted the image to be perfect (it's already good) for FP. ;-) --Arad14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably semantics, but it looks to me that you edited the subject not the picture. It is ok to compensate for technical shortcomings, but (and I know, we had that discussion, sorry) manipulating the subject, because it is not to your liking I finds questionable for encyclopedic illustrations... --Dschwen15:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IDK how i changed the subject? Those white flags didn't add anything informative to the image. Did they? --Arad16:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, they're not white flags, they're guttering. Secondly, however unpleasant you might find them, they are a material part of the subject, not an incidental element in the surrounding scenery. This is an encyclopedia and we shouldn't post up anything which isn't materially and verifiably acurate. FWIW, I would personally crop out the figure in the left to up the drama a little more, but Support the original version as is. (changed support to edit 2 below) mikaultalk17:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a note I do have a version of the image without any people in at all but I think that having the people adds to the image as it gives you a sense of scale. --Newton217:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No! It's just great the way it is! Maybe have a look at cropping out that person doing an 'exit stage left', but as it is it's a great 'chance' shot, I love it mikaultalk17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for your support! Yes I know what you mean about the person exiting the shot. Still if needs be they can always be cropped out as you say. --Newton217:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No way. The humans must stay! :-) I just have a question from Newton2. What do you think about the edit? --Arad17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind either way really. I agree that the bright white object is quite noticeable but on the other hand I can also accept the point which others have made about only editing to correct technical faults etc. Again, although the white object is fairly obvious I don't think it detracts from the overall photo too much. --Newton218:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the cloning out of the guttering and interior light is unnecessary and reduces the enc. There's another, less obvious gutter spout on the opposite tower so removing the right-hand one falsely implies asymmetry. The interior light indicates (albeit subtly) that the Tower is in use. --YFB¿21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it does improve the enc. Because as it seems, people may believe that someone is living in there. But it's only for tourism. --Arad22:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. You appear to have equated "in use" with "lived in" in my comment - the presence of an electric light in no way implies inhabitation, but it does show that the building isn't derelict or permanently locked up. How can removing something which was present when the photograph was taken and an integral part of the subject improve the enc? The logic of that statement is seriously flawed. --YFB¿22:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's better that you try be a bit more civil and comment on the photo not the person who comments. And AGF. In any way, those are distracting and I like it without them. You can do whatever you want, but that's how it is. --Arad22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out where I have been uncivil, made a comment about a contributor or failed to assume good faith. I resent being accused of any of those things just because I have disagreed with your edits. --YFB¿22:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2 only - Lovely shot. I've uploaded the edit that it was crying out for, removing the bloke wandering off to the left. I think this improves the composition immeasurably without diminishing the enc provided by the other person as a scale reference. I also took the liberty of moving the edit to the Commons - Newton2, if you're happy to licence your contributions under CC licences as you have here, then your work can benefit all Wikimedia projects if you put it on Commons instead of uploading direct to Wikipedia. --YFB¿ 18:49, 14 April 007 (UTC)
Support Original, although if the consensus goes against me, then I'll support Edit 2. My problem with Edit 2 is that the woman isn't actually a good comparison for scale, as she's standing on the other side of the hill, down the slope a foot or two, so she's taller than she appears in the picture. You can actually see the guy's legs. Admittedly, this is a pretty minor quibble, but I also kinda like the "exit stage right" composition with the guy walking off. My first reaction when seeing this picture was "Oh, that can't be real"; but it is, so it's fantastic! Enuja20:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it's pretty easy to visually interpolate the height of the woman without needing to see her feet. The difference to the proportion that results from the lower 8 inches or so of her being obscured is negligible when the comparison is this stark. Nonetheless you're perfectly entitled to hold a different opinion. Thanks for noting that you'd support an alternative consensus, that's a helpful attitude to take and makes closure decisions easier. --YFB¿21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 only (for reasons stated above) although I'd support the original if it came to it, but oppose all other edits for enc reasons (also stated above) mikaultalk22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose all The subject has a sense of scale built in, the windows and doors. The people serve no purpose and deminish the ENC composition. If I wanted to sell this picture I might leave them in for atristic value but they dont belong in the artical. also, there seems to be some tilt that isn't from perspective distortion. Edit out all the people for some support. -Fcb98123:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're opposing because there are people in the shot? Apart from pure aesthetics there is clearly a need for some scale reference; doors and windows come in a huge range of sizes and the building's imposing presence is clearly illustrated by the figure in the frame. I don't think the image as it is needs any more support than it already has. mikaultalk00:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you