Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Archives/Jan-Mar 2008

Hitler salute

Adolf Hitler and Hermann Goring, among otheer Nazis, at a Nazi party rally, Nuremberg, Germany in 1928.

Edit 1

large photo, historically relevant. However, not nominated directly to FP because it could probably benefit from downsampling and cleanup.

Nominated by

Spikebrennan (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• If it was all about great pictures, there wouldn't be an issue here cos this one really grabs you. First impressions are great: that lovely perspective and then the guy (Göring?) in the middle with the trilbee, dead center, perfectly focussed and looking straight into the lens. If that was Hitler instead of the OOF figure to the left of him, this would likely be one of the great iconic images of the 20th century.. it has plenty of other merits; you could try pushing the rally side of it, but I have a feeling the FPC crowd will latch onto the poorly rendered leader figure and incline to opposition straight away. The filename doesn't help.. compositionally a 10% crop from the bottom would really firm it up, it depends how much value you place on the foreground detail. That's in in a nutshell: on a purely visual level it could work really well, but in terms of historical value there are several levels of disappointment.
  <edit> Since I wrote all of that offline, it's grown on me again. I dunno, I've given it a quick clean and the crop I was on about and a bit of tonal tweaking (edit 1) – nothing I wouldn't do in the darkroom, hopefully enough redistribute a little emphasis back onto the little fella standing on a box :o) – and I'm still not sure.. --mikaul^talk 23:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the edit and the comments. Goring is the guy with the medals in the left foreground standing below Adolf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikebrennan (talk • contribs) 15:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

View of the Environs of St. Petersburg I. I. Shishkin

View of the Environs of St. Petersburg

A rare and beautiful print of a russian masterpiece

Nominated by

GrahamColm^Talk 19:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Have a look at existing featured paintings for the sort of scan quality expected at FPC. Copies of litho prints like this one need to be scanned from exceptionally high quality originals, or the screen dots tend become more visible than original detail. Especially true of poorer-qualtiy scans like this one, where heavy correction can cause tone and colour to go astray. I'm fairly sure the sky here is the wrong hue entirely, for example, and where it meets the horizon there's an uncharacteristic (for Shishkin) splash of white. Great painting from a great artist, I only wish we had a better copy :o/ --mikaul^talk 23:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

A Roman bireme (image name is incorrect)

CG depiction of a Roman bireme

I think it's a good illustration of a ship design that played a key role in naval warfare during the time. While the author was attempting to present a good overall view, the double banks of oars may be difficult to distinguish.

Nominated by

BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• You sure it's an illustration as such? Looks to have been cut out (not brilliantly, I have to say) from a photograph of a model ship. There's a fair bit of smoothed-out chromatic noise in the hull and other parts, or at least that's what it looks like; it's not good rendering if not. I think the angle is a decent compromise, but the photographic execution isn't up to FP standards, m'afraid. --mikaul^talk 23:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is I didn't realize the possibility.  :( BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 00:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agreeing with the previous comment, which unfortunately means there might be a copyright problem here. If the model ship was built from a commercial kit then the design is almost certainly proprietary. Durova^Charge! 04:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Waldenburg, Germany 1945

Original caption (U.S.): "Infantrymen of the 255th Infantry Regiment move down a street in Waldenburg to hunt out the Hun after a recent raid by 63rd Division". April 16, 1945

An example of wartime destruction during World War II. Soldiers file through a smoke-filled street past the abandoned hulls of destroyed buildings. The lines lead the viewer's eye along the street to the church - only structure in the scene that has survived. Extreme dark tones and blown whites work for me this time, perhaps because of that composition.

Nominated by

Durova^Charge! 05:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Very promising, got me off my laurels and searching for a better version. Not for the tonal problem (which I have to say would raise a lot of opposition on FPC) but the original had already been very carelessly edited, leaving huge chunks of cloned "echoes" all over the place. this is the original, so far as I can see, with the bleached out sky intact. If you want to re-do the cleaning.. if not, I'll probably have some time over the weekend. I think its worth it, the sense of devastation is almost tangible. That shop sign hanging wistfully, the two soldiers looking surprised to find a cat wandering about. It's a wonderful photo. --mikaul^talk 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, much better source image! Yes, I'll work on this as soon (heading out for a bit now). You're right about the sign and the cat. I also find it interesting that the soldiers are almost indistinguishable. You might just make out their nationality from the shapes of the helmet, but other than that the scene is almost completely dehumanized: an essay on destruction made all the more forlorn by its few traces of normality. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Have a look at this version before you tackle the cleanup. I just noticed it was half the size of the Waldenburgapl1945a.jpg one, possibly due to the latter being upsampled, but it's more likely a different scan. The print original is the same, but the crop is different on the new source (a bit of church spire missing) and there seems to be a little more linear noise. The real difference is the lack of any manipulation at all, and I think this makes it favourite. I've only corrected it for contrast, as it was really poor, tweaked the tonal balance her & there and pulled out pretty much all the detail tht was hidden in that murky gray. Have a look and decide for yourself which you'd rather clean up, I really must get some work done! --mikaul^talk 10:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll go with this version.

Thanks very much for the links. The first link appears to be the least manipulated version - I'm guessing that because its histogram is off and the obvious correction leads to the blown whites in the sky. It's also the least lossy. So I've left the levels alone, cleared the streaks and other artifacts. Interesting what different decisions people reach about how to work on the same image. You're right about murkiness - yet in a smoke filled scene murkiness is inevitable and probably right. Let's see what other Wikipedians decide. Durova^Charge! 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC) (nominated for FPC)

It's OK to have the # in the lower right? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 04:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove it for FPC, although personally I don't think they're a problem in general. The less manipulation the better. Speaking of which, I just realised I uploaded the wrong file yesterday :o/ --mikaul^talk 07:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There were a couple of stains left, so I've taken those and the number out and will upload the edit as an FPC alt based on the one I should have uploaded before. More haste, less speed.. --mikaul^talk 10:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 10:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Nominated at FPC as Waldenburg, Germany 1945 by Durova on 18 Jan, 2008. --jjron (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually this section can be archived; It's featured now. Durova^Charge! 03:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Approaching Omaha

Troops in an LCVP craft approaching Omaha Beach on D-Day, 6 June 1944.

I sort of stumbled on this picture and really liked the amount of detail in the picture. Even the faint "No Smoking" on the ramp is visible. I think that this picture has some good historical value. Thoughts?

Nominated by

bibliomaniac15 01:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Great pic. Would this featured image steal its thunder? Durova^Charge! 02:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at this again and comparing against the source files, there's a problem. This is a retouched photo. Somebody ran filters through this in an apparent effort at denoising, and the result looks like watercolor at high resolution. Durova^Charge! 08:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I've reverted that edit, if you feel like retouching (your recent edits have been spectacular). thegreen J Are you green? 22:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • You sure know how to flatter a lady. Lots of horizontal streaks on this image - I'll guess the print was scanned on a dirty machine. That would be real work. Important photo, though. I'll see if I have time. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 21:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• This is a good contrast to Image:1944 NormandyLST.jpg, which I believe is one of the early waves of troops to hit the beach. On the other hand here, it looks like some other waves have already landed. Otherwise there are some lines near midway and a scratch near the top right. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 05:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• On second thought, is there any way to get a better scan of this image? The damage is extensive and it goes across the center of the image in ways that would be murder to fix and probably result in significant data loss. Durova^Charge! 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Crab-eating Macaque in Lopburi, Thailand

The facial features of a crab-eating macaque (Macaca fascicularis) in Lopburi, Thailand

The photograph is remarkable clear around the eyes, is of high resolution, and illustrates the subject better than any photo I've seen of this particular species. It's sort of haunting... I'm half expecting someone to argue against inclusion because the tip of the left ear is out of the frame. Frankly, I don't think that's of much concern, as the focus and general representation is, first and foremost, on the face (especially the eyes). It is also the flagship photo for the subject's article. Thoughts?

Nominated by

DMCer™ 10:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It is a nice picture. But a bit unsharp. Perhaps that could be fixed by downsampling? --Cynops3 (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You may prefer this edit. Best I could do without downsampling. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, I found that downsampling to 1500 width cures the worst of the motion blur. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I love the eyes, but I can see people griping about the left ear and the furs not being 100% sharp—I don't feel like dealing with that. I'd vote for it, but I don't think I'll nominate it. If someone else does, go for it!-DMCer™ 18:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Muhammad al-Tijani

Muhammad al-Tijani is a Muslim scholar who was brought up as a Maliki Sunni. He later converted to Shia Islam and has written numerous books defending the Shia. His most famous publication is his fiirst book,"Then I Was guided."

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

A good picture, but I think it needs some editing.

Nominated by

Muhammad(talk) 07:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd like to see what others think. It doesn't strike me as a particularly dynamic portrait of the man. It looks a bit unbalanced, perhaps taken a bit from his left, and also seemingly from a bit above - it may not be an issue, but it just makes me wonder why. The background is also not the best, especially with that piece of material running up the left of the image. Other opinions, or more reasons for why you think it's particularly good? --jjron (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The internet does not have any photographhs of this person. Some people are of the opinion he doesnt exist! This picture is thus very encyclopedic despite the minor flaws. The piece of material can be photoshopped of, right? Any other concerns? Muhammad(talk) 15:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• You are experienced at FPC, Muhammad. You know that encyclopedic value alone does not make a featured picture. Yes, this is a high resolution image, yes, the person's face is very clear, but the background and the glare off of the wrinkled white shirt together kill its chances of being a featured pictures. It's a great contribution to the encyclopedia, but not great to look at, and the not-great to look at part is completely unrelated to its encyclopedic value. - Enuja (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. The photograph isn't of any notable technical standard, and I would hardly count it among Wikipedia's best work. Also, all three photos seem rather busy, the other elements distract from the main subject (especially the last two). Good for an article illustration though.--DMCer™ 10:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Calabi-Yau manifold

A rendering of a particular slice of a 10-dimensional Calabi-Yau manifold.

This image is displayed prominently in the geometry article, the Calabi–Yau manifold article, and the Fermat curve article. It is also used in the string theory article. I thought I might nominate it as a featured picture candidate because an alternate rendering was used on the cover of the November 2007 issue of Scientific American. (The image was originally misattributed, but a correction will be running in the March 2008 issue.) PS: the alternate rendering, Image:Calabi-Yau-alternate.png, hasn't been moved to Commons. Could I get some help with that, too? TIA, Lunch (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominated by

Lunch (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Thanks for putting this up at PPR. I'm not too sure what to make of this; it is interesting, but perhaps needs some clarification. The first problem is that sadly neither image meets the size requirements, which say that it must be at least 1000px on at least one side. If this was in the svg format it would not be an issue, but these have been saved as png. I wonder if you have a bigger size or svg version?
  You also say that the alternative was used on the cover of Sci Am, but the image description says it was created by you using Prof. Andrew Hanson's code - I guess what I'm getting at is whether this is the image that was used on Sci Am, or whether it's a replica version of an image that was on the cover? I'm also unclear on why your initial nom here is a different version than that used on Sci Am.
  The easiest way to upload to commons is simply to navigate there (you can use this link), create an account if you don't have one (you can use the same user name as you have here), and then click the upload file link on the left (just as you would here). A template will open stepping you through the upload procedure. --jjron (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for the comments.

  Are people really that picky about the resolution limits? If so, I can regenerate the image, but it's a pain in the neck for a whopping whole of 100 pixels.

  Regarding the two images, again, "Image:Calabi-Yau-alternate.png" was used on the cover of Scientific American. On the other hand, "Image:Calabi-Yau.png" is the version used in a number of Wikipedia articles. It seemed fitting to mention them both.

  Regarding the "originality" of the images, I am the source of the images -- *not* Scientific American and *not* Andrew Hanson. No, I did not copy the image from the cover of Scientific American; they copied Wikipedia. Yes, I used a modified version of Andrew Hanson's code to generate the image. No, it is not his image. If Andrew Hanson took a photograph of the Empire State building, wrote a letter describing where he was standing and what time of day it was when he took the photo, mailed it to me, and I followed his directions, then we would produce two different images. He would have copyright in his, and I in mine. The same applies here. Whether or not you want to call this "creative" or "original" is another question as is whether or not this would disqualify the image from being a featured picture. Again, since Scientific American saw fit to copy Wikipedia's image, it seemed like a feather in the cap of Wikipedia, and it seemed fitting to try and highlight this.

  Did I cover all my bases here? Does this make sense and seem like a good candidate?

  Lunch (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people really are picky about resolution requirements, and they are also fairly picky about format. I don't personally know how well .SVG does with gradients (can gradients be represented by vectors?), but, assuming that .SVG is the best format for this image, it would probably only get promoted as an .SVG version. With .SVG, resolution is irrelevant. - Enuja (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the image here is ‘’not’’ the exact version from Sci Am, but that image is also available – my question was why you’re nominating a different version here. If it’s simply that that is the version in the articles, then it’s easy enough to swap them over (having said which, I think I prefer the version you’ve put up here anyway, it’s just the other one may carry more weight on FPC if it was the actual Sci Am version).

The analogy you draw is not quite correct. Essentially what I was saying was if you just used Andrew Hanson’s code then he it is really his image. It would be like you scanning his photograph and claiming it as your own (not like you following his instructions to take a similar image, as you say). If this is however substantially modified from his code, then you can possibly claim it as your own – I’m not sure ‘’how’’ modified it really needs to be, nor how modified it is. These things could become an issue on FPC, so please don’t get narky with me for asking them here.

Re it’s chances on FPC, it’s hard to say (assuming you can get the bigger size or svg version if appropriate). Images like this sometimes do very well, sometimes get poleaxed. It’s pretty hard to tell in advance. The only way to really find out is to put it up there, explain yourself well, and see how it goes. --jjron (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Portsmouth Square, San Francisco, 1851

An 1851 daguerrotype of Portsmouth Square, San Francisco.

During the daguerrotype era portraiture predominated. Street scenes were unusual and this - from the height of the California gold rush - has particular historical value. Focus is good enough that most of the building signs are legible. I've kept the file on the large side for that reason. Removed the artifacts painstakingly with (I hope) minimal affect to actual data. Adjusted the histogram and denoised the sky. No other changes from Image:SanFrancisco1851.jpg. Appears at California gold rush and boomtown.