know what else come in a wide range of sizes... People. To a much greater extent than doors and windows. The people are not needed as a sense of scale. end of story. Also, if the image has enough support as is, why do you care how I vote? -Fcb98102:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can vote how you like, but I don't think the incentive of your support is enough to edit out all of the people in the shot, that's all. No need to get personal. Thanks entirely to the figure(s) in the frame, I can tell that the windows in this shot vary between one and twelve feet in height. You must know some really weird people ;o) mikaultalk12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added yet another edit (sorry) so that people can see what it is like without the people in it. I myself am not sure about the people, having the woman does give some perspective but then without any of them there is less distraction. I also edited off the dead grass on the right, below the tower. Chris_huhtalk15:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already mentioned that I do have another capture without the people in. However, the general consensus seems to be that the people are not detriment to the overall composition. --Newton217:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original The original is already good enough in my opinion. Furthermore, I've said numerous times before that I think some people are too fast with editing minor things out, but of course everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion and should make edits if he/she likes to. I still disagree though. -Wutschwlllm21:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Edit 4; neutral to all others Who needs red lights, tourists, or dead grass in this stunning picture? Great quality. Removing everything else focuses your attention on the building itself. Edit 4 definitely should be promoted. However, I would be happy if any of them were promoted. -Powerfulmindpleasetalktome!lookatallofmyedits!01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support edits 2 and 3 and support others. The people need to be in there for scale; looking at edit four the Tower doesn't seem so grand. However, I particularly like that edit four removed the dead grass in the corner. Amphy02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think having the woman in helps with scale, but the half cut-off, walking out-of-frame guy could be cut off (or cloned out). The bit of white guttering and the red light are not really a problem (although i see nothing wrong with taking out the red light) but the most distracting thing is the dead grass, so removing the dead grass and the man would be best, i think. Chris_huhtalk10:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I like the "half cut-off, walking out-of-frame guy". I like the "dead grass" too. All that gives the picture much more "depth". -Wutschwlllm21:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: we desperately need to get a policy on digital manipulation. I find this whole nomination with three manipulated edits rather troublesome. And it worries me even more that people are just discussing what else to remove or retouch instead of realizing that this project is about creating an encyclopedia and not a tourist brochure or pretty fantasy world scrap book! --Dschwen11:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alien Face - Extreme macro on an adult Large Brown Mantidalt1 dust cloned out.
My younger brother found this amazing praying mantis - measured at least 11cm no including the reach it could get out of it's front legs (I guess it's not called a Large Brown mantid for nothing!). Shot in studio the background was not made in PS but a result of the background I chose for dramatic effect. Yes a focus bracket would have been nice, but this thing was live and moving!
Support. Guesome but amazing, especially the eye. Two questions though, is the white mark in the eye a reflection from a flash/lighting? Second, is the v-shaped hair between the attenae part of the animal or something on the lens? Pstuart84Talk13:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Fir was playing with it and that the hair is his. Or maybe the Mantid lives in fir's hair. :-D --Arad23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no that is just sick. The hair is almost certainly from the mantid since it is evident in all other photos of the mantid I took, and that if it were on the lens it would appear as a very OOF line --Fir000201:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was a joke. No offence. lol. If you find playing with this insects sick, then how do take all these good close up pics from them? I can't stand many of them, but you take studio picture of them. Good job on that. --Arad01:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "V" is almost certainly a piece of non-mantid dust. Insect bristles grow from bilaterally symmetrical base points, and this one has no counterpart on the right side.Debivort07:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support alt 1 I'm pretty sure the V-thing is a hair. So here is an edit with it cloned out. Fir - would you please please resume indicating what articles are being illustrated by the photos? Also, how did you get that nice dark gradient background? Debivort19:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used a white piece of paper flat on the surface, and got my sister to hold up a black paper a little above the surface of the white paper. Since this is way OOF due to the extreme macro, it makes a pleasing gradient. --Fir000222:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support alt1 in my opinion this is an excellent image which really stands out. I especially like the gradient on the background. --Newton212:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support eitherOh eww. Excellent picture though- I'll support whichever one according to whether the black 'hair' belongs to the mantis or not :) Ishaana21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a looker. I like how the background fades to grey on the out of focus part. Interesting subject, and slick presentation. bobanny02:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support alt1 As an Entomologist, I have to support this one... :) But on a more serious note, They're both great pictures that capture the life and quasi-intelligence of one of the most interesting orders of insects. Great pics! --Entoaggie0906:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The exterior of the Italian Chapel, Orkney, Scotland. The chapel was built out of limited materials by Italianprisoners during World War II. The chapel was constructed from two Nissen huts joined end-to-end. Most of the decoration was done by Domenico Chiocchetti, a POW from Moena, who remained on the island to finish the chapel even when his fellow prisoners were released shortly before the end of the war.Edit 1: reworked version, downsampled to 1280x967