Nominated by

Durova^Charge! 02:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I confess I'm not a big fan of colourised daguerrotypes, less still ones where the dyes have faded, as they seem to have here. Still, it's an oddly compelling image and you've worked a miracle getting it presentable. I'd address the tilt (it's already been heavily cropped anyway) and replace the two faces (!) of the people in/near the doorway on the rhs (an easy mistake to make, under the circumstances ;o)) before nominating. I'm still not sure about FPC though, and would appeal for another opinion before spending any more time on it. --mikaul^talk 01:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually the image isn't tilted. If you check the buildings carefully you can see they were built on sloping ground. I've been strict about following guidelines by restoring the image only, not deliberately altering any of the original information. Cropping was a hard compromise: the dimensions of the original were not rectangular, minimal information was lost, and I needed to get the file down to around 5 megs. The alternative would have been downsampling. This way, the only things lost are sky and dirt foreground, neither of which convey information. Thanks for the critical feedback. I've got another daguerrotype of San Francisco harbor I'm fixing up. Literally, the artifacts are in the thousands. I'm getting up to 600% magnification and fixing two pixels at a time. But for some odd reason it's a pleasure. Durova^Charge! 05:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If you run the verticals up to the side of your nav window, there's a definite 1~2° CCW tilt. Should it be fixed? Well, first impressions are everything for this kind of shot, I think. This kind of radical cleanup is already way more lossy than any slight orientation fix. But your work is great and here as elsewhere it's a huge improvement, no need to justify it! Oddly relaxing, I know.. glad to hear you're enjoying the therapy! --mikaul^talk 08:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually another editor noticed a one degree CW tilt. Having gotten two responses (I hadn't seen yours yet) I went into Photoshop and double checked. With 1.1° CW correction the building facades come out even. Thanks for spotting that. Durova^Charge! 23:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominated at WP:FPC. It's getting unanimous support on Commons and is in more articles now. Durova^Charge! 10:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Gail Kim

Gail Kim is a Korean Canadian professional wrestler, valet, and actress. She is currently working for Total Nonstop Action Wrestling where she is their first ever Woman's Champion

The image, taken outside prior to Kim being interviewed for a PPV event, is of what I believe to be excellent quality. My concerns is of the resolution and cropping. I can reupload the original if it's deemed necessary. I might also need work with the caption. Basically, does an image like this have a chance?

Nominated by

Mshake3 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The resolution is good (not huge, but big enough), and this is a great contribution to the encyclopedia. However, the fringing of the spectators prevents this from being a featured picture. A portrait of a person notable enough to have an article is a great type of thing to have a featured picture. - Enuja (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• There's no way this would pass the FP test. Her face is extremely unsharp, and there's a lot of JPEG issues negatively affecting the photo, notice the multicolor edges on the guy w/ the black shirt. Nothing spectacular here, sorry.—DMCer™ 05:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

A Lone House

A Lone House, by Michael Otto

I saw this picture in Blender (software). It is, atleast to me, very striking that such an artwork has been made with 3D software which is completely free. Sharp, pretty natural lightning, adequate composition but what grabs me most is the atmosphere. Sorry if I have done something wrong with this nomination/review. On a scale of 1 to 10 my wikipedia-newbiness is say 7 and wikipedia-featured-picture-newbiness is exactly 12. Credits and applause goes out to Michael Otto.

Nominated by

PureRumble 00:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• You did exactly the right thing! This is precisely where and how you are supposed to suggest images if you aren't sure if they should be featured. There is at least one other computer rendered featured picture: Image:Glasses_800_edit.png. However, I remember, but can't find, another very pretty rendered scene that didn't pass. If this were a picture, people would complain that the building's verticals aren't vertical. I honestly have no idea if this image would pass; I was hoping for some one else to comment with more of an opinion. - Enuja (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then we might as well wait a little bit longer! PureRumble 03:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talk • contribs)

My big problem with this is that I think it's entirely unencyclopaedic for Blender. Blender is a 3D program, used for animations and modelling among many other things, but this image simply looks like a 2D art work. It may be 3D, but there's certainly nothing either in the image or its description to suggest this. This is therefore rather an atypical use of Blender, and probably something that would be better made in another program (in fact it looks like nothing I've ever seen done in Blender, but I guess we can believe the creator that it was in fact done so). I actually like the image itself, but would Strong Oppose it on FPC on encyclopaedic grounds, and am even inclined to remove it from the Blender article. Sorry. --jjron (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. 3D modelling isn't all about making 3D models and toons, it's also a very common method of creating photorealistic images using 3D frameworking as a base. See this gallery for similar examples of 2D Blender images. As I say, opening this nom up to FPC would be a good way of establishing exactly how enc it is, but it's certainly not mis-posted at Blender, AFAICS. --mikaul^talk 12:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the images in that gallery clearly have a 3D look. This doesn't. Just because you can do something in a piece of software, doesn't mean you should. (I could write an essay in Photoshop, but it's a misuse of the software when Word will do it much better). Would still definitely oppose. --jjron (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To jjron. Reading the description that Michael Otto (the creator of the image) wrote says "A lone house. Made using Blender 3D". No other software or techniques is mentioned. When I look at the image, I think it is reasonable to state that it has been made with blender. I can not point out anything that seems "suspicious" and might have been done with some other software. The tree model might have been downloaded from internet and imported into the scene, which is perfectly fine. I can not say I know all of Blenders features, but I am sure there is a way to do multiple copies of a model and make them all to look different and/or have slightly different rotations. That would explain the grass. As for the pretty natural lightning, there are raytracing plugins for Blender. All the other objects can simply be created in Blender in a matter of hours. PureRumble 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that is what is what the image description stated, which is why I said we'd have to believe him. I have very limited experience with Blender myself, so it's quite possible you can create images like this. However, as I say, it strikes me as a very atypical use of the program. (Incidentally, you said you are a relatively new user - it looks like you are just typing in your signature. You can automatically insert it by typing in --~~~~, or by clicking the 'signature' icon above the edit box (it's about halfway along with a Qu on it). Cheers, --jjron (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But I do type ~~~~, and I still get problem with some bot that suggests that my comments have no signature (like above here). What do you mean by atypical? PureRumble 14:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Check your preferences and clear out the signature box if there's anything in there. thegreen J Are you green? 04:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Atypical just means not typical. In other words, as I've been saying above, this image while nice enough in itself, doesn't seem to me the type of image that you would usually create in Blender, and therefore is not a good illustration for it. --jjron (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then, I will later today upload it to FPC. PureRumble 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't have time today! :-( Can't someone else do it.... please? Otherwise I'll do it tomorrow. PureRumble 22:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talk • contribs)

I will update it today or tomorrow, I promise! :-/ PureRumble 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talk • contribs)

Seconder

• I think it's great & would make an interesting FPC as we need to establish how good an example of its kind it really is. The perspective criticism might run for a photo, but this is a (good!) mimic of the effect perspective gives at this approximate focal length. Go for it. --mikaul^talk 01:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• I Fcb981, second this rendering and will offer Weak support On WP:FPC -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 02:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'll support this fully. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Print of Lizards by Ernst Haeckel

A lithographic print from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur illustrating the diversity of lizards. The lizards it depicts are, clockwise from top left, the Cameroon Sailfin Chameleon (Chamaeleo montium), an Amagid lizard of the species Gonocephalus chamaeleontinus, the Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum), the Common Basilisk (Basiliscus basiliscus), the Thorny Devil (Moloch horridus), the Frilled Lizard (Chlamydosaurus kingii), the Flying Gecko (Ptychozoon homalocephalum), and the Flying Dragon (Draco volans).

A nice print of a quality work of art. And definitely encyclopedic.

Nominated by

Cynops3 (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't know if it would be promoted if it were nominated today, but it's already failed two featured picture nominations, one in April of 2006 and another in March of 2007. For future reference, ,you can find past nominations by looking at the bottom of the image page where it shows you what pages link to the image. - Enuja (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

M3 tank, 1942.

M-3 tanks in action, Fort Knox, Kentucky, June 1942.

Yes, more Alfred Palmer. It isn't easy to find clear, high resolution color photography of World War II. This is a training exercise, obviously. It's also an encyclopedic image of how this type of tank looked when it was new. Appears in Stuart tank. Retouched version of Image:AlfredPalmertank.jpg with dust and fibers removed. Sky denoised; tank sharpened. Durova^Charge! 00:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominated by

Durova^Charge! 00:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I love these shots. I think there's a better one by him of the same tank, though; I'll see if I can find it later on. This one is pre-focussed, a common issue with sheet film for moving capture. There's absolutely no depth of field, the focus has to be pre-set – pre-guessed, more like – and he's just missed it here. The other one's sharp, from memory, and equally amazing in other respects. --mikaul^talk 01:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • He did take several of this type of tank. If you show me the one you think is better I'll restore it. Thanks for the feedback. :) Durova^Charge! 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

• Comment. As much as it would break both of our hearts to mess with such a great work of fine art, wouldn't the photo be more encyclopedic if it were cropped so that the tank filled more of the frame? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Great minds think alike; I resisted the same urge. We might wind up nominating a different photograph. Durova^Charge! 08:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Alternate shot, restored, is now on FPC. Durova^Charge! 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Welder, 1942

Welder making boilers for a ship, Combustion Engineering Co., Chattanooga, Tenn. June 1942.

Another Alfred Palmer color photograph of World War II production; muted tones this time but still engaging. Clear and sharp high resolution file with excellent textures for color photography - look at the wrinkles on that work shirt. Good composition, sparks flying. How much more could you ask of a sixty-six-year-old photograph? Appears in United States home front during World War II. A pretty clean print to start with; Image:AlfredPalmerwelder.jpg didn't need extensive retouching. Are other editors as enthusiastic? Durova^Charge! 20:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominated by

Durova^Charge! 20:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Seconder

• Yes! Lovely shot, very evocative. In the context of early large-format colour photography, it's exceptional, really. I'd find a better home for it in a photography article, maybe also at weldingI've added it to welding already :o) and take it from there. --mikaul^talk 01:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It is a nice shot. The lighting appears a bit artificial, as I think you mentioned on another image possibly by this same guy, but it's OK. Personally however I don't think it has a very high encyclopaedic value. I don't think it adds much (if anything) to United States home front during World War II. I also don't think it's especially valuable for welding, given that the welding itself is totally obscured; it's OK for that, but not great. Not sure what else it could add to (I know some think otherwise, but I'm not a fan of getting images featured just because they were taken by a well-known photographer, or just because they're old, or just because they're "good for their age".) --jjron (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jjron-- it's a nice shot, but I'm curious as to whether it is illustrative of welding at this point, given how obsolete the depicted equipment must be by now-- perhaps some kind of article about the history of welding or of shipbuilding? Spikebrennan (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt on broken glass

A picture of Theodore Roosevelt made sometimes between 1890 and 1910. Made on a piece of glass, that has been partially destroyed/eroded by the time.

I found this image on LOC, and though it could really be useful as an FP, though it would need to be included in an article first. The image is almost totally unaltered from the LOC original, the only thing that has been done is a removal of the white background and a minor crop. I think it's a perfect example that photos cannot survive forever.

Nominated by

_→AzaToth 03:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• There's another portrait of Teddy Roosevelt on FPC right now getting positive responses. What would this add? Duplicates of the same subject come under harsh scrutiny when I nominated a portrait of Gen. Sherman, which got featured on Commons but didn't fare well here on Wikipedia. If this is a portrait of Roosevelt I suggest cropping, but am skeptical about its chances. If it's a document of glass photography deterioration that might fare better, although I suggest making its purpose clear in your nomination. Durova^Charge! 03:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's about the detoriation (as I tried to state). _→AzaToth 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm.. the worst thing is that it's not on broken glass, it's the emulsion on the back of the glass which has deteriorated. The image appears at Collodion process, which is probably how it was made, and while it adds value there and there's a modicum of historical interest, I can't see anything outstanding about the image which might make it FP-worthy. It might have more enc value in an article about image deterioration, but even then it's probably not strong enough in itself to be promoted. --mikaul^talk 09:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Yea, I knew "broken glass" was totally wrong word, but I couldn't find the correct one. Why I think this image could be FP worthy, is that it shows the deterioration process pretty clear, but in the same time shows a known subject that people can refer to. _→AzaToth 14:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you used it in an article yet? Or even add it and some additional information to the article? Watching these whatever they are for approval to have your images put in a special gallery and displayed as an Image of the Day -- I am sorry that I started to do this because I used to just enjoy those images and now when I see them, I am thinking more of desperation and vote hacking. I am also a little sorry about my attempt to contribute here because on the rare occasion that I can read a good article with a great illustration, I am trying to consider how the (probably) single author kept the dozens of editors away but I am also very impressed to see a great image in a great article. Is 'stymied' the best word for my confusion about the desperation for approval? I could run the software to see the places where the image is being used -- it is far more interesting to hear from the submitter of the image though. -- carol 01:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think that it is a very fine image of Theodore Roosevelt, a Frock-Coat, and charcoal striped trousers and it has a lot of quality and depth. I think it should be made a FP because of these qualities, and that it illlustrates the Collodion Process very well.--Iamyourdoom61 (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)  

Seconder

Grant Glacier 1902

A 1902 photograph of the Grant Glacier. Companion piece to Image:Grant Glacier 1998.jpg to illustrate glacial retreat.

This is an attractive landscape on its own merits and fairly good photography for its era. Particularly valuable as a historic/scientific document. Created by Morton Elrod (Glacier National Park Archives). Cleaned up version of original Image:Grant Glacier 1902.jpg. Appears in Grant Glacier.

• Nominated by: Durova^Charge! 23:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• The clean-up job on the sky is just fantastic. I'm concerned that there simply isn't enough information under the white lettering in the left hand corner, however. That big of ground looks out of place and a bit bland; maybe just cropping the image is the best solution to get rid of the writing. I wonder what other people will think about the darkened left-hand side, especially the top left corner? I think it's good enough to go on FP, but I also think this one needs more opinions. - Enuja (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The 1998 photo duplicates the location and angle of the original, so it's an advantage to pair them. If the newer version weren't so noisy I'd have tried to get it featured too, but this was actually the better photograph: higher resolution, better lighting. I thought keeping the same aspect ratio as the other image was worth it. The darkened left is something I could address if it really bothers people. Curious what other opinions we'll get. Durova^Charge! 02:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Outstanding, painstaking repair job on the sky, but elsewhere there's quite a bit of original detail missing, especially large chunks of it on the lhs of the glacier. The writing isn't such a big deal, and the shading on the left is probably due to a poor coating on the plate, so as original detail it should probably be left as-is. Overall I think it was shot a little out of focus and the print &/or scan hasn't improved matters, so (historical interest aside) I'm quite doubtful as to its FPC chances. If you do submit it, don't crop it – despite poor framing – as the whole-plate view supports the historical value and the image really isn't strong enough to promote on the basis of the subject alone. --mikaul^talk 09:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'll keep my eyes peeled for a better example. I appreciate the candid feedback. Durova^Charge! 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder:

Matthew C. Perry

Japanese woodblock print of Matthew C. Perry, c.1854

I think this is a fascinating portrait of the American commodore who compelled the opening of Japan in the 1850s. I just found it and added it to the Matthew C. Perry article. The artist is apparently unknown, but it is a contemporaneous Japanese portrait according to the LOC. According to the Peabody Essex Museum (discussing a near-identical version of the print owned by that museum), "This type of woodblock print of Perry would have circulated among the curious residents of Edo, since only a handful of people would have actually seen the commodore and his crew. The characters located across the top read from right to left, “A North American Figure” and “Portrait of Perry.” The artist, perhaps rendering a Westerner for the first time, exaggerated Perry’s features—the oblong face, down-turned eyes, bushy brown eyebrows, and large nose."[1]

• Nominated by: Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• Actually, on second thought maybe we should hold out until some of the crazier portraits from here are available in higher-res? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• I like it. I think it's more useful than some of those crazier portraits. Do you think its possible to get this one in slightly higher resolution, and/or get a print thats colored a bit more robustly? It meets the minimum resolution requirement, but it isn't amazingly sharp and high quality at full resolution, so, right now, it isn't certain to be promoted. People are generally extremely picky with images that are close the the minimum size requirement. - Enuja (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I really have no idea whether there's a better scan of another print out there. This is the only one held by the LOC, which seems to be the best source for these sort of historical prints. I've done some searching on google but haven't turned up anything else--and museums generally are pretty stingy about high-res scans so I doubt there are any available. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder:

Coffee grinding, 1905

1905 stereoscope of daily life in the Middle East. Original caption reads 'The native mode of grinding coffee, Palestine.'