Care to explain? It's obviously taken with a point and shoot digital camera, but the quality is just fine at sizes up to 1024×768 or higher. --jacobolus(t)23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That the photograph was taken with a "point and shoot" camera is not an excuse to exempt from the image quality demanded by featured pictures. Furthermore, the photograph that is being considered is not 1024 by 768, and should not be regarded as such. If it were that resolution, I am sure it would suffer from complaints that it barely meets size guidelines. Image quality should not be subject to adjustment based on the quality of the camera. This image happens to exhibit low detail, moderate grain, chromatic abberation, sharpening artifacts, and dull colors, as well as an unipressive composition. Perhaps it would not suffer from some of these problems given a better camera, but then again, it is not a hypothetical image taken witha better camera that has been nominated; it is this image. J Are you green?23:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "low detail, moderate grain"? It certainly does have sharpening artifacts and chromatic aberation, as well as moderate noise, characteristically of a point and shoot camera. But there are a very large number of current featured pictures which would display a similar or lower amount of detail if upsampled to the same size as this image. Looking at a digital camera image at 100% to determine level of detail and quality, and then comparing with other images also at 100%, without respect to their total size, is a very bad means of comparison, IMO. --jacobolus(t)00:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have many many FP which are taken with point and shoot digital cameras. So there is no problem with those cameras. But this photo certainly has sharpening artifacts and low detail. It's not FP (The BEST of Wikipedia). --Arad01:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well then many FP should be delisted, by that criterion. Most point and shoot images (yes, this includes WP FPs) have a comparable or lower level of detail than this image. That's maybe fine; I don't really have a problem with keeping a high standard. But making the standard based on pixel peeping at 100%, without reference to the overall image dimensions, is silly. --jacobolus(t)02:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I edited as jacobolus did, so I did not take his response into account while writing this.) What I mean by "low detail" is that this looks like someone ran the photograph through a noise reduction filter, resulting in very little fine detail. The grass is one muddy mess of drab green, and I hardly can make out the features of the building. As for "moderate grain" I mean the chroma noise in the windows and shadowed regions. I highly doubt that there is multi-coloured grain on the actual building. Last, for my supposed comparison of this image at full size to a downsampled image at full size, I did download and downsample the image to 1024 by 796 (I believe that you have the wrong aspect ratio when you said 768). Detail was still low, chroma noise still present, etc. Almost no detail was lost - the pixel for pixel resolution is so low for this image. I would have opposed in every way that I already have opposed, and I would have an extra complaint about it barely reaching the size guideline. You talk about low-resolution featured pictures. Many of these images were promoted to featured picture quite a while ago, and few would pass if nominated today. Yes, they still cut it, if just barely, but for new images, expectations have risen. Furthermore, when compared to the downsampled results of this picture, our low resolution featured pictures are vastly better in composition and technical quality. Also, you seem to have allowed the fact that it was taken with a point and shoot camera to somehow make up for the grain. I do not factor in the type of camera into my vote, only the end product. It is the image, not the camera, being discussed. Oh, and Arad is right. Even if you do lower your standard because this was taken with a point and shoot camera, there are still vastly better images taken with point and shoots. J Are you green?03:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I've decided that the composition and lighting aren't up to featured picture status. In particular, improved local value contrast would be nice. --jacobolus(t)02:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, weak oppose edit 1 Edit 1 is better, but still is somewhat noisy, retains poor lighting, and is still poorly composed (although the edit did just about everything an edit can do to fix a doomed image). J Are you green?01:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Snapshot-esque. Poor lighting, uninspiring composition, sharpening artifacts, noise, lack of actual detail. --YFB¿06:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm honestly not just being obtuse when I say I really like this image and think a lot of the oppose comments above are a bit harsh and even off the mark. I'm thinking more of future submissions when I say we shouldn't, and frequently don't, condemn an image because of the manner in which it was nominated (quite often a successful FP will have been edited by contributors here before it made the grade) and yet this one above made the mistake of being submitted too big, nothing else.
Encouraging - even insisting on - 3MP+ submissions is unfair on images which look perfectly good at 1000x750, as this one does. It looks awful at twice the size but I could care less what it looks like twice the size, it's a really nice image at full-screen resolution. I've been looking in here for about six months and seen some travesties of non-promotions based solely on dimensional image size and pixel-level clarity. 1000px is all that is necessary (a) for appreciation purposes and (b) to allow for reasonably sized print repro. 1000 pixels makes for a good 4-6 inch print in repro and looks great on my monitor.
This is why the minimum size guideline is.. 1000pixels.