High quality images for non-Western subjects of this age are uncommon. This one strikes me as an interesting piece of social history. Unretouched version Image:Coffeepalestine.jpg is used at history of coffee. Created by Keystone View Company (photographer unknown) - scratches and artifacts removed, histogram adjusted by Durova.

• Nominated by: Durova^Charge! 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

Seconder:

• Nice, not a thrilling shot by any means, but you're right, there's enough in the activity and the context to carry it. Interesting also that I've seen this exact same activity in North Africa just a few years ago, so there might (say) be a modern context there too. I'd say it was worth a punt at FPC, anyway. --mikaul^talk 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominated at FPC as Coffee grinding, 1905 by Durova on 8 Jan, 2008. --jjron (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Beheading in China

Japanese executioner prepares to behead a condemned Chinese man kneeling before his own grave, Tientsin China.

Edit1

107 years haven't dimmed the dramatic tension of this photograph, which was shot during the time of the Boxer rebellion. What makes it effective for me is the man at right leaning to his side to get a better view. Admittedly soft focus; do the age and relative rarity of good non-Western photography from this era make up for it?

Original stereogram published by Underwood & Underwood, photographer unknown. Unretouched version Image:Beheadingchina.jpg appears in beheading. Cropped, cleaned up artifacts, adjusted histogram, and sharpened.

• Nominated by: Durova^Charge! 05:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• I prefer the retouched version; I flipped between images, and couldn't see any missing details in the retouched version at all. However, I'm not happy with the lack of presence in an article; the unretouched image is in beheading but I think that this image begs to be in a historical account of whatever is going on; the articles Foreign relations of Meiji Japan, Tianjin or Concessions in Tianjin appear to be possibilities. - Enuja (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree the image could be used in more articles. My undertaking has been to sift through the PD files for valuable photographs that have been underutilized and get them more of the attention they deserve. I feel a little awkward about sticking them into articles myself, though. Durova^Charge! 07:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• I've uploaded my edit, from LoC's tif file. IMHO it looks better than either of the versions here. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder:

• Support unretouched version - Chilling, dramatic photo, quality appropriate to its time (considering the time it take for technology to spread from Europe to Asia at that time). The retouched version just blurs out too much details. Some more references would be good though. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I'll see what I can do about the caption. The Uncerwood & Underwood captioning is usually terse. Would you object to running the original with a minor crop to eliminate the cut-off figure at far left? Durova^Charge! 06:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually on closer inspection the unretouched version is not a good scan. The chins of the people are pixelated, which is then upsampled and undergone noise reduction, which the retouched version puts even more on. I don't think the original film is so soft, and I would support a good scan of the original, but not this scan. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Mount Meru

The Ash Cone of Mount Meru, the topographic centrepiece of Arusha National Park. It reaches 4,566 metres (14,980 feet) in height but has lost much of its bulk due to an eastward volcanic blast about 8,000 years ago, similar to the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington.

I really quite like this picture, featuring in the artical Mount Meru (Tanzania)

• Nominated by: Stebu2007 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• I see that you took this image. Thanks so much for the very nice, very informative, high resolution contribution to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, it isn't going to be a featured picture. The composition is less than ideal, and the clouds below you are blown (the highlights are completely white). Don't be disappointed; you've done a great thing for this encyclopedia by contributing this image. - Enuja (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder:

Saturn

Blazing Saturn showing the ring circle at once

The picture reminds me of that image of Coruscant I like, showing (apparently contradictory) day and night sides at the same time. It has some nice touches like the way the ring shadow falls on the planet and how the only clearly lit part of the globe is the twilight band. If someone's never seen something like this before it may take a few seconds to "get it", so it might invite readers to "think". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nominated by: Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• To me it's an inferior version of the recently promoted , though having said which it does offer a different perspective from 'above', which gives a better view of the rings. I find the almost pure whiteness of Saturn itself a bit harsh and offputting, but it looks like this was done in order to get proper exposure on the rings. It may be worth a try (but it would have been nice if you'd offered some reasons to start with Wow, I was sleepy.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)). --jjron (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• What you find harsh I find beautiful. Anyway it's a new perspective on the same-old space probe images like the one you mentioned. Butterscotch Saturn is has been done over and over (though both show very fine ring detail). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to feel very strongly about it; if so, by all means nominate it at FPC, you don't have to wait for the approval of anyone here. By no means am I suggesting it's a hopeless cause, in fact I suspect it would do quite well. But just be aware that it will be compared to existing Saturn FP images. --jjron (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (Just noticed - if you do nominate at FPC can I suggest you tone down the caption a little; I don't think Saturn can be regarded as "blazing" in any true sense of the word. --jjron (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

Seconder:

Lawnmower Races

• 
  No. 1
• 
  No. 2
• 
  No. 3
• 
  No. 4
• 
  No. 5
• 
  No. 6
• 
  No. 7

I think all these are great shots (some may complain on the harsh sunlight but that's unavoidable) and the problem is that I can't choose the best. I was hoping you could pick out your favourite(s). --Fir0002 22:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I like 3 best, followed by 4. However, I don't think I would vote for either; they are beautiful, they are encyclopedic, but I'm so fantastically uninterested in the subject that I'm not personally motivated to support them. I'm not sure that I would oppose any of the them, though, as they are very nice. To me, 3 & 4 are simply more dynamic and interesting (I love the flying dirt in 3). I don't like the loser and the flagger being out of focus in 4, but it really expresses the idea of a race. - Enuja (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • For an article on the machines themselves, it would have to be the first one, although (assuming it's not just over-exposed) it'd also have to be a highlights-recovered version. The fourth is easily the best candidate for the article <checks article, returns> and clearly you think so too :o) nothing says "racing" quite like two guys on the finish line, and you've got good light, keen focus and great composition there to boot. Or maybe it's really cos I like the green rig best.. --mikaul^talk 23:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• 4 is simply a superb shot - just the right mount of blur on the loser to highlight the winner - best illustration of lawnmower racing in the set. 1,2,3,5 and 6 lack a race feel with the single mower only and the angle on the lead mower in 7 makes it look to static. 1 though is the best illustration of the machines themselves ...great set of shots - Peripitus (Talk) 06:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominated at FPC as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Swifts Creek Lawnmower Races, 2007 and Alternative by Fir0002 on 8 Jan, 2008. --jjron (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelmina and Juliana

Queen Wilhelmina with her daughter Princess Juliana in the 1910s

I would like to know whether this royal portrait would qualify as a featured image; the image appears in the articles Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and Juliana of the Netherlands; the image source is the Library of Congress.

• Nominated by: Ilse@ 00:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• It's certainly a nice shot, but I'm not sure how well it would do on featured picture candidates. The background is pretty grainy, and the depth of field is pretty shallow, but Queen Wilhemina has quite the smile. I'm not going to second it, but if you nominate it yourself, it might have a fairly good chance. - Enuja (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comment. I am not yet familiar with the use of the featured picture criteria. I compared the graininess of this image with other black and white photographs that are featured pictures, and conclude the graininess for this image is more or less the average graininess. I will nominate the image and see what comments it will get. – Ilse@ 12:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder:

Nominated at FPC as Wilhelmina and Juliana by Ilse on 10 Jan, 2008. --jjron (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sfearthquake3b

San Francisco Mission District burning in the aftermath of the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906.

A dramatic photograph taken at some personal risk: a major fire rages quite close to the rooftop where this was shot during an era when camera equipment was heavy and required a tripod. If the wind had shifted in the photographer's direction a swift evacuation would have been difficult. This event was one of the worst natural disasters in United States history.

Original Photographer: Chadwick, H. D. (US Gov War Department. Office of the Chief Signal Officer.) Edits by Durova. Appears at San Francisco earthquake of 1906.

• Nominated by: Durova^Charge! 00:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

Seconder:

• Looks good to me! - Enuja (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominated at FPC by User:Enuja on 5 January 2008 as San Francisco earthquake fire. --jjron (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Brewer's Sparrow

Brewer's Sparrow

I think that this is a good, high quality picture of the bird in a position different from most sparrow images. I wanted to see what everyone else though before nominating. It appears in Brewer's Sparrow and is taken by this website and uploaded by User:Outriggr. Thanks.

• Nominated by: Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• It's superb, but too small to be featured. It's so good I was almost tempted to second it anyway, but I really don't think it would get over the size barrier. Anything over 1000px wide would be fine, assuming you could persuade that source to upload a bigger version, and if you did I'd go straight to FPC with it. --mikaul^talk 23:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I went to the website and their version of the picture is 900 X 600, 453 KB. Pity about the size- I may email them. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• License info is incorrect, this image is cc-by-sa-3.0. Please fix. MER-C 05:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder:

Los Angeles Temple

Los Angeles California Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

This temple is unique in design from all other Mormon temples. It is the second largest temple in the world, and has a distinct style that fits well with 1960s Los Angeles. It also shows a bit of the Los Angeles stereotypes with the palm trees, green grass and blue skies, and I think the flag pole adds to the image as well.

This image appears in the following articles:

• Los Angeles, California
• Los Angeles California Temple

• Nominated by: Bytebear (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• It is certainly a nice shot, but I'm afraid it doesn't conform to our featured picture criteria. When looking at the picture, wouldn't you like to see the architectural detail or holes or whatever they are in more detail? If the image had a greater resolution, this would be possible. Featured pictures need to have 1000 pixels on at least one side; this image is only 800 pixels long. I'm also concerned about the focus on the tower and the fact that the building is cut off on both sides. This image is a good contribution to the encyclopedia, but it isn't a featured picture. - Enuja (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I do have the original image in high resolution, if you want me to upload a more detailed version. Bytebear (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Suggest reshooting as a panorama earlier or later in the day and uploading to Commons. Another try at this might make FP there, or at least QI (quality image). Durova^Charge! 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder:

Two ducks

Two mallards

Created by me: User:Fcb981. I am unsure whether the female in front of the male detracts or is a benefit. Other comments are of course welcome.

• Nominated by: Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• This reminds of the male mallard out-of-water shot I put up here a week or so ago (see 4 or 5 entries below). WRT to your concern above, the female does detract a little from the male by obscuring, but this is largely irrelevant for me as, IMO, the value of this picture is the representation of the pair. That being said, however, I don't believe the overall quality in this shot (esp. sharpness and focus) exceeds the high standards set by the other three current mallard FPs. It lacks the close-up detail on feathers, beak, etc., and therefore doesn't have the extreme enc that I (personally) like to see in bird FPs. In short, it is a little "ordinary"; while I normally detest this (largely unhelpful) criticism on FPC, I think it is a valid concern here, as this nom would not only be compared against the normal FP criteria, but also against the current mallard FPs. Probably would've been an FP two or three years ago or pre-"Nature's Pics", but a less likely prospect now.

Having said all that, I really do like the picture, and truly believe that it would make a more illustrative lead image to the Mallard article. Sorry for the verbosity. --Malachirality (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• That looks like some serious artifacting around the female's feet. Also, I think the shadow on the female's side alone would kill this as a featured pictured. However, I think having the two together, in the format that they are in, is very encyclopedic and makes the picture better than it otherwise would be. - Enuja (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder:

Image of a flamingo at the Columbus Zoo.

Image of a flamingo at the Columbus Zoo.

I decided to nominate this image as featured picture. Therefore, it is expected to exemplify Wikipedia's best work. It looks pretty good as today; it not, ask me how to improve the quality of the image.

• Nominated by: Healthykid (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 17:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• It is a good picture, definitely interesting and striking, but it may not pass because of the blown-out feathers on one or two spots of the body, the fact that the feet are not visible, and the background (I personally find the position of the concrete edge of the pool a bit distracting). --Cynops3 (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconder:

Unity-Zarya-Zvezda STS-106

File:Unity-Zarya-Zvezda STS-106sts.jpg

The International Space Station as seen from Space Shuttle Atlantis during STS-106 following the arrival of the Zvezda Service Module to the orbital complex.

An absolutely stunning image of the ISS at the first point at which it was able to sustain a permanent crew (with the arrival of the station's service module). The image is extremely useful for displaying the early modules of the station (in addition to one of the station's docking locations with the Progress at the bottom), and shows beautifully the influence Mir had on the ISS - the two Russian modules in the image were based on components from that station. As such, the image is used in several articles, including International Space Station, Shuttle-Mir Program, Mir, Zvezda (ISS) and Progress spacecraft, and would also be suitable for use on the Unity Module and Zarya articles. The image was taken by the crew of Space Shuttle Atlantis during STS-106, and as such is public domain as a NASA image.

However, the image unfortunately suffers from a fair amount of noise, and I'm not sure how to go about getting rid of that, hence putting it forward for peer review before nominating it as a Featured Image. Any feedback would be much appreciated! Colds7ream (talk)

• Nominated by: Colds7ream (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• It looks to me to have already been selectively tweaked for noise, such that the remaining fine detail would be lost altogether if any futher NR was applied. As NASA shots go it's not really of outstanding quality, albeit an extremely valuable addition to the encyclopedia, largely due to image (mis)processing, I think. --mikaul^talk 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconder:

Douglas MacArthur lands Leyte1

Gen. Douglas MacArthur Lands at Leyte, The Philippines. October 1944.

Cleaned up version of Image:Douglas MacArthur lands Leyte.jpg with artifacts and scratches removed. A historic and encyclopedic subject in a large and dramatic image. Photograph by U.S. Army Signal Corps.

Original image file appears at:

• Douglas MacArthur
• Battle of Leyte
• Pacific War

• Nominated by: Durova^Charge! 11:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• Is it really the stuff of FP, though? My first impression was that it looks to have been shot into the sun, so the sky is a white blanket. At 100% it seems soft and poorly-printed, shown up by other sharp, contrasty FPs of this era. Comparatively, then, it's not quite there, although I do like it very much as an image and a historical record. Maybe someone else could talk it up a little.. --mikaul^talk 16:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• This scene was I've heard rehearsed several times and shot for newsreel footage, thus it shows up in documentaries. Obviously the beach is now secure for MacArthur and his party to the land. Future Philippine president Sergio Osmeña is at the far left in the pith helmet. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 00:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the identification. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder:

• I've seen this image on the History Channel quite a bit. I think the main reason why it's such a good image is because of the story behind it. It's symbolic of MacArthur keeping his promise to the Philippine people from when he said, "I shall return," after he escaped during the Japanese attack. I also recall some general dramatically wading ashore during the Vietnam War - probably copying MacArthur, because I don't recall seeing a previous picture of a general wading ashore. So it's reasonable to say that this picture has influenced a small part of history, and maybe it started a whole new military tradition of generals wading ashore. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nominated at FPC as Douglas MacArthur lands at Leyte by Durova on 8 Jan, 2008. --jjron (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterloo Campaign Map

Campaign map for the Hundred Days

Illustrates troop movements leading up to the Battle of Waterloo. I would like to see what people think of it.

Original made by Gsl. Vectorized by Ipankonin.