At this size I can tell the image above is a fine capture made with equipment better-suited to small repro and screen resolution viewing: why insist on pixel-picking at unreasonable magnification, as if 30x40 is the smallest size human beings can perceive for pictoral evaluation purposes? I can think of some very fine images of which that most certainly isn't true. This rant isn't over, but really do have to go out now.. I'll post this over on the WP:FP? discussion page and would urge you to direct your flames that way ==> mikaultalk20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, assuming this shot has been sharpened etc prior to uploading, I'd be happy to have a go at the original out-of-the-camera file, if you uploaded it. mikaultalk20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, is the above rant directed at my oppose vote? If so, I'm a bit puzzled because I didn't say anything about resolution and I took the time to downsample it to 50% in Photoshop, where all my above comments still apply. For example, look at the edges of the stone detailing - it's got a hard edge to it which makes it look almost like the chapel was pasted onto a blue background. If you look at the original image linked to, it's obvious that this is a not-bad attempt to improve a poor-quality original. It was taken on a gloomy evening with a p&s camera, underexposed and I find it uninteresting an unspectacular. Yes, the edit would probably look OK on 4x6 but I have literally thousands of photos which would look similarly nice at 4x6" and you won't find me submitting them here. I don't mind people disagreeing with me in the slightest, but I'm not keen on being characterised as flaming. We have pretty high standards at FPC, yes, and some good images get rejected for nitpicky reasons (I wince every time I see the words blown highlights) but Wikipedia has thousands of images and promoting those which clearly aren't among the best devalues the Featured Picture title. --YFB¿21:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies: no, I genuinely had no individual oppose in mind, on the contrary, my undiplomatic outburst was aimed at months of pixel-picking by a wide range of contributors here. I have no interest in personal attacks; the "flame" comment was a way of signalling my awareness that my comments were inflammatory, being "against the flow", as I say. FWIW I respect your comments in general, we seem to see things in a similar way.
I'm conscious of clogging up the nominations page with all this, so I'll move the rest of my reply to the talk page if that's ok.
Support Edit 1 - it's maybe too late for this pic, but comparing the two submissions, I would hope the merits of downsampling point-and-shoot pics to a reasonable size are obvious. mikaultalk00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Downsampling them has no merit, except to mollify the pixel-peepers (who if they compare everything at 100% will think the new image is sharper), or perhaps to reduce file size. It doesn't increase image detail, sharpness, color, or any other attribute, and the difference in file size should not be taken into account for determining FP. --jacobolus(t)17:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the article, it seems this church is encyclopedic for two reasons 1) it was built by Italian POWs in Scotland during WWII and 2)it's made of two Nissen huts. There is no way to communicate point #1 in a picture, but I think this shot improperly ignores point #2. It would have been nice if this shot had been from an angle instead of straight on, showing the curved side of the church, in addition to the completely normal looking front. I'm not going to oppose, because the downsampled version looks pretty good, but I'm questionable about the encyclopedic content. Enuja18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just what a carpenter should look like. You can even see beads of sweat dripping down his face if you zoom in. This probably needs to be downsampled/edited, but someone more experienced than me should do it.
Oppose edit 3 this didn't color correct. It added too much blue (look at the clouds) and green (look at the shirt). I agree the original is a little problematic (the red in the clouds). However, I am still deciding how I feel about an image that looks sort of staged, campy, and cliché, even if it a real period worker at work. I agree with jacobolus that the color is questionable to begin with. For the time being, I'm neutral for 1 and 2.-Andrew c21:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This looks staged somehow (especially the lighting and colouration) and for my mind doesn't show "carpentry" that well. It Does show "hard work" but we already have the B&W pic of the Mechaninc for that. WittyLama17:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on this picture, but this was in all likelihood taken on location. See this comparable picture and click through on "Tennessee Valley Authority" to see all of Palmer's TVA pictures. ~ trialsanderrors08:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Illustration of refraction in various materials, made in Dielectric Shader. Three different Dielectric interfaces, demonstrating the use of Dielectric Shaders.Alternative 1 - You can also vote for this one or both.This is not a photo. Nor is it for voting. Avert your eyes.Nothing is real.
Reason
I searched a lot for a better image with free licence, but I couldn't find any. Describes the subject very well.
Question. Please can you explain where the shadows behind the glasses come from. The shadow behind the blue vessel is shaped like a stemmed wine glass. Pstuart84Talk15:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "shadow" is actually a reflection on the glass of what's in front of the object. This was photographied in a "white box" witch is a standard studio photography technique when it come up to take picture of reflective or semi-reflective objects (glass, metal, etc...). The object is surrounded all in white with a diffused flash on the top and a narrow opening in the front. The openning is actually the black "shadow" on the glass. PYMontpetit17:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice description... but this isn't a photograph. It's a computer-generated image, using the technique of dielectric shading to make it look real. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of which really answers my question! Whether its real or simulated, there are shadows (or reflections) on both jars which appear to bear no relation to any of the objects depicted. Is that intentional or erroneous? Sorry to persist but it's not clear from the picture, the caption, the article or ‘refraction’. Pstuart84Talk20:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author is my friend. I'll see him soon and ask him about reflections. But I'm pretty sure he didn't made a mistake. --Arad21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
question - many of you view this as highly encyclopedic. How does it illustrate Dielectric shading? For example, I don't know which of the aspects of the image are only possible with this rendering technique, I think a less stylized, but more annotated image would be much more instructive. Perhaps I'm not understanding something though?Debivort01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - This is a nice example of the capabilities of the Dielectric shader but doesn't tell me anything about how it works or what it does. A sequence from wireframe to solid shaded to transparent to dielectric or something might be a good illustration, but as it is this is pretty but not particularly enc. I'm also a little puzzled by the reflection in the blue glass, which seems unrealistic (unless it's a reflection of something else in the scene). Also, isn't the use of the Stella Artois logo a copyright/trademark violation? --YFB¿18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked Fair use and it might be possible that in this case, the picture doesn't violate copyrights. Although the material copied is clearly a copyrighted one, we can safely assume there is no commercial intention behind the picture. The goal of author was probably to make a realistic rendering of a glass of beer, and he had to use a realistic logo to do so. He arranged the scene so only parts of logos are in sight (but maybe more than one third the logo is too much). Also, I think this may only benefit to the brand. Blieusong11:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's dielectric rendering. It's not only pretty, it's encyclopedic too (shows computer generated graphics using dielectric). --Arad03:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To an average person looking at that it just looks like ornate coloured glass... also the article itself isnt helpful in its explanation to the average person. It is rightly labeled with the {{context}} tag. So overall, unhelpful picture and unhelpful article so the image has no value --Childzy(Talk|Contribs)09:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whichever way you look at this (top pic) it's a clear FP promotion. Ok, encyclopedically it may be a liitle weak but I really don't think there is a better way of illustrating the technique than by finished example, which this verifiably is. The reflections of these ray-trace illustrations infuriate me, they're so accurate; I can see nothing there which wouldn't feasibly appear in an equally high-res studio shot. It's even got some 'real' flaws - the graduated background is exactly like a (not very well-done) single-toplight white bg shot. Very clever, very nice. mikaultalk09:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hmm.. looking again, those bubbles are wrong in a differnt way; they look metallic, like mercury rather than air. I'd expect real-world air bubbles to show more colour. This is probably down to some limitation in the software, so I'll not change my vote. mikaultalk09:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With frames illustrating the process - as YFB suggested above. Or close up views of examples of each of those dilectric interfaces (I still don't know what they refer to, despite that phrase appearing in the caption). Debivort16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Those are shadows of "Window like" objects in the scene (or behind the scene)! The author tried to make it realistic. --Arad20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original 1, Oppose reshoot and Edit2. The sky is still a bit uneven (rivet counting), but otherwise its a great pic. --Dschwen14:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I'm supprised that nobody mentioned it, considering that its been brought up too often, but the front surfaces of the capital are pretty blown. lighting is good elsewhere . otherwise good. -Fcb98101:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Statue of Freedom has a very slight tilt if you look carefully and the dome does look slightly blown. However, none of these slight technical problems are distracting and are hardly noticeable. Oh...and very good stitching job. Very encyclopedic pic. Jumping cheeseCont@ct02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless the sky is fixed. Also, it needs more meta info: when were the shots taken, with what kind of camera, etc.--ragesoss03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original only. There are still some stitching errors, but they're very minor in the scope of the image. Great shot. --Tewy19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edits based off of edit 1 are too bright, and the people in the foreground are more distracting than in the original. --Tewy01:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I love this photo - the detail is so crisp that you can see inside the windows. But the sky has broad vertical stripes. How should this balance out? Pstuart84Talk10:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me?! So it is ok to feature The houses of parliament and Tower bridge, but the capitol is suddenly bias? --Dschwen08:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I'm British... why would I have a problem with the Capitol being featured? I'm not going to claim US bias, firstly because there are plenty of British pictures featured, and secondly - who gets angry over whether a picture involving their country is featured or not? That ludicrous... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ09:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been re-stitched to address the sky and errors have been greatly minimized. The changes are reflected in the original image above as the edit is an objective improvement. Noclip19:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Problems with stitching now gone (to my eyes anyway). Sky is slightly noisy and easily fixable but I don't think its worth uploading an edit over. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)20:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I keep opposing this to be featured. Most of the stitching errors remain and there are even some new ones. I think the main reason for supporting this picture is its top notch quality (shaaaaarp) and therefore I think we can't let the stitch errors spoils it all. You should use horizontal control points especially to the left and right borders of the picture where horizontal lines lose their property. Also, I believe this should be easy to stitch since you are far away from the subject and parallax errors should me minimal. As Diliff proposed before, I can try to help if you want to, in which case you could email me (but I think emailing him would be better choice, he has proven his skills). Blieusong22:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's better but there are some new stitching errors in the edit. I still oppose until someone does an adequate stitch.--ragesoss19:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now hold on, the biggest stitching error in this image is 2.8 pixels and there's opposition all over the place. This image by Diliff on the other hand slid right by with nary a mention of the much larger stitching errors (at the very top in the center, looks to be ~10 pixels). What's with the double standards? Noclip19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer I am newbie here. I also noticed some errors on some pictures from Diliff (the manhattan panorama Image:Lower_Manhattan_from_Staten_Island_Ferry_Corrected_Jan_2006.jpg which is featured has tons of them). Had I been around here by that time, I would have opposed. Some people are more forgiving about this, I am not, especially given that the main reason for supporting Diliff's pic are their top notch technical quality. I really like your picture and, again, I'm sure the errors can be corrected without too too much efforts (and also again still offer to stitch it). Blieusong21:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original or edit 1 and no others - I know Noclip isn't a newbie, but opposing on the basis of stitching errors of a pixel or two on an image like this is frankly biting. I'd say exactly the same in the case of Diliff's Staten Island Ferry shot - is anyone here seriously suggesting that either of these images aren't among the best we have at Wikipedia? Because of a stitching error of a few pixels out of thousands (and in Diliff's case, in a photo taken from a moving platform on water - moving water being one of the most difficult things to stitch properly)? I have no problem with opposing for glaring errors which hurt the enc, but people who are spending time actively searching out 1-2px errors are wasting their own and everybody else's time. We will end up losing valuable contributors with this sort of nitpicking. --YFB¿23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't take more than a few seconds for a trained eye to notice errors like this. Here we have one in the middle of the picture. Hard to miss. This picture could have been made from a single shot, instead, author chose to take several pictures to stitch them and (I guess) scale the result down so it has tons of details and looks sharper per pixel. It is therefore meant to be pixel peeped, and that's why stitching errors, even a few pixels wide or something are to me unforgivable. Blieusong20:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're right in saying that stitched images are automatically meant to be pixel peeped by-design. The idea of a stitched image is primarily to provide a higher resolution and more detailed image than could be captured in a single frame. Standards are already set by the community and if an image exceeds that standard, I don't think that means that they should be automatically scrutinised to an even higher standard. Stitched images will always have the tendency to exhibit slight stitching errors, although we do our best to minimise them and for the most part they do not misrepresent the scene. Single frame images will always have the tendency to be softer or lower resolution. It is a trade off. Would you reject images on the basis of lesser detail (but above the minimum standards)? Some stitching errors are so minor that they would be completely obscured by a significant downsampling to the equivalent resolution of that single frame. As for the Lower Manhattan image, I can only see two obvious stitching errors - one on the waterline in the middle and one two-thirds of the way across on a building roofline. I don't really see tons of them, but I'd be interested if you could point out others. Some of them along the water appear to be stitching errors but I'm fairly sure they are just deviations of the geography. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)16:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I believe one cannot spend time to make such a detailed pic and not expect it to be looked at pixel size. if you want detail, you expect them to be looked at real size, so you shouldn't present the viewer stich errors. I agree that minor stitch errors go away with downscaling, but here (before edit1) they were still there after. I also agree that some errors are in some place they are likely not to be seen easily so they are more acceptable. I wouldn't reject image which have less details but I reject image which want to produce more details and are spoiled especially if I know it can be corrected. Of course, my opinion is only one amongst (?) many other, so if others like it, they just can say it. About the manhattan image, I spotted most of the errors here. (I think this should be asked for deletion once you see it !). Blieusong18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I updated my vote. I don't see any benefit in either of the images except the introduction of artifacts. Saturation was fine in the first two version and Edit 3 is definitely a step for the worse. Blieusong, you're entitled to your opinion but I think you're wrong about some of the stitching errors you've identified in Diliff's image. --YFB¿17:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Boring angle. Much more interesting pictures could be taken of such a complex piece of architecture. This is just straight on, on a day with a (boring) clear sky. --jacobolus(t)04:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate to muddy the waters of this nomination even further but I wasn't too happy with the sharpness at full size so I went out and re-shot this from a closer position. Edit 1 is the result and I believe it does the "Diliff process" much more justice. Noclip00:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that building is actually supposed to be white right? I mean making it a dull underexposed gray just so there are no white pixels is not very helpful, for enc or aesthetics. As you can see it's not over exposed because there is only a couple of 255,255,255 pixels. I find people ridiculously adverse to having any pixels white, white is part of a good image's spectrum! --Fir000222:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and in fact exposure metering in cameras always allows for a certain percentage of blown pixels (otherwise the highlights would force an underexposure of most pictures). But the issue is not whether white is allowed, but if that certain exposure shows as much detail as the first shot, which showed the same white building just with more detail, so there should be no dispute about enc. --Dschwen06:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, there still are... OK this isn't funny :) a really great stitching job here, I wish a "blieusong" process gives something similar... so I weak supportEdit1 and Edit2 (weak because of overexposition, which is something which can be easy fixed anyways). Blieusong18:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overexposure can not be fixed easily. The bright areas lack contrast. Just darkening the whole image does not help. Plus the edit accentuates the noise in the sky. --Dschwen20:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've just uploaded a second version of my edit (replacing the old one). It took me much more than expected to achieve it (I haven't simply darkened the whole picture). Now we can see slightly more details on the bright areas. Noise in the sky isn't that big an issue here (and maybe one over here has some software which can get rid of it). Overall, I believe it's the closest to the original, without the errors. Blieusong20:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Edits 2 and 3 go too far, I can understand darkening the image but there is no reason to jack up the saturation in the harsh manner of these edits. Aside from the unnatural sky and grass, the saturation boost accentuates noise and produces weird green and orange discoloration on the building itself. Noclip01:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The caption isn't quite correct. This appears to be the west side of the building which technically is the back, not the front. Note that the statue is facing away from the camera. Also, out of curiosity, why is there a flag on the north (Senate side) flagpole but not on the south (House side)? --dm(talk)06:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to oppose all versions. I would care less about niggly stitching errors, even alleged over-exposure (although edits 2 onwards do look like they have too bright a mid-tone) but the plain fact is this view of the building suffers more from being shot at an unfortunate time of day (with the sun full-on) which all but destroys detail and hence has the appearance of being overexposed. Whereas the original submission is ok for people but obscured by trees, the second shot reverses the problem, ie. too many people, neatly deforested. For this kind of subject, half the battle is to capture it at an opportune moment, if it's not to be judged as a high-resolution snapshot, as I am. mikaultalk09:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Kingston Communications Stadium, in Kingston-upon-Hull, viewed at night.A slightly cropped version, with the blown street lamp at the bottom removed.
Reason
I feel that this picture meets all the featured picture criteria. It is a well taken photo that adds to the articles it is used in and, personally, I find it stiring and think it deserves to be featured.
"Copyright: If you want to re-use or reproduce the publications or information provided by Yorkshire Forward from a request under the Freedom of Information Act (for example, commercially or for circulation to third parties) you may need to apply for a copyright licence." [12]Chris H00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recieved an email from the website operators saying "All images on our Image Bank are copyright and cost free." - I have no idea what licence, specifically, this would transfer to but it sounds like the image is fair game. ...adam... (talk • contributions) 12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent an email to clarify that the image is copyright free, and to see if they have a higher resolution version of the picture. Hopefully the copyright issue will be cleared up soon. ...adam... (talk • contributions) 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - just had an email confirming all the images in the image bank could be used for comercial purposes and to make derivative works. So that's the copyright issue cleared up I think. ...adam... (talk • contributions) 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Attractive photograph highlighting one of the most visually impressive stadiums in the UK. The contrast between the stadium's looks, and the unattractive surroundings, impresses me somewhat. NeilSenna22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor, oversharpened scan of a nice enough, high definition pic. Would look miles better either downsampled to 2000px or (ideally) re-scanned. mikaultalk23:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an image of American cricketer John Barton King. He is arguably the best cricketer in this country's history and his article is nearing the point of Featured Status (finishing up last Peer Review before FAC). The image is high resolution, but the photograph was a little on the old side. Mr Hensley found the previously lost photograph in a book at the CC Morris Library and scanned it for me to add to Wikipedia. It is a unique picture of fairly good quality. This was taken during King's prime around the turn of the last century. Fcb981 seconded my proposal at a peer review and provided a cleaned-up edit of the image.
Comment This picture should be further cleaned up (if it has already been cleaned up). Particularily the big white defect in the lower left and the scratches in the top left. -Midnight Rider23:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bart King was a great player and is very interesting and unusual in being one of the few major American cricketers. As so many Wikipedians may be unaware of the role the USA played in early cricket I think this would be an excellent choice. Eva has done a huge amount of excellent work on this topic and this deserves recognition as well. Nick mallory02:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice story about the rare find, but the quality of the scan is still very poor. Also, what's with the discolorization? Oddly enough in the edit half the picture turns brown while the other half stays black-and-white. ~ trialsanderrors19:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another poor scan of a quality image, looks like it was photographed behind glass Just checked, and it wasn't scanned at all, but photographed, so the white corner is a reflection in glass. Really pushing the 'historical relevance' mitigation a bit too far, I think. mikaultalk23:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see where this is headed. I'll go back to the CC Morris Library and see if I can get a proper scan of the image. In the meantime, can I close this candidacy somehow? Thank you all for your valuable input.--Evabd00:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear picture of the subject, well focused. High enough resolution. Nice colours. I feel it definitely meets the criteria. Jsc8318:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Tough trying not to blow out highlights in a bird that is sexually selected for blown-out highlights. As for the background, I'm guessing that's not its actual nest (it looks like we're at ground level), so a selective blur would be defendable. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Betrothal portrait of Anne of Cleves, fourth wife of Henry VIII of England, by Hans Holbein the Younger (1497-1543). It was on the basis of this portrait that Henry VIII chose her to be his fourth Queen. Watercolor on parchment. 65 x 48 cm. Museum of Louvre.A lower resolution reproduction used in other articles.
Reason
A high resolution scan of the portrait which led directly to the subject becoming the King's fourth Queen.
Thanks for your vote, I thought it had gotten quiet round here! When you say 'poor quality' are you referring to the painting itself, or the scan? Obviously there is a lot of wear and tear owing to its age, which is cropped on the second version. Pstuart84Talk15:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am of course referring to the photographic quality. I don't believe in miracles, how can we put a quality image this size in a file much less than 1 Mb (only Fir0002 is able to do that and I really don't know how...)? The files shouldn't be compressed - Alvesgaspar20:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Need a higher resolution image with the same quality as the 2nd image. The subject is historically significant enough to be featured, but it needs more work. Cacophony21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A B-52H Stratofortress from the 96th Bomb Squadron, Barksdale Air Force Base, La., deployed to the 2nd Air Expeditionary Group, Naval Station Diego Garcia, drops away after air refueling.
Weak oppose. Acceptable size (though I would prefer it larger) and quality. However, the background has some very distracting elements (to my eyes), and the overexposed nose is very annoying. Additionally, it might be nice to have a more contrasting background (though that's not really a concern for me). --Pharaoh Hound(talk)(The Game)12:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Compression artifacts, would be tolerable only at significantly larger size. I'm beginning to see a pattern... --Dschwen14:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You probably mean POV (NPOV = neutral point of view). A slight POV is hard to avoid in a picture where you never can tell the whole story. But please elaborate, which bias do you suspect? --Dschwen06:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture makes it seem like this kind of outfit is typical for Muslim women or for Muslim women in Yemen for that matter. Since it has more to do with culture than religion (Islam), it may be considered misleading. But the picture is of poor quality anyway.--Svetovid10:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We really don't know what was the intention of the nominator (or the photographer) in showing this picture. Maybe they just intended to illustrate which is, in their opinion, the proper clothing for all women... If that is the case, they fell short of the POV sin, because the message is not clear. Also, religion is a quite strong component of culture in many regions of the world, particularly in muslim countries. And this picture would indeed be misleading if christian (or jewish, or bhoudist) women in Yemen used this kind of clothing (which is not the case, I believe). Alvesgaspar23:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy, subject is small in realtion to frame, angle not very attractive. Got a closer shot with less grain? --Janke | Talk18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a good crop hiding in there. You may also want to consider a macro lens if you expect to be taking shots like this on a regular basis. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got one now. This is a last ditch effort to get a single photo from the old camera to FP status. Oh well. —Pengo05:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original (although, if the consensus goes against me, I'd still support the alternative). This is a beautiful shot. For once, I actually like the white background; it really sets this particular specimen off. Enuja19:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, I think - although (and I've been wondering about this for a couple of days now) how come the file size is so small? 160kB? Obviously not a reason to oppose in the absence of quality concerns, but a bit puzzling. --YFB¿06:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of white = nothing to compress. Even with min compression, JPEGs will only compress the actual colour pixels. Yo often find heavily textured/multicoloured pics don't compesss very small at all. Filesize is therefore irrelevant in FP considerations. Oh, support either image, seeing as I'm here :) fab shot - mikaultalk12:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'd thought it must be. Even so, I usually find Photoshop makes rather big JPEGs. Anyway, agreed that it's a good photo. On second thought, though, I prefer the original for the same reasons as HereToHelp. --YFB¿19:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try the "Save for web..." dialog, it strips out extraneous file data. You dont get any embedded EXIF, but you do get smaller jpegs for the same quality.mikaultalk22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aesthetically I find it striking and pleasing; the colours are fantastic. It is a high quality scan/photograph of the painting, 2500 × 1571, showing the opening of the Parliament of Australia in 1901. I'm pretty sure it fulfils all the criteria. Hope you enjoy it.
Oh yeah, it says that in the caption. I meant I didn't know who uploaded the image to Wikipedia- it is actually from Wikipedia Commons btw. Cheers. Rothery10:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a vey important painting in australian history - the most famous representation of Australia's political independence. However, is it possible to get a better scan?? The quality here is quite bad... Wittylama21:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah I kinda agree with Witty, its pretty ordinary quality, and you can see the stitch mark along the middle. It was scanned from a really thick book over a double page spread on a pretty cheap scanner. Ive got a better scanner now and could probably rescan at a higher res (although the print quality of course will limit how much I can get out of it) if people really want it. --Fir000206:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought that was just part of the actual painting or something. If you wouldn't mind then that would be fantastic. I'm currently using it as my desktop background, hehe. Rothery07:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for both versions, slight preference for edit 01 - great photo, very encyclopaedic, I've adjusted the levels slightly. Good job. And for the caption: it's Māori, not Maori. So a new caption:
Oppose edit 01 - should be SVG.
Neutral Willy!. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an interesting image. Fits all criteria (to the best of my knowledge). ~Steptrip 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
covers the aerial perspective and the tea fields below, and actually looks attractive. (Also oppose Diliff's alt for this nomination, for lack of blue shift). ~ trialsanderrors 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Per YFB plus many JPEG artifacts. ~Steptrip 18:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
, but that was never nominated, and the set is incomplete anyway. ~ trialsanderrors 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)