• Nominated by: -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• My first thought was that the map was too cluttered with information; this might not be a totally actionable objection though. A second concern is that the map doesn't really give a good idea of the outcomes of each of those four encounters marked by Xs. --Malachirality (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I colored the X marks to distinguish victory and added them into the legend. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 02:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconder:

• Support. Still crowded (even more so), but what can you do? Highly enc. --Malachirality (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you think it would be better as a GIF? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you mean as an animation? No, I don't think so; something like this would IMO be too complicated for an animation, and the viewer would probably have to view it more than once to get all the info. Here, one can just study the image for a long time and figure everything out. --Malachirality (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Added to FPC as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Waterloo Campaign Map. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Gittings Kameny Fryer

I am not as familiar with the digital details of photographs, but I do know a hard-hitting image when I see one. This image was taken by Kay Lahusen, partner of Barbara Gittings. John E. Fryer's discussion about why it was necessary for him, as a gay psychiatrist, to wear such a disguise in front of his professional colleagues was a significant factor in homosexuality being removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973. I would appreciate any feedback you can give me on the image. I'm concerned with the size, but I'm unsure how to make it larger without distorting it.

• Nominated by: Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• This picture is IMO a little too small for FP, even considering its historical value, and unfortunately, there is no way to make the picture bigger w/out you, or someone else, providing a completely new, higher resolution scan. On a side note, it is also tilted. --Malachirality (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll see if I can search for a better one. --Moni3 (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconder:

Male Mallard, stationary view

Reasons

There are already two existing mallard duck pictures, so another one might be asking for too much. However, both are in flight, and the male one depicts mostly the underside of the bird. Given the stunning colors and quality (and size and composition!) on this one, do you think FPC will take three mallard FPs (or perhaps allow this to supersede?). It would also need to find a home...

• I believe you may be missing one more FP of mallard ducks --Mbz1 (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested by Malachirality (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Recently became an FP at Commons on a unanimous decision. Durova^Charge! 06:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Which, frankly, means very little here, e.g., there's no concerns there about there being multiple FPs of that subject already in an article. --jjron (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment intended as a compliment. Durova^Charge! 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Durova's comment, but I have to agree with jjron here; the standards of commons pale in comparison to WP:FPC, and commons FP seems to be little indication of potential success here. With that aside, should I try to find a home for this image? Can we take four FPs of mallards (or, alternatively, can this supersede one of the current Nature's Pics)? --Malachirality (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason not to have half a dozen Mallard shots if they all illustrate something different and are all of outstanding quality. Being one of the world's most common ducks on the one hand, and already having a couple of very nice WP:FPs on the Mallard page, I'd say this just raises the bar very high indeed for any additional FP candidates. A shot of a male out of the water like this might qualify, but there are a number of nit-picky problems here (focus, DOF, poor angle, odd stance which obscures detail, lighting, colour balance) which prevent it clearing that bar, IMO. --mikaul^talk 16:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks a lot for the input. --Malachirality (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconder

AFRICA in Puerto Rico

"This is a picture of Graffiti in the streets of San Juan, Puerto Rico"-- Calyponte

A smart graffiti artist...

• Nominated by: Calyponte 3:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• It certainly is a high resolution image, but I'm not convinced that it contributes a huge amount to the article or that it's visually interesting enough to be a featured picture. Thanks for nominating it, though, and especially thank you for contributing material to the commons. - Enuja (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The reason I like this image is that it shows the ingenious ways of the graffiti artists and their imagination by the way they reacted to an accident of nature, if you will, in an inventive and creative manner. If you removed all graffiti from this image, not many people would have the eyes to see Africa there; rather just another hole in the wall, or only a sign of negligence and deterioration. If you try hard enough you can actually see Spain as well…

Seconder:

Land on the Moon July 21, 1969

"This is a picture of my mother holding the Washington News Paper on Monday, July 21st 1969 stating 'The Eagle Has Landed Two Men Walk on the Moon'. The photo was taken by my grandfather." -- Rufus330Ci

This photograph was taken by Jack Weir (1928-2005) the day after the astronauts walked on the moon. I don't know the uploader or the person in the photograph or the photographer, but when I first found this image -- I felt like I knew them. There is nothing that can make this image a better photograph of that day and that year. If you were alive that day, be you a member of the Flat Earth Society or one of those "it was all a hoax" people, and had access to a television set, a radio or a newspaper -- this image is just exactly what it was like.

This image appears (as of today) on:

• Apollo 11
• The Washington Post
• Apollo 11 in popular culture

• Nominated by: carol 23:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• Judging by the lines in the curtains, a slight cw rotation is in order. The other concern is enc. Why is a picture of a girl holding the WP preferable to a scan of the actual front page itself? --Malachirality (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I rotated the image using the edge of the drapery.

Perhaps the number of people who watched that landing on whatever media was available to them is less than several events since then but the percentage has not been beat. (I cannot cite this fact at this moment though). To me, it is a single image (although a photograph of a family watching it on television might be more encyclopedic for this -- it would also probably be posed to not look posed) which shows the people whose money and nation and education system accomplished this. A scan of the newspaper article would be not as complete as the text on the page about the event. The publisher of the paper (as well as the network your dad was watching) has very little to do with what the image is about. The pages about the landing have a lot of information about the astronauts and the landing, and they should. There is not an image of the world that watched though; this image is more symbolic of that than encyclopedic -- I see a lot of beautiful images that are being excepted for FP where perhaps a map or an svg diagram with labeled anatomy or location would be more encyclopedic.... -- carol 17:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconder:

• Always worth a try, I guess. --Malachirality (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ataturk introducing hat

File:Kemal Ataturk hat.png

Ataturk introducing the western style hat to Turkey during the reforms era. (c. 1930)

• Nominated by: -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 17:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• A case for enc. can also be made for the ataturk article itself, although there are better photos of the man himself there. However, the scan's got pretty severe artifacting, even on the main subject itself. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be much room for downsampling (Also, whether from the scanner or from the original photo, there are some spots around the chin and shirtfront). I'm not so sure anymore about the FPC consensus on compression artifacts, but I suspect that while minor artifacts can be forgiven under other mitigating circumstances, serious artifacting that extends to the actual subject will make an FP promotion very difficult. --Malachirality (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconder:

First web server

Do you think that one of these might be featured? They obviously have great historical importance and high resolution but may not have high enough quality.

• Nominated by: -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 09:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• I'm afraid they don't come close to the standards expected of FP, even given the historical value. Although they're both sharp, the second one has particularly poor composition, lighting, scan quality & pretty much everything else (shot behind glass?) while the first is miles better from a composition POV but the very noisy, artifacted scan again precludes it from FPC. Very interesting but fatally flawed, unfortunately.--mikaul^talk 13:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconder:

Extreme SW Corner of the U.S.

End of U.S./Mexico border fence in San Ysidro, CA

I took this picture when I was in So. Cal a couple of months ago. I have always liked it as it was a nice sunny day and the sky was clear. I feel the display of the Mexican side being so crowded yet the U.S. side is practically empty give a further dimension to the shot.

Appears in: San Ysidro, San Diego, California

• Nominated by: Michael Teige, the taker of the picture, 18 December 2007.

Comments:

• It is a good, interesting, well done, and useful picture. There is unfortunately a bright strip through it about 3/8ths of the way across - it looks like the image used for that part of pano had different camera settings or a different exposure than the other images. I can't help but wonder whether you just used the Auto settings on the camera when taking the originals. You may be able to do some processing on the original image/s to try to correct the differences and restitch it, but as is that would stop any chance for FPC at the moment. Thanks for putting it up at PPR. --jjron (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like that bright strip was caused by late morning sun glare. Try reshooting when the sun is less high in the sky. Durova^Charge! 12:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I can't take another anytime soon as I live in the Seattle area very far away from TJ! Also FYI the white house that is the closest under the Corona beer sign is allegedly a house used by drug gangs/smugglers according to the border patrol guy that I spoke to while there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev Sysyphus (talk • contribs) 08:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconder:

Coldstream Guards sentry

A Coldstream Guards sentry outside the Jewel House in the Tower of London.

I've always like the composition of this shot. Some feedback regarding the technical quality would be appreciated.

Created by User:Chris.B

Appears in: Tower of London, Coldstream Guards, Jewel House

• Nominated by: Chris.B (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• It seems to have some sort of posterization filter applied to it; also the contrast is a bit harsh. CillaИ ♦ XC 22:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The posterisation is due to jpeg compression, if I'm not mistaken. If you're shooting anything other than maximum file size & quality settings, you'll get this in bucketloads, more obviously so in highly textured shots like this, and often exaggerated further by sharpening. It's a fairly weak composition, with two competing subjects placed just far enough apart to lead the eye between them, where there's obviously nothing of interest. That makes for unclear enc value, more than anything, with regard to to FPC. On the upside, colour and lighting are good and there's quite a good sense of place, given the tightness of the framing. --mikaul^talk 13:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconder:

Cockroach

Closeup of a cockroach

This former featured picture was deleted back in July on Commons due to licensing reasons but is back since OTRS cleared it. Does it measure up to today's standards? I can't remember what articles it was in before deletion.

• Nominated by: MER-C 04:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• Which species of cockroach? Durova^Charge! 05:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. The previous FPC nom, the non-existent caption in cockroach and the three POTD captions did not specify. MER-C 10:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it measures up to current standards, especially with the missing legs and lack of species identification. Enuja (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think all six legs are there, they're just in awkward positions. But agree, I don't think it would stand much chance on FPC. --jjron (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• The lighting also looks a little harsh/awkward. Chris.B (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconder:

Traditional poi

Traditional poi, made from dried moss, wrapped in flax

This is the first time I've submitted an image here after watching things for a while, so go easy. This is a photo of traditional poi balls, used in New Zealand and a few other Polynesian cultures as an art form, especially in storytelling. There's a few reasons that I like this image:

• As most modern poi aren't made of the traditional materials of moss and flax, it provides a helpful visual for the Poi (juggling) article, which is heavily biased towards contemporary use
• The color, angle, and composition are visually attractive - to me, at least
• The arrangement of the poi suggests the motion involved in using them. It looks like they're hanging, waiting to be spun. Kinetic feeling.

With that said, I haven't been entirely satisfied with post-processing. I loaded the RAW on a computer I don't usually use for post-process, and when I proof the colors, they appear over-saturated. The light color on the balls seem to blow out the detail in the center of two of the more prominent ones. Anyway, wanted to see what others had to say.

• Nominated by: Tijuana Brass (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• Your other points aside, the first thing I notice on this is the "unreal" colour, confirmed by a quick look at the shadows and highlights, which seem to indicate a very over-processed shot. As you say, the raw conversion looks to have been way out and then pulled back to another colour balance afterwards. You certainly need to reconvert before submitting it. Composition is ok, though I don't get a big sense of movement with it, probably because it's far from clear what I'm looking at in the first place, so the other thing to look at is probably a decent caption. It's nice and sharp and might well be a whole different story if you presented it in a new light.

Seconder:

Teddy Roosevelt LtCol 1898

Portrait of Theodore Roosevelt.

original scan from the LOC

crop & minor contrast adjustment

As above, with artifacts addressed

A well-composed, good quality portrait of an important United States president. A little small, but 110 years old.

Portrait photo of Theodore Roosevelt, 1898 taken in New York by Photographer B.J. Falk.

Appears in:

• Theodore Roosevelt
• Lynching in the United States
• User:General Eisenhower/Green Roosevelt
• Portal:Military of the United States/Selected biography
• Portal:Military of the United States/Selected biography/3
• Roosevelt's World War I volunteers

• Nominated by: Durova^Charge! 22:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• Nice portrait, was my first impression. It's way too small, unfortunately. Any sign of a larger version? --mikaul^talk 23:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not even on Commons. They've got some larger portraits over there but nothing this clear and well lit. Durova^Charge! 23:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a reasonably high-res scan over at the LOC website. I've uploaded it and a cropped version to commons. The resolution and print quality aren't stellar, but there's potential for cleaning up some of the dark spots near the bottom. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a high-res tif (1,492 KB). Is that the one you are referring to? The tif can be saved as a jpeg. Carcharoth (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Not to be too picky, but Image:Theodore Rooseveltnewtry.jpg needs to have the documentation cleaned up. Durova, you refer to the "previous picture" but don't link to it. What you need to do is copy the documentation en masse, and then add a note releasing your additional work on the picture under the GFDL or (preferably) into the public domain (as the original pic is PD). Carcharoth (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right. Thanks, I've fixed that. Durova^Charge! 21:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconder:

Human respiratory system

Human respiratory system

Needs a quick accuracy check before it hits the big time. Used in Respiratory system, Pulmonary alveolus, Respiratory tract, Bronchus and Left lung. Created by LadyofHats.

• Nominated by: MER-C 09:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• I didn't even know that the cartilage holding the trachea and the bronchi open had different names. However, I do know that if a passage has cartilage holding it open, it is called a "bronchi" and if it doesn't have cartilage holding it open, it is called a "bronchiole," and bronchioles are really, really small. This means that there is cartilage on much, much smaller tubes for air than shown. My third and fourth possible issues are about the alveoli detail. I don't know what the "Connective tissue" line is pointing at. If you've got mucus glands in the bronchioles and mucus, why not have the Type II alveolar cells that secrete surfactants to prevent alveolar collapse? - Enuja (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Just at a quick glance, there's typos e.g., supperior; inconsistent capitalisation e.g., lingula; imprecise text alignment; text seemingly unnecessarily crossing over lines; and what I regard as errors, for example the red vessel in the alveoli is labeled vein and the blue one labeled artery, contrary to generally accepted conventions. Sorry, don't have time to go through it carefully (sadly many voters on FPC seem to ignore these types of factual problems anyway and vote because it looks pretty, so none of this may matter). --jjron (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing typos and inconsistent capitalization. Different people have different skills, so please don't be bitter that not everyone at FPC is a great copy editor (I'm a terrible one, personally). You bringing up copy editing issues becomes very important instead of kinda important when other people are bad at copy editing. - Enuja (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, you're totally right. My beef is with people that just totally ignore factual errors after they've been pointed out! --jjron (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• • in the lung, oposite to in the rest of the body the artery (blood moving out from the hearth) transport blood with few oxigen (blue) and the vein (moving blood to the hearth)is transporting blood high in oxigen (red) so the actual convention is respected.
    • • True, good point - that's what you get for taking quick glances. Having said which, I doubt they're strictly arteries and veins entering/leaving alveoli, more likely arterioles and venules. --jjron (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • hereis the source for the names like vestible of the nose.
  • i didnt made cartilage in the alveoli close up becouse one can not see it in the other images i got as source. what i could do is to label it as bronchiole if you wish but it would then again only increase the confussion. Also, i can not do cartilage in the whole branches of the lung it would be graphicaly confusing.
  • The conective tissue is that what surrounds the alveoli, i was shortening the arrow to make it more clear.
  • none of my sources mentions the Type II cells, i believe it would mean a scale problem to add them. looking like just points inside it.
  • about the text, there is too much. as it is now the image is barely readable when seen the whole picture at once. if i was to expand the text (so it doesnt cross lines) or make it smaller (so it fit in less space) the image would become unreadable. Still i will try to rearenge the text.
    • • Can't you make the image a bit wider and push the alveoli callout to the right, which would then help avoid this problem of text crossing lines? --jjron (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • will make the changes and reload the image. thanks for your time -LadyofHats (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is too much text now, I'd remove "connective tissue" and not add the type II cells. I guess I just thought it was strange to have the inside of the bronchiole bright green because it had a "special coating" of mucus and not the inside of the alveoli bright green, because it has a much more special coating of surfactant. Honestly, I'd also remove the label of "mucus" and the bright green color instead the bronchi for simplicity. - Enuja (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconder: