Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 71: Line 71:
<!-- Place new nominations at the TOP of the group. -->
<!-- Place new nominations at the TOP of the group. -->
<!-- Make sure you followed all the instructions on the top of this page. -->
<!-- Make sure you followed all the instructions on the top of this page. -->
Just to let everyone know, people who see the picture don't care or notice about technical photographic edits or compisition and most don't notice them! In numerous comments on great photos listed here about edits, one doesn't even notice the difference between the before and after.
Just to let everyone know, people who see the pictures don't care or notice about technical little edits or composition details and most don't notice them! In numerous comments on great photos listed here about edits, one doesn't even notice the difference between the before and after.
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alprazolam}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alprazolam}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hout Bay, Cape Town}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hout Bay, Cape Town}}

Revision as of 01:45, 11 April 2006

Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the common saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria.

If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the nomination for delisting section.

For listing, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with four or more supporting votes (including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination), and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. If necessary, decisions about close votes will be made on a case-by-case basis.

The archive contains all votes and comments collected on this page and also vote tabulations.

To see recent changes, purge the page cache
Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Nomination procedure 

===[[Wikipedia:{{subst:PAGENAME}}| ExampleName ]]===

[[ Image: Example.jpg |thumb| Caption goes here ]]

Add your reasons for nominating it here; 
say what article it appears in, and who created the image.

*Nominate and '''support'''. - ~~~~ 
*

<!-- additional votes go above this line  -->
{{breakafterimages}}
  • Add   {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ExampleName}}   to the top of the list in the Current nominations section of this page.
  • Add  {{FPC}}  to the nominated image's page. This inserts the featured pictures candidate template, to let the original contributor and other interested parties know that the image is up for voting.

If you have problems formatting your nomination, someone else will fix it, don't worry! If you wish to simply add your nomination to this page without creating the subpage, that is OK as someone else will create the subpage. The important piece of information is the pointer to the image, and the reason for the nomination.

Please be aware that there is a bot which currently helps to maintain this page. Please also be aware that the first date on the subpage should always be the date when it was placed on this page. See the notes section on the bot's userpage.

Supporting and opposing

  • If you approve of a picture, write Support followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed.
    • To change your vote, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

Votes added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not give any reasons for the opposition. This is especially true if the image is altered during the process. Editors are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.

Evaluating dark images

In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the above image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.

Editing candidates

If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g. add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination.

To see recent changes, purge the page cache

Current nominations

Just to let everyone know, people who see the pictures don't care or notice about technical little edits or composition details and most don't notice them! In numerous comments on great photos listed here about edits, one doesn't even notice the difference between the before and after.

Alprazolam 2mg

Alprazolam 2mg tablets
(generic for Xanax)

A lot of people like Xanax; It is in the articles Alprazolam and Benzodiazepine.

Photograph by John Delano of Hammond, Indiana

A guess: check this discussion --Dschwen 15:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 22:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hout Bay, Cape Town

The Cape Town suburb of Hout Bay as seen from Chapman's Peak.

This is my first featured pictures nomination. I took this photograph at sunset of the Cape Town suburb of Hout Bay. Not only is it a beautiful photograph, but it shows the topography and geological featured of the Cape Town area, as well as giving a good illustration of the suburb and its location. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 07:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 08:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Opera House

The Sydney Opera House is one of the most iconic landmarks in the world, and since its opening it has become a symbol of Sydney

The Sydney Opera House is easily one of the most famous buildings in the world and a great example of 20th century architecture. This picture is currently used, most notably, as the picture for the picture relating to stubs that are about Sydney geography and was origionally taken by User:Enochlau. I came accross it on the Sydney Opera House page origionally and was struck by its beauty. hi this is bob

*Oppose reluctantly due to size and photo issues though it's a great subject and would be all for supporting a more suitable image of the opera house. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 17:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haeckel Chiroptera Lithograph

"Chiroptera" from Ernst Haeckel's Artforms of Nature, 1904

Interesting lithograph that appears in the bat article, and shows a variety of facial structures of certain bat species.

Promoted Image:Haeckel Chiroptera.jpg

Military aircraft

X-31, F-15 ACTIVE, SR-71, F-106, F-16XL, X-38, Radio Controlled Mothership and X-36.

A collection of military aircraft. NASA PD.

  • Oppose Although I like it because it shows relative size, it's way too fuzzy. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 19:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nice constellation of outstanding aircraft. The quality is horrible - just look at the SR-71. Has this been a 256-color picture before? Not FP worthy. Mikeo 00:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. though I would also add that I do not see any reason behind these aircraft in it. They are not all of a typ, or active at the same time or even all used by the military. just seems random to me.say1988 01:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Severe image quality problems. --Janke | Talk 06:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on, hold on - that image could be quite decent if we can track down the Nasa original (taken 1997 by the way) and enhance it. I can't seem to find it after a few quick searches on the NASA Dryden site, and the link on the image desc page is broken. If we can, I'm sure we might be able to help the quality. I've found the Wikipedia original, and I'll try to do something with that, but several things struck me. That version has been edited (an apparently lossless crop) in an old version of Photoshop, on a Mac with a weird colour space. I might be able to do something. Until then, if you find an original, post linkage here. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction before I've even saved the page: I've found the closest NASA original here. I't the image description page with accompanying text, credits, and four versions. Incrementally sized JPGs, with one huge PSD, which I'll try to do something with. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boat

The original version that shows much detail about the surronding environment
A cropped version that focuses more on the boat
A version that is more heavily cropped

This is a picture of a "sampan" - a type of boat - carrying passengers from the Sai Kung Peninsula to the offshore islands in Hong Kong. It is an important mean of transportation in the area. The photograph was taken by myself, and appears in the articles boat, sampan, Sai Kung Peninsula and Sai Kung District.

Criticism on the uncropped version:

→ It seems that some users like the photograph to focus more on the boat. Now, I have uploaded one more version. Which one do you guys like better? - Alan 03:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after the cropped version is uploaded:

  • Oppose (both). The cropping reduced the image size (at 1000 px it's on the border of being acceptable) but the sharpness isn't good enough. A picture shot from a closer location would be sharper. Also, the angle the sampan is shown from is a bit unappealing. --Janke | Talk 06:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 11:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aktfoto

Naked girl laying down

This is a beautiful picture of the human body and it adds to its article, Nudity. It seems to be appropriate for younger viewers and for the Main Page because it isn't really pornography at all, just a little suggestive (better than FHM, for example)

Not all featured pictures go up on the main page and in accordance with WP:NOT along with that fact this is not a valid reason to oppose and will most likely be discounted by teh closing admin. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 11:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stone sphere

Stone sphere in the courtyard of El Museo Nacional

A fascinating piece of history, carved by hand over 2000 years ago! The image is large and composed well. From the Stone spheres of Costa Rica article, taken by User:WAvegetarian

  • Nominate and support. - Fxer 22:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - maybe fascinating history, but not a fascinating picture. -- P199 22:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A worthy subject but this is a touch overexposed and a bit unsharp. Also, I find the background distracting. Given that there are over 300 of these ancient stone spheres, I think a better picture must be possible ~ Veledan • Talk 23:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Veledan. Interesting subject, but the background is fairly distracting and doesn't draw attention to the stone sphere. bcasterline t 00:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would rather see the sphere where it was originally found. This image might give people the false impression that the sphere was originally on the pictured pedestal. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-08 02:56
    • Comment. I would like to quote the article in defense of the illustrative nature of the photo: Some of the dynamited spheres have been reassembled and are currently on display at the National Museum in San José. This text was added previous to andnot in connection with the photo of, what do you know, a stone sphere in the national museum. As the article states, the stone spheres were moved from their original locations. Please do your research before making decisions. Being uninformed is grounds for your opinion being discounted. Saying it isn't as high quality a photo as some of the other featured pics is fine, but attacking it for the location it's in is completely ridiculous. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 18:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with Veledan. Mikeo 00:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I took this photo before I considered myself a photographer. In truth, it is a vacation photo from a high school spring break trip. The extreme depth of field is because it was shot with auto everything. It wasn't really taken with the idea of illustrating the stone sphere, rather it was to illustrate the sphere in the place I was at. Ideally it would have a much shallower depth of field and include the full shadow at the base, or be shot at a time other than high noon such that the sphere was better illuminated. It is true that it would be nice to have a picture of a sphere in its "original" position, but given how old they are it is absolutely ridiculous to think that any of the known ones are in the position the creators left them in. Given how relatively rare a phenomenon and how little studied they are I find it highly unlikely that a free image will be found of higher quality than this, barring someone taking a photo for this express purpose. As for it being overexposed, I will have to respectfully disagree. This photo accurately depicts the coloration of the sphere. The grass and sidewalk are over exposed, but the sphere is not. I have seen featured pics both much better than this and slightly worse. I think it is a good picture and one of my best from that time in my life, but shows many flaws of the beginning photographer. I didn't nominate it myself as I have taken much better pictures and now have much better skills. I don't particularly want to oppose my first nominated picture, however, so I neutrally offer this commentary. If I should happen to be in San Jose again (unlikely) I promise to take a much better picture. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 04:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 11:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crater Lake aerial view

View of Crater Lake from the air

First of all, it certainly needs a new file name, but apart from that, here's a great aerial shot of Crater Lake in Oregon (it's used in the article). Taken by Semionk. It's sharp, has good color balance. Maybe could stand a little bit of cropping out some of the clouds in the top half too. Also being used in Mount Mazama and Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway.

Support: --Fxer 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Beautiful image of the only national park in Oregon[reply]

  • Oppose oppose per howcheng :-) But seriously, there are vile compression artifacts in lower part of the picture. And featured content is supposed to represent the very best Wikipedia has to offer. I think you should have corrected the faults you mentioned in the nomination (how hard is it to move the filename?) before nominating ~ Veledan • Talk 23:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I was trying to gauge others' opinions on this image. I can certainly take a stab at it Photoshop and see what I can do, but there may be others (hint hint) better at me at touching up these images. howcheng {chat} 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can't correct the kind of compression I complained about I'm afraid: there is more artifact than detail and nothing can repair that. You need a less compressed original from the photographer :-( ~ Veledan • Talk 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Quality is fairly poor, and I don't find the image particularly striking. The cloud cover gets in the way. bcasterline t 00:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too many clouds. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. Important picture for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the quality at full resolution is not good at all, showing many artefacts. Probably from post-processing or compression - sea surface ist really bad. The cloud cover is OK - as almost the entire lake is visible. Without cloud cover, it might have been a rather boring picture. I would support a higher quality version, if it existed. Mikeo 09:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the clouds don't bother me as much as the compression artifacts. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 23:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Personally I really like the clouds -- it gives the pic a lot of character, especially considering the lake is entirely visible. I've asked the uploader for a new version, but considering his/her only two edits were to upload the file and insert into an article, we may not be able to get a better image. howcheng {chat} 06:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 11:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idly Vada

The South Indian staple breakfast item of Idly, Sambar and Vada served on a banana leaf.Note the stainless steel plates & cups characteristics of south Indian dining tables

Staple breakfast item of South India: Idly, Sambar and Vada served on a banana leaf.

Not promoted Mikeo 11:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edsel

1959 Edsel Corsair convertible.

As I was reading about the Edsel, this image stood out, because its depth of focus (am I saying this correctly?) makes the car "pop" against the greyish, out-of-focus background. I had to do a double-take to see if it was a real car or a model. The focal point of the image seems crisp and bright and adds nicely to the article. Plus, I haven't noticed any car photos as Featured Pic recently, so this one might be nice. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of the top cropped away, but I'm not even sure that's necessary. Well-framed, well-lit, good angle & general composition.

"Photo by Morven, taken at the Garden Grove, California Main Street weekly car show, Friday April 16, 2004, and released under the GFDL."

Not promoted Mikeo 11:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictorial cancellation

This post box is located at a historical site Somnathpur in Karnataka, India. The special postal cancellation is to act as a publicity /commemoration media for this tourist site. The special cancellation is done at no extra cost. But the only letters posted at this box located in front of the Kesava temple would get the special cancellation. The cancellation logo is the sketch of the temple.

Though not a photographically special shot, I thought this image contribute substantially to the article it’s attached. The article deals with postal cancellation.

Why? StephenFalken 21:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 11:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leadenhall Market

Leadenhall Market
Leadenhall Market - rotated 0.7° ccw

Leadenhall Market is one of the oldest surviving marketplaces in London, having been used continuously since the 14th Century. The architecture dates to the late 1800s when it was re-developed into the form in which it exists today. I believe this is a reasonably good shot of a scene that is difficult to photograph, as the market is shaped in a cross (+) shape and therefore hard to include the entire scene. This image is a spherical panorama of 3 images taken in portrait format, to maximise the angle of view while keeping detail high and the perspective sensible.

All together now, Promoted Image:Leadenhall_Market_In_London_-_Feb_2006_rotated.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 13:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caption goes here

I feel that this photo exemplifies the concept of an animal shelter in an endearing and provokative manner. In addition, it is sharp, selectively focused, and available in a large format.

It appears in the articles dog and animal shelter. I took the photo in Washinton, Iowa at the Paws and More No-Kill Animal Shelter.

Not promoted Mikeo 11:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooty railway station

Ooty railway station at Nilgiris, India. An excited crowd receives the Nilgiri Mountain Railway. A view from the driver's cabin.

Thought this captures the essense of this railway station.

Not promoted Mikeo 11:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Bauhinia

The Golden Bauhinia and the urbanized Hong Kong

Bauhinia flower is a symbol of Hong Kong, and appears on the Flag of Hong Kong. The photograph shows the golden statue of a bauhinia flower sitting at the heart of highly-urbanized Wan Chai District in Hong Kong. It is a famous tourist spot. In the photograph, we can also see the skyscrapers in the background, as well as the night view of the urban area of Hong Kong.

The photograph was taken by myself, and appears in the articles Hong Kong, Wan Chai District, Wan Chai and Golden Bauhinia Square.

Not promoted Mikeo 11:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade combat team

Brigade combat team

A very cool image I found surfing Army news releases, quite high res and stunning IMO. Staxringold 00:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've added it to Camp Shelby (where the unit was departing from) and the "Field marching" subsection of Marching band, as although it is not a marching band it very clearly shows field marching (making shapes on the field with large numbers of people). Staxringold 11:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unless Camp Shelby consists of a field of grass and not much more, this doesn't do a good job of pictorially representing it. Also, as you say, it doesn't illustrate the article content of the marching band article as they aren't a band. It is an impressive feat to pull off, but I have to agree with Mikeo. I hope they didn't spend all their time learning how to do field marching; this would make a rather poor combat formation. :)—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 20:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 11:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huli Wigman

A Huli Wigman from the Tari region of the Southern Highlands of Papua New Guinea

Here is a picture I took whilst living in Papua New Guinea for two years. It is of a Huli Wigman from the Tari Region of the Southern Highlands. The man is dressed in his traditional finery or bilas, including the wig made of human hair.

  • Nominate and support. - Nomadtales 23:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a larger version than this? If it was larger I would expect it would easily become a featured picture. |→ Spaully°τ 00:05, 6 April 2006 (GMT)
  • Oppose looks like a very nice image, but I'm afraid it's just much too small. chowells 23:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support awsome.I think this is an exceptional case and the size can be excused, though a larger size would be great. -Ravedave 01:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice colors, and it's plenty large enough for use in any article (I doubt anyone will be making thumbnails much larger than 600px). — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-6 01:44
  • Oppose. Nope size cannot be excused, especially not if the photographer still has a larger version which he just did not upload yet. I'll change to support once he did that. I'm sure he didn't take his 0.51498 megapixel camera to papua new guinea. As I said earlier, it is policy to upload highes quality possible. And for the thumbnail argument: WP:WIAFP mentions quality reproductions so I'm afraid tha standard is a little higher than quality thumbnails. And what abut the consent of the depicted person (I remember at least two cases (geisha and girl on tram) where this becam a major issue during the discussion)?. Apart from that: great shot :-) --Dschwen 06:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the image history I can see that the version uploaded first just had 300x400, so this is definately a step in the right direction, but let me repat it again just upload full-res. --Dschwen 06:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support. I cannot say I'm enthusiastic about the whole image size discussion, especially considering we have contributors who do upload high quality pictures at super-high resolutions. IMHO uploading limited resolution copies of your works seems like halfhearted commitment to free licensing and I fear this might set a precedent to other contributors. But I cannot force anyone to upload full res and the picture certainly is quite good, hence a weak support. --Dschwen 09:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (see below --Dschwen 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support. Anything that doesn't fit my monitor in its full resolution is big enough. Image has nice colors and detail on the man's skin. What if the photographer doesn't want a higher-res image released under a free license? That shouldn't mean we exclude a perfectly fine image. - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I have to comment on that. I don't want to exclude the picture, merely motivate the uploader to provide a higher res version. And if that is not possible I think it should not become a featured picture. Secondly, at the risk of sounding sassy, but the resolution of your monitor is not the standard by which FPCs are to be judged. WP:WIAFP 5. states the need for sufficient quality for reproductions. Why should we limit the quality of the images and decrease their usefullness as lets say illustrations for WP print derivatives (i.e. WikiReaders). --Dschwen 11:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if they don't upload a higher resolution you are excluding it. That's the effect an oppose vote has. Besides, as far as I can determine, a picture that fills my screen is sufficiently large to reproduce on a piece of A4 paper. Are we going to cater to people who want to make A2 posters? - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as long as a higher resolution picture is not provided, would support larger version - see comments of Dschwen. Mikeo 10:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support Size problem is now almost fixed. I agree with Dschwen that we should not motivate contributors to upload smaller resolution versions of their pictures. Mikeo 15:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Higher resolution version does exist, but it is not with me at the moment (on a cd back at home). I am loath to upload as I really don't want to contribute a high-res version under a free licence. I think it is a nice photo and would hope to one day be able to sell it. If I had checked the feature picture criteria first and read the "more than 1000px" part then I would have made it fit that .. but I didn't and 900x600 is the best i can currently do until I get back home on the weekend. I am not that far out from making the criteria at this stage. Nomadtales 04:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps this isn't the best place to discuss this, but seeing as it has been mentioned now, I assume that you would still be able to sell this image even if you gave it a free licence. As I understand it, the issue would simply be that someone could take the image on wikipedia and print it instead of buying it through you.. However, since I would imagine most photography is sold as a print, for example at a sunday market, your potential to sell an image that you have already released on a free licence may not be that diminished..? Or have I understood it incorrectly and you would be breaking your own licencing agreements by using selling an image you have previously released? ;) Just wondering! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that 1000px is an absolute minimum. I tend not to support such small images. chowells 19:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a minimum for you, but clearly not for others. So, it is not an absolute minimum. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-08 03:01
  • Support, excellent photo. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can excuse size for an image of this quality. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 00:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is big enough for me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. Please do upload a larger version when you get the chance, even if it isn't the full resolution.--ragesoss 17:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Version Uploaded. It is bigger and fits the criteria. Hopefully this will sway the opposition. Cheers all. Nomadtales 09:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should clarify that I actually don't have a super-duper high-res version of this image. The original is a Kodak Elitechrome slide (remember those?) and I need to get it rescaned at something more than 1200dpi. I am afraid this is the best I can do until then. Nomadtales 22:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although still a bit small, it's big enough. A wonderful addition to the Papua New Guinea article. ~MDD4696 22:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support also, nice photo. |→ Spaully°τ 22:52, 10 April 2006 (GMT)
  • Support. At the bottom end of ideal resolution but very high quality photography overall. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's certainly striking and the size is fine IMO. --BillC 21:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Huli wigman.jpg Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ChinchillaMaria.jpg

Maria the chinchilla

I think this would be a good featuerd image, it's high-res, free-licence, good quality, and I also think Maria's pose (the chinchilla) is quite.... eye-catching.

  • Oppose, I'm afraid. Very cute photo, but not up to featured quality in my opinion. There's a very heavy shadow on the right-hand side. Also the upper piece of wood is rather distracting. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cenotaph Hiroshima

The cenotaph at the Hiroshima Peace Park is inscribed with an ambiguous sentence: "Rest in peace, for this mistake will not be repeated." This construction, natural in the Japanese language, was intended to memorialize the victims of Hiroshima without politicizing the issue.

In my opinion, this is an important picture for an encyclopedia. It is showing the Cenotaph in Hiroshima, Japan built in memory of the victims of the nuclear bombing. It is also showing another memorial, the A-Bomb dome. This picture was taken by me (Michael Oswald) and is used by the following articles: Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Cenotaph.

Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon row barns

Mormon row barns
File:Barns grand tetons edit.jpg
Softened edges somewhat

One of my photos from the Grand Teton National Park article. A classic view point in the park.

  • Self-Nominate and support. - y6y6y6 14:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • reluctantly oppose, this version suffers from pretty severe JPG artifacts. Also it is a little on the small side, I'm sure your digital camera has more than one megapixel. It is highly encouraged to upload as big and high-quality as possible (as long as image sharpness allows it). Space is of no concern on the upload servers. --Dschwen 14:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak support original, oppose edit. Yeah, much better, still some slight artifacts but I think I can live with them. It wouldn't hurt reducing the compression factor until you get a 2MB file, this would still be perfectly acceptable. --Dschwen 06:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2mb file for a 2 megapixel image?! That's ridiculous! As hard as it is for people with broadband to imagine, there are people who have to wait 2 min for even an 800kb file. I've got nothing against quality, but you have to remember this photo should be usable for everyone. --Fir0002 www 08:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it is not ridiculous if the 800kB version still has artifacts. You cannot base the filesize estimat only on the megapixel-count, it is the details in the picture that require space. And the picture is usable for people with slow lines. They can look at the downsampled versions. The originals however should be uploaded in maximum quality. Sorry, but I did not make up this policy. --Dschwen 08:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The downsampled version however is proportional in size. I know whenever I look at a downsampled PNG file I have to wait like 5 mins! --Fir0002 www 10:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki does a perfectly good job of downsampling large images to smaller sizes for those on slower 'net connections, ensuring that those that want high quality images and those that want quick downloads are both satisfied. I therefore do not see a problem chowells 23:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Spectacular shot, though. If you still have the original, which should be superior in quality, I'd support it. bcasterline t 15:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Very nice, but far too highly compressed. I will support if a less compressed version is uploaded. chowells 17:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can't see the compression that others mention above, even the hires pic looks fine to me. I sometimes wonder if my votes here mean anything if I see nothing wrong with a pic others are most unhappy about! Beautiful picture - Adrian Pingstone 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have a look at the detail in the trees. It is somewhat hidden due to the random scattering of trees, but you can see subtle square shaped patterns. They're JPEG compression artifacts. You can also see it quite clearly (although they are somewhat hard to avoid unless you set extremely low compression) on the edge where the mountains meet the sky. I wouldn't say they are that obvious that they ruin the image, but if a higher quality image could be provided, so much the better. So many images are spoiled by bad processing. I suppose we have higher standards here than most people do. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best way to understand what people are talking about when they mention compression artifacts is to view the photo at 200% zoom. In this photo you'll see major problems at that zoom level. And even in the normal view you can see problems on the diagonal rooflines. Once you see these artifacts enlarged it's easier to see them at normal zoom. Also keep in mind that different people will literally see the same picture in different ways. Different gamma, brightness, and contrast settings on your monitor will make the photo look wildly different. In addition, if you have a large monitor with a relatively small resolution (for example - a 19" monitor set at 1280x960 resolution) everything will effectively be zoomed to some degree. What I'm trying to say is - Don't be discouraged because you don't see what people are talking about. Oddly, both parties can be right in this case. Also - I'll get a better version up tonight. --y6y6y6 20:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Better version uploaded. --y6y6y6 05:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Beautiful. There are still some compression artifacts at the roof top and on the mountain's crest, but I think we can live with it... Glaurung 05:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lovely Photo. Good job! --Fir0002 www 08:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have uploaded an edit where I've tried softening the skyline --Fir0002 www 08:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any improvement in the edit. Did you try removing the artifacts? That would have better been done with a blue brush, because in the edit the mountain tops look washed out in direct comparison and seem to have lost detail. Actually the sharp jagged horizon line is pretty essential to the picture. --Dschwen 08:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I can't see any artefacts. But I understand your comment. Looking at them side by side the original looks better. Viewed on it's own the edit is a little better in the skyline IMO --Fir0002 www 10:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Barns grand tetons.jpg Promoted original, not enough support for the edit ~ Veledan • Talk 12:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner Plain

Dinner Plain is almost deserted during summer

Nice photo, and shows how a ski resort such as this one virtually shut down in the summer months.
Other Version: Image:Dinner plain summer pano.jpg

Really, I'd gladly live there over the summer :-) Search4Lancer 20:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Dinner plain summer pano02.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 12:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantastoria in Korea

File:Cantastoria korea.jpg
Cantastoria

The people, their actions, the colors and pictures - and lets not forget the view in the background - capture the essence of a universal theatrical art form that reletively few people know about. Incredible photo! Appears in Cantastoria article. Photo provided by Clare Dolan for use in the article.

Sure, it is a nice image, and without it I'd probably never have seen a korean cantastoria in my life. No one is saying that the image is worthless, or even questioning wheter it is a valuable contribution to wikipedia. I just don't see it as a featured picture. Without doubt there have to be people in the photo, but those two in the foreground are not really nescessary. And there are several other issues with the picture which you haven't adressed. --Dschwen 06:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M136 AT-4 Rocket Launcher

This picture caught my eye a while ago and I have decided it could probably be a featured. It's not perfect but I think it's pretty darn good. Although it's perhaps a little underexposed, I think that it better conveys the heat of the exhaust. Also, the projectile is somewhat blurred, but I think that is understandable.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

30 St Mary Axe

The top of 30 St Mary Axe

An innovative shot of one of the world's most amazing buildings.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Machu Picchu

Machu Picchu Sanctuary and the Sacred Valley, showing the prominent peak of Huayna Picchu.
Downsampled, sharper version.
Restitched, brightened, and slightly downsampled version by Rubyk.
While we wait for Diliff, here's a stitch by me
And here's its edit
Diliff's re-stitch, slight crop, and adjustment of highlight detail
Another stitch which hopefully addresses the glitch issue
Downsampled, darkened clouds
Darkened, converted to sRGB from Adobe RGB instead of just assigning sRGB through save for web option

An awesome Machu Picchu panorama by User:Rubyk, from Ravedave's list on FPC talk - just one random click there, and this came up! (If the wiki server would be faster right now, I'd have a look at some other pics in the list...)

  • Nominate and support. Note: The original image is over 2300 by 8300 pixels - and it is not too sharp at full resolution, and shows some artifacts. I downsampled it by 40%, and it became sharper - I prefer that version, even though it is smaller. I also did one other, subtle thing - can you find it, and do you approve? --Janke | Talk 16:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hah what you removed was one of the things I thought was bad about the pic. I knew what it was before I even looked :) Great job photoshopping it BTW.-Ravedave 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose. It has a lot of potential but there are some extremely obvious stitching marks in the image. I'd love to get my hands on the original files and stitch it myself. ;) If I could correct the poor stitching, I'd support. For the record Janke, I'm usually pretty strict on touching up images and removing details, but you did a good job and in this case I do approve. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader/photographer is currently active on WP, so I've asked him if he can provide the original shots. We'll see... --Janke | Talk 20:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose edit. Not out of spite or plain principle. But when I consider what bothers me less, a duffelbag in picture which is full of people anyways, or having a retouched picture in an encyclopedic article, I'll go for the first option. By the way a slight blue shadow is still visible and it is clearly noticable where you took the replacement stone from. Irritates me! --Dschwen 09:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support downsampled and dufflebagless edit (its removal is clearly marked using Dschwen's template). Diliff can you help me spot the stitching errors you refer to? I'm having trouble finding them and I'm willing to hold my hand up and plead ignorance! ~ Veledan • Talk 17:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind, I spotted the repetitions in the vegetation at the bottom. Sorry, I have to withdraw my support, though I think it's great otherwise and I would fully support a re-stitched version :-( ~ Veledan • Talk 18:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not note the stitching "doubling" either, until it was first pointed out. Shall we withdraw this nomination, while waiting for Rubyk's reply? --Janke | Talk 19:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am willing to support the unedited. The stitching problems so far as I can see are mostly in the cloud areas. There are some problems with focus etc. but its got to be very hard to take a panorama like this IN the clouds, they're MOVING! The other blurred interpolated stiches at the bottom are mostly in unimportant areas of forest. The image is huge and the subject is interesting. --Deglr6328 23:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find the stitching more problematic below the clouds, personally. If you follow the stitch marks on the clouds vertically down, you will see duplication of features in the landscape due to poor stitching/feature matching in whatever software was used to create it. To be fair, they do blend in somewhat (mainly because the eye overlooks things that seem to appear normal. They aren't immediately visible, but they are definitely there on close inspection. It helps to know what to be looking for. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can't for the life of me find stitch marks on the edited version. However, I am perturbed by the blue left behind where the dufflebag was. I would support the unedited. Nevermind, the stitch marks are indeed terrible! Search4Lancer 00:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Poor stitching. ~MDD4696 16:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A subject deserving so much detail. The thumb on this page seems too small in relation to the others. David R. Ingham 05:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I appreciate you nominating my photo of Machu Picchu. I support the nomination, and am uploading a new version of the image without the stitching artifacts, slightly brightened, downsampled, and cropped to remove the duffle bag that has been bothering people. --Rubyk 14:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the brightness increase is not really an improvement. Now the clouds are even more blown-out. --Dschwen 15:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If you can upload a restitched version with the same brightness/contrast as the original, you'll get my immediate support for that. This is an awesome photo, and I'd really like to see it featured! --Janke | Talk 17:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry to to say the stitching artifacts are still very much visible. Not as prominent as the previous version but they are most definitely there. Rubyk, I suspect it is the software you are using. I am confident I can create a higher quality stitch if you can provide the originals. I also agree that the brightening is not really an improvement. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of seven sequentially numbered source images.
  • Thanks, Rubyk! Suggestion: When Diliff has made a stitch he considers perfect ;-), we could delete this nomination and put up a new one. As the nominator of this one, I'll happily withdraw it when a better one exists. --Janke | Talk 06:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Image:Peru Machu Picchu Sunset.jpg is already a featured picture. Although this picture is very good, is there really need to have two FPs of the same subject? Arco Acqua 15:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with that. Each FPC should be considered on its own. Cf. the lithographs by Haeckel, a fifth is on its way to FP status. --Janke | Talk 17:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support one of these, but I'll wait until all versions are in before placing my vote. Current preference for the edit of my stitch --Fir0002 www 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhh.. well. I feel like its almost not worth adding my stitch - it would just get lost in the list! Your stitch seems technically pretty good, but I don't really agree with your edit though. You always tend to over-brighten images (IMHO) and they lose the sense of atmosphere. Sometimes 'muted' is the actual (and intended) vibe. My edit is a slight crop, and attempts to restore some of the highlight detail in the clouds, but is otherwise left as-is. Should we re-nominate this/these images so we can get a proper vote?

Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went with the brightening because so did the photographer, and I guess that was the "vibe" he wanted - not the dark versions. --Fir0002 www 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Diliff version, oppose rest. Diliffs edit resolves two issues I had with the image, the stitching fault in center near the bottom of the frame to the right of the big rock (most likely a touch up, but barely noticable) and the blue bag. Fir's edit is a bit too bright, too big for the sharpness of the original material and still has the glitch. Especially the clouds look much better in Diliffs version. --Dschwen 20:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which glitch? I can't see any problems - prehaps upload a small temp file with the problem circled. And as you yourself have often vociferously said, bigger is better and there is virtually no limit to the space on the server. --Fir0002 www 22:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for the glitch check this magnification. As for the vociferously saying bigger is better, please differentiate. Sharpness matters as I said here. When asking for bigger versions of small but sharp images I tend be optimistic and hope for the larger version to be sharp as well. When I have the choice between an unsharp big version and a sharp slightly smaller version I wouldn't ask for the big version. And I definately wouldn't ask vociferously for that matter. --Dschwen 22:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dunno, it may have been too strong an adjective but "The originals however should be uploaded in maximum quality" is one of your recent remarks --Fir0002 www 08:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hate edit conflicts. ;) I'll leave my comments as is for the record, though: This glitch[3]. The foreground grass on the left segment has separated from the right segment. I agree that perhaps Dschwen has been a little contradictory there. However, I think he has previously said (and I completely agree) that it should as large as possible, but only where it does not visibly impair perceived sharpness. In the case of this image, the original files were quite soft, and downsampling resulted in an equally detailed but more aesthetically pleasing image. The scenario where Dschwen was advocating the 'bigger is better' mantra was where the image was obviously too small. Experienced photographers/editors like you and I can use our experience to dictate how far we can happily downsample. For the average contributor, I think its probably safer to request the original files and they can subsequently be modified to suit if need be, as the original image is always going to contain the maximum possible detail and we will never have to go through the laborious process of getting back to the original author to request a better version. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Diliff, there's significant posterizing in the clouds in your stitch... what happened? ~MDD4696 23:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree - looks pretty horrible, noticeable banding in the sky. Too much "curves" or level correction in the sky area? (I see you darkened the sky a bit.) The sky in Fir's version doesn't have that problem. --Janke | Talk 05:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have a point there. Its more a matter of taste, though. The sky was very overexposed to begin with, so I had tried to make the most of what detail was available in the sky. I could have left it as it was, and thats fine, but I just tried to get a bit of texture out of the lower part of the clouds. At my end, the transition is reasonably subtle, but you would see a lot of banding if (for example - I'm not implying this is definitely the case) you had your colour settings set to less than true colour, but I don't see banding at all. I admit that due to the enhancement of the highlights in the clouds, there by logic must be more obvious steps in the luminosity of them, but I don't see it in the image at all, to be honest. I've viewed the cloud area at 300% and enhanced the levels on that crop by a factor of about 5, and while that results in an incredibly contrasty cloud ;), I don't see ANY significant banding... If the issue is not to do with your colour display settings, perhaps you could crop what you're refering to and show me? Alternative, I can simply upload the stitch without the cloud enhancement. I always knew that would be subject to taste, but I didn't (and don't) see banding. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Posterization in the sky
                • Interesting. I'm at a work computer right now, and the LCD monitor has 8-bit colour so I can definitely see the posterization here... But as for whether its the monitor or the image itself, its impossible to say for sure (I see posterization on a lot of images with subtle transitions on this monitor). I see your point, however, because I've viewed both your image's clouds and I've viewed mine, and mine is clearly more visible. I'll revert it tonight and re-upload! This is really dragging on a bit but I'm glad we're making the most of the potential of this image through feedback. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yeah it certainly makes for a good final result! I mean once we've finished with it, I'm sure it will be as close to perfect as is possible. On that note I've uploaded two more versions, another stitch (to fix the glitch in the original) and an edit to bring out the clouds. Like you did, I experienced problems with posterization but I think I've been able to make a pretty good compromise. --Fir0002 www 08:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I like what you've done with the clouds and I think that is the best version overall, but, nitpicking here, the scene does look slightly washed out and I'd like to see it a little darker and closer to the original. For that matter, I'm not sure that the excess of bushes on the right really helps either, and I'd like to see it cropped on the right. Otherwise, I like it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's another interesting difference between Diliff's and Fir's stitches - the perspective rendering. Look how the edge of the grass curves more strongly in Diliff's version - also visible as a steeper diagonal edge on the left. How come? (I do prefer the less steep curve of Fir's stitch.) All in all, this has been a very interesting and educational excercise for us all! --Janke | Talk 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. I did notice the perspective difference after comparing the two. I think I can explain this by the fact that the centre point isn't set correctly in one of the two stitches and the vertical perspective is shifted to different degrees. In viewing the two stitches sequentially, I have to admit that I PREFER the perspective of Fir0002's, but if you look carefully, the tree in the middle of the ruins is not vertical, whereas it is vertical in my stitch. Make of that what you will. Without any other perspective cues, it is very difficult to tell which is the more accurate - perhaps the tree actually does tilt in reality, although it doesn't appear to in the original images! Janke, seeing as you have been following this closely, can you see really posterization in the clouds in my image? I'm looking again on my home PC with what I consider to be a pretty high quality monitor, and I cannot see any banding or posterization at all. As I mentioned earlier, due to the modification I made to bring out the detail in the clouds, there will be a small amount of luminance (eg, approximately 10 steps at most) spread out over a greater range, but on my monitor, it appears quite well dithered and even when enhancing the clouds further and zooming to 300%, I still see dithering, not banding/posterization. I'm not saying that three different people are 'making it up', but I find it puzzling that they are seeing something that I am not. Is your display definitely set to 32bit/true colour? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:MPTEST2.jpg
Left: Diliff, right: Fir. Top: Original, bottom: contrast increased
        • Diliff: I use a G4 Mac, which is supposed to have good graphics... I definitely see the banding in your edit (top left), but not in Fir's (top right). Here is the proof, I cut out the same part from both images, put them one beside the other, and made a contrast enhancement. A pretty obvious difference, I must say. I also wonder where the "granulation" in your version comes from (only visible in the enhanced example, though.) Hope this helps you solve this mystery! (Maybe Fir has some secret trick, and that is the mystery? ;-) Greetings, --Janke | Talk 06:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I finally see it, and it could be that my LCD screen IS a little washed out at the top end of luminosity, because if I tilt the screen at an extreme angle (which essentially darkens the entire image slightly) I DO see the banding, but when viewing it straight-on, I see very subtle variances of the almost-white level and no discernable banding. Seems to be only in the 250-255 range of luminosity, but that is a little worrying.. Something to be aware of in future! As for the "granulation", I'm not sure. It almost appears that his version has had noise reduction applied, as the tip of the mountain's detail seems a little softer, too. That could be as a result of the stitching though, or the fact that he didn't 'pull' the sky's detail as far as I did. I have no idea. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I propose closing this as a failure, then opening a new FPC for the final edit, anyone agree? -Ravedave 16:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No result per above comments. Nomination would have failed based on vote count, but the image has obviously changed and improved a lot. Someone please select/create the new candidate soon — I want to see this an FP too! ~ Veledan • Talk 13:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Beach Pier

Ocean Beach Pier at sunset

One of my photos from the Pier article.

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Sofia

File:AlexanderNevskiCathedral.jpg
Alexander Nevsky Cthdral, Sofia
File:AlexanderNevskiCathedral-1.jpg
Edited

I agree that photos edited, other than contranst, etc. to make them clearer, are not appropriate, David R. Ingham 05:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 12:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Games Opening Ceremony

Delta Goodrem performs as a fireworks display takes place in the finale of the Opening Ceremony of the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

I took this picture at the Opening Ceremony of the 2006 Commonwealth Games on March 15, 2006. It has appeared on the main page at the time of the Games, and also features on the Commonwealth Games portal. Thanks. Harro5 05:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devils Tower

Devils Tower National Monument

Photos illustrates Devils Tower National Monument well, is well composed and has nice background. Created & uploaded by User:Colin.faulkingham cropped by User:Plumbago.

Yes, the sky is a little bit blotchy, but that's about it. What other issues besides the sky do you see? Most other photos are tiny in size... Nothing like featured quality. =- Mgm|(talk) 08:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quality is my main objection: it loses the advantages it might gain from having a high resolution and doesn't satisfy the criteria. And since the article is replete with photos -- some of which, I think, better depict the igneous intrusion by providing a more informative perspective -- this photo isn't of especially high encyclopedic value, either. (Not that it's a bad or useless photo. Just not FP.) bcasterline t 16:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uninhabited Island

An uninhabited island in the Lakshadweep archipelago

Striking image, good compistion, great colors, the water makes me want to just dive in. Used on Lakshadweep and uninhabited island. Created & uploaded by User:Lenish

  • Nominate and support. - Ravedave 21:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because I do not find it striking at all. A nice snapshot, not FP quality. Mstroeck 23:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - We do need one of these though! I certainly wish I were there. It looks like this was taken on a rather humid day and thus the whole island is very blurry and the colors are rather desaturated. If the image looked more like this[4] I could support.--Deglr6328 02:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Desaturated? I must be looking at another picture. Don't you see vibrant blue water? Still oppose, though. I don't think this image illustrates deserted islands very well. I can barely make out one palm. It's too far away to show anything clearly. - Mgm|(talk) 08:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I see greenish blue water and pallid blue sky. compare with strking color of sky on above image.--Deglr6328 20:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunflower

A Sunflower

I believe that this photo should be a featured picture, for it is clear and displays the sunflower well. I found it in the Sunflower article.

USMC War Memorial

United States Marine Corp War Memorial
File:USMC War Memorial Night-edit.jpg
Reflections toned down a bit
UPDATED Version 3: Lighting removed

The USMC War Memorial, which depicts Joe Rosenthal’s legendary photo Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. I think this is an awesome shot, well detailed, and adds to the article USMC War Memorial.

  • Weak Support I do like the picture, but agree the lighting takes away from it. I tried to remove it and touch things up as best as I could, but it still needs a lot of work. The white light still reflecting all across the wall along with the shadows on that wall still detract a bit too much. - Wdwic Pictures 06:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great work. On close inspection, I can see that it's been modified -- especially the grass along the base on the left. But it's not obvious. Definitely the best version yet. bcasterline t 16:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are also cloning stamp marks just outside the right edge of the base. Remove these imperfections, and I'll support your version over my own! ;-) --Janke | Talk 17:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The version without the lights in it is missing the 'S' in "Semper" - and it's rather obvious as well. The original version and first edit are OK, but the light is distracting. If someone comes up with a version like the third one, but with the 'S' back in place and a simple blur tool run over the clone marks, I think it'll be good to go. ----WindRunner 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't believe I missed the "S." It was very faint so I guess I missed it. I uploaded a new version over it. I tried to get rid of some of the things mentioned. I also reduced the noise in the sky some. It still needs work though. Wdwic Pictures 14:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nice picture, but if this isn't good enough for FP, neither is this one. (In short, a little lackluster in content.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know what you mean; I voted support for the bridge and it still failed. I remember putting this photo through here and wonder why on earth it did not become featured. Sometimes its the things just outside your reach and control that mess everything up. If I were you I would consider rerunning the bridge, sometimes a second time submission gets through. Ya never know... TomStar81 07:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree about that B-2 nomination. I liked it and feel the reasons for opposition were a little aribitrary. I don't like the white balance at all on this image though. Another supporter below me exclaims "Just look at that sky!" but it is not that accurate looking. The human eye compensates far better for sodium lighting than a camera can! It looks artificial and badly balanced. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just look at that sky! --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 04:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't find this all that interesting. I also don't like the brown sky, nor the way that the left-hand side of the plinth is cut off. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't like the perspective. The brown sky looks like severe light pollution in a big city. On a clearer night it would have been fine. Mikeo 11:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Poor white balance. Agree with previous comment that it would have looked better on a clear night, but light pollution CAN look OK if the photo is white balanced to a more neutral colour. Your eyes can do a better job of doing it automatically than a camera can, so you need to compensate manually, preferably before pressing the shutter, or before converting the RAW image if you're forward-thinking enough to use RAW. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Maybe if it appeared in an article about propaganda? --Philopedia 14:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Place

A portion of the sculpture Another Place
Edit without a rounded bottom right corner. Also reduced in size slightly.
Edit of 2 with less sky

I belive this image is striking, well composed, has good background & colors, and adds siginicantly to the Another Place article. Created by User:Chowells.

  • I know what you mean, but it really is a difficult thing to photograph because the subjects are so sparsely distributed. With that in mind I think the composition is about as good as it can be, and I find the picture grows on me! StephenFalken 23:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Another_Place3_edit2.jpg the third picture (edit 2) Mikeo 12:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Garden

French formal garden in the Loire Valley

Good, colorfull photo that demontarates Formal garden well. Taken by User:Daderot

Too phallic? Yes, it distracts a bit... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc statue, Notre Dame

A statue of Joan of Arc in the Notre Dame de Paris.

It's a pretty nice image overall, high resolution, no major problems (as far as I can see, but then again I'm not a professional photographer). It's in the Notre Dame de Paris article.

Promoted Image:Joan of Arc-Notre Dame.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy's Hut

Kennedy's Hut
Fortunately I took this pic as an exposure bracket

Other version are availible here. (I kinda like the sepia effects)

That's how eucalyptus trees look like! --Fir0002 www 03:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral for now. the large tree is distracting. pschemp | talk 05:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support version 2 Looks better in full size. The blown-out sky doesn't disturb me, and it's unavoidable in this type of lighting - the hut is deep in shade, and the bright, cloudy sky is behind the trees. Apparently, it's not unavoidable - or is this a clever composite of two bracketed shots? --Janke | Talk 07:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You got it the second time :-) --Fir0002 www 11:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeThe sky is completely burned out. Also pic 02 looks better than this (at least no huge patch of burned out sky). --antilived T | C 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose very messy Leidiot 09:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose doesn't grab the attention. --BillC 10:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I disagree with a lot of the other opposing reasons though. I think the composition is pretty good. Its impossible to have a bush landscape without it looking 'messy', but that doesn't mean messy is a bad thing in this context! Thats how bushland is! I just question the image's significance to viewers as a potential featured picture. To be honest, I don't really know whether that is a valid reason to oppose according to our guidelines, but I think it probably should be a factor, at least. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it just doesn't have the richness of colour that other featured pictures have; I don't think it's worth including. BigBlueFish 16:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Studland

A view of Shell Bay (at the north of the Studland peninsula) towards the south-east

Articles: Beach, Studland, Marram grass

This photo of Shell Bay (the northern part of the Studland peninsula) in Dorset, England, UK adds substantially to a number of articles. This photo was taken not long after a storm had flooded the beach, and I think it shows just how beautiful the area is. It would encourage people to investigate Dorset further if it becomes a FP. I took this image myself.

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Looking over Marin

Looking north from San Francisco over Marin.

This is a rare angle of this region that other pictures haven't captured, including many landmarks (Golden Gate Bridge, Alcatraz, San Francisco City Hall, Golden Gate Park, Angel Island, the Presidio, and many more. This picture, and more info on the North Bay can be found in the North Bay (San Francisco Bay Area) article.

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bauhinia blakeana

Bauhinia blakeana

Bauhinia blakeana flower is the symbol of Hong Kong. I took this picture by myself in Hong Kong. The good thing about this picture:

  • It has a large-enough resolution.
  • The angle allows people to examine the stigma of the flower.
  • Only the flower itself is focused.
It doesn't really have a large enough resolution
The stigma isn't really more clear than in any other photograph of a flower
Nothing is in focus

--Phoenix2 21:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mendenhall Glacier

Rayleigh scattering due to many tiny air bubbles causes the distinctive blue tint in glaciers, such as the recently calved Mendenhall
Foreground cropped.

Great, striking image of the Mendenhall Glacier. Shows (1) recent calving, (2) Rayleigh scattering, and this is minor, but it shows the truly typical weather for the region, being rainy about 250 days a year. The fog and cloud hole allowing a shaft of light to get through add some artistic balence. Taken by Andrew Pendleton, he has released it under the GFDL after an email exchange, he wanted to make sure he retained attribution under the liscense.

--Justthefacts 11:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)I agree with the 'do not oppose' - Sure it might need some tweeking, but hey, just imagine being there when 'you'took that shot! It really states the diverse complexities and simplicities of our 'intelligenly designed' world. We are looking at the finger of God.

I always thought the finger of God would look something like this - JPM | 03:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - no doubt very impressive in real life but not in this picture. Poor lighting, too much shadow. -- P199 20:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm the person who took this picture, and I agree that the lighting wasn't the best, however, I'd just note that because of some physics that's a bit beyond me, the blue color of the ice doesn't really show up well under direct sunlight (in fact, you can see it in here in the well-lit upper portion of the picture, where the ice appears white). So, while I agree that the picture would probably have been better under better lighting, the glacier would have looked white, and, hence, lost its encyclopedic value as relates to an article on Rayleigh scattering, where the blue color is really the relevant attribute of the picture. ABPend 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. It's informative, but I'm afraid it doesn't do anything for me visually. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wildflower with morning dew

File:Dew 11 bg 060103.jpg
Wildflower with morning dew

One of my photos from the Dew article. More depth of field would have been nice, but I feel even so the photo is striking enough to be considered.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse from Valladolid

Photo taken in Valladolid (Spain) during the October 3 2005 annular eclipse

Apart from being a major photographic reference in the article Solar eclipse, this picture looks quite outstanding in my opinon. It looks quite surreal with the bird flying overhead. This image was uploaded by Rapomon late last year and I'm surprised why it wasn't considered a featured picture earlier.

From that I assume you've seen an annular or total eclipse - does the sky colors really look like in this photo? I'd like to know, the only chance I ever had to see a total eclipse was spoiled by clouds and fog - I went up into the water tower in Hanko, Finland with 200 other crazy people who also hoped the cloud cover would disperse... --Janke | Talk 09:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's hard to say for sure, as I was in the desert and there were no clouds (or birds), and I've only seen the one total eclipse. But the sky became like twilight, and not dark as night. This image gives me a similar impression. —Pengo 00:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the picture pretty stunning too, despite the technical limitations and the aerial. And no, pictures don't need to be postcard-perfect to make a valuable and welcome contribution to the encyclopedia, but this is Featured pictures, and here all nominations should strive to represent the very best we can offer. The Opposes have to be understood in that context. It doesn't mean some of the same people wouldn't say "Wow what a geat pic!" if shown it under other circumstances </soapbox> ~ Veledan • Talk 19:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -Ravedave 04:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse from Krasnoyarsk

Caption goes here

This morning's solar eclipse, uploaded by new user Dmz krsk (Trofimov Alexey), and used in the fledgling article Solar eclipse on 2006 March 29. Much more striking than the average circular eclipse picture!

Not promoted -Ravedave 04:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Robinson EVA

Steve Robinson in an EVA (notice the extended arm).

Great high quality image of Steve Robinson on an EVA. NASA image, for more information go to [6]

Uploaded by Kingstonjr

  • Support. "Look, ma! No hands!" — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-29 22:25
  • Link I began a translation of the page but there were too many technological terms I'm not familiar with. In the end I found this link before I found my dictionary. (Also some of the info on the Italian site is contradicted by the NASA site so I'd remove the Italian link) ~ Veledan • Talk 17:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sts114 033.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sing Sing Warden

Warden T. M. Osborne in a cellblock in Sing Sing prison.

I find the picture striking and I belive it definitly adds to the Sing Sing article, and if there was a cellblock article it would add there as well. It is a library of congress image uploaded by user:Daderot.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malé

Malé, capital city of the Republic of Maldives, located in the Kaafu Atoll
Resized edit

Author: Shahee Ilyas. View of Malé, capital of the island nation Maldives.

Promoted Image:Male.jpg -Ravedave 03:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemist's laboratory

Original version
Version by User:Jorge Stolfi
Version by brian0918

We've all seen the stereotypical alchemist's lab (or maybe not?).. but how about a 16th century illustration of an actual one? This is from Heinrich Khunrath's most famous work, Amphitheater of Eternal Wisdom, painted by Hans Vredeman de Vries, c. 1595. The image conveys the well-known connection alchemists had between spiritual and physical research. The image is used in Alchemy. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-29 00:27

  • Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the modified version--K.C. Tang 00:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either version. The original is too dark; the modified is too bright. But it's still an interesting illutration, which makes a valuable contribution, in either case. The writing is especially intriguing -- it'd be great to get some more of that translated. bcasterline t 01:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've uploaded what I think is a "juuust right" version. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-29 01:24
  • Oppose The image exposure (the first version too bright, the second dark almost to the point of being unrecognisable) is certainly an issue, although this may be resolvable. More problematic is the image content: The miniscule and crowded table in the centre shows a small number of tools, and leaves the viewer to guess their significance. The image conveys very little about the alchemists approach or outlook. Rather it seems to be an exercise in interior perspective. --Philopedia 01:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the whole thing is explained in the text that surrounds the entire image (not shown in the image, but on the linked page). But, the text is in Latin. There are also Latin phrases in the image which explain the contents. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-29 01:35
    • I disagree. I think it says quite a bit about alchemists' approach and outlook, especially, as brian0918 said, with regards to the mixture of science and mysticism. Note that I've improved and expanded some of the translations, which make that connection more explicit. bcasterline t 02:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support brian0918 version. -Ravedave 01:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see historical relevance here, as alluded to in the nomination. I would hope that someone knowledgeable about the subject would write a paragraph in an article, maybe Heinrich Khunrath, explaining the image (addressing Philopedia's concerns). Look at the images full size before deciding on a version. I prefer the original, as the edits lose color and texture, most noticeably in the floor. ~MDD4696 02:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's a great image, but I think the version with the text would be more appropriate. In any case, the text is poorly cropped out in this version; you can see the edges of it around the circle. I won't support any of these versions, but I would enthusiastically support it with the text or I would reluctantly support a better-cropped version.--ragesoss 03:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with the version with text is that the illustration is much smaller, and all just to gain some Latin words that really don't add to the image (unless this were the Latin Wikipedia). I was waiting for someone to complain about the cropping, so I'll go about fixing it now. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-29 04:32
  • Support now (Brian's edit). I didn't realize the text version was so small.--ragesoss 05:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too dark Leidiot 03:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which version is too dark, and which is too light? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-29 04:25
  • Support Brian's edit. That "Festina Lente" on one of the jars is just great! That could be adhered to here on FPC, sometimes, too... --Janke | Talk 06:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Brian's version. Nice find, great repro.--Eloquence* 07:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Brian's edit What a fantastic nomination! Different and extremely interesting, attractive and informative all at the same time. ~ Veledan • Talk 10:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Old illustration seems to have higher rates of success than photographies at FPC these days XD Circeus 16:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think that's only true because the many nominations that fall far short of the FP criteria tend not to feature more obscure/academic media like old woodcuts. In real numbers, only 4 pics in the last 50 FPs promoted have been 'old' and the ratio is much lower if you look back further. Personally I'm pleased as Punch that we have a couple of experienced editors sifting through old PD sources to find us these splendid plates (and I know you are too Circeus, don't think I misunderstood you) ~ Veledan • Talk 17:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Brian's edit) Judging from the University of Wisconsin pages, the image itself (rather, the book it is from) is be notable. More detail about it would certainly make for an interesting article. It would be nice to know, roughly, what the text around the image says. –Joke 16:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original or Brian's edit or Original less text cropping. A wonderful period image of very high quality. I can't think of a better illustration for this topic. – Meersan 19:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. ooh. double, double, toil and trouble :) pschemp | talk 06:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Alchemist's Laboratory, Heinrich Khunrath, Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae, 1595 3.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that promoted image was deleted as a duplicate of Image:Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae - Alchemist's Laboratory.jpg. MER-C 10:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agave Oven

distillery oven loaded with agaves at the El Jimador tequila factory close to Tequila, Jalisco, Mexico

This image is of an interesting and unusual subject, and the quality and composition of the photograph are excellent. It is located in the article on tequila. I believe it meets the criteria of a featured image.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Ark

A painting by the American Edward Hicks (1780–1849), showing the animals boarding Noah's Ark two by two.

It is a beautiful painting by Edward Hicks which is located in the article Noah's Ark. It is very crucial to this article because it is the only picture in it that has an image of the Ark itself. I believe that this picture meets all the criteria of WP:WIAFP; of course this is up for argument.

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iris xiphium

File:Spanish-iris.jpg
Iris xiphium
File:Spanish-iris-v2.jpg
Iris xiphium (crop+color edit)
File:Spanish-iris-crop-only.jpg
Cropped only

I'm nominating this image as I believe it shows the Iris xiphium in all it's glory.
This image has been edited around the edges to highlight the white in the flower.
I believe it is an eye catching image that provides a great example of the Iris xiphium.

Promoted Image:Spanish-iris-crop-only.jpg --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wormhole in Space

I nominated this article because I found it informing and very interesting to look at. I hope you will see it the same way.

  1. Support Hmm, I liked it... --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 01:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Nominations older than 14 days, the maximum voting period, decision time!

Old nominations should be archived when they are removed from this page.

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

  • Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }}
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  • Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the December archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  • Remove the {{FPC}} tag from the image and any other suggested versions.

When promoted, perform the following:

  • Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage: {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}}
    • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
      • Promoted Image:FILENAME.JPG
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  • Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the December archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  • Add the image to Template:Announcements/New featured pages - Date, then alphabetical order
  • Add the image to Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom
  • Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian)
    • You might want to use Template:FP: {{subst:FP|file=|description=|at=|by=}}
  • Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian)
  • Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs
  • Update the picture's tag, replacing {{FPC}} with {{FeaturedPicture}}, and remove {{FPC}} from alternatives of the promoted image.
  • Notify the nominator by placing {{PromotedFPC|Image:file_name.xxx}} on the person's talk page. For example: {{PromotedFPC|Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}
  • Optionally, you can check Wikipedia:Picture of the day and feature the image as upcoming POTD. Note that these are featured in order they are promoted.

Nomination for delisting

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards.
Note: Please use Delist or Keep as your vote.

  • If consensus is to keep status then archive nomination for removal on archive page and optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page, also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section.
  • If consensus is to remove status then remove the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag and leave a note on the picture's talk page, also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section. Also remove the image from Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
  • Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from FP in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).
Archived removal requests

Australian Garden Orb Weaver

Australian Garden Orb Weaver

The image is only 726x603 px, and we have a better picture of an Orb-Weaver spider featured. Compare the image with this (superior) image Image:Orb_weaver_black_bckgrnd03_crop.jpg. Delist. --Dschwen 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Blue morpho butterfly

please check full size version

The thumbnail is pretty, and the image seems to be used a lot. But the actual image is only 800px wide and appears very washed out. The high ref-count is due to inclusion in a stub template. Delist. --Dschwen 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Retain as per my other arguments that we can't retroactively apply new standards to old noms when the photo itself is not changed. The whole point of this process so far and the reason why until recently there was no delisting is that unless an entirely new photo is taken (which in itself would have to go through the FP process) there is no way to make more than minor fixes to the photo. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pentakisdodecahedron

Pentakisdodecahedron

Not used in any article. It was inserted into Pentakisdodecahedron several times, and was always kicked out. The animation aspect is nice but does not significantly increase the understanding of the shape. Colors are not exactly pretty (but that's probably very subjective). Delist. --Dschwen 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Paris from Notre-Dame

Paris from Notre-Dame

I know most (or all) people liked this image in mid 2004, but FP standards have changed. This image is too small to make out much detail, and the gargoyle is sort of distracting. The size is the main problem, I think. There are much more impressive FP cityscapes these days. Therefore, I say Unfeaturify Snargle 01:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - until we get a new FP of the same subject. It is possible - camera a little lower, so the gargoyle doesn't "eat" the city, etc. But no need to delist this, yet. --Janke | Talk 08:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just because standards have changed in no way makes this an invalid feature picture. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 09:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep striking. -Ravedave 16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Good shot but way too small... no way this image would make it today just based on the size alone. Procrastinator-General 07:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Too small. And I think it absolutely is nescessary to apply current standards to earlier nominations in order to keep up the quality of the Featured Picture collection. Also the gargyle is a bit dark. --Dschwen 07:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very nice picture, even if a little bit too small. Until we get the same view at a higher resolution, there is no need to delist. -Glaurung 05:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But FP is not designed as a comprehensive library of all beautiful views, it should show the best pictures on Wikipedia. --Dschwen 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do agree with you. However, this picture was promoted to the featured status. Usually, when you get a promotion (or more generally when you pass an exam), it is definitive. For example, you wouldn't be very happy if your University was to reclaim your academic diploma on the ground that criteria have changed for the exam you took years ago. On the other hand, it is true that there are some kind of promotions for which you regularly have to prove that you still meet the criteria, and FP could work like this. But in that case, we would have to systematically go through all currently featured picture to see if they still stand to the actual standard or not. If this is done, I would probably vote to delist this picture. But if it is listed alone as it is now, I don't see any reason why I would vote to delist when pictures such as [8] or [9] can sleep in peace. And before listing a small picture for a possible delisting, maybe we should ask the uploader if he can provide a larger version of the picture? -- Glaurung 06:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. We have to apply current standards even to older FPs. Too small. Mikeo 00:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above standards. Not only is it small, but the actual view of Paris is also a bit too much out of focus. BigBlueFish 11:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nice picture--Ph89 13:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a nice picture. Pity about the size, but its a good shot of the city and it's arcitecture - • The Giant Puffin • 16:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Neutralitytalk 18:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delist This is why I hate the delisting process. It seems that people are completely against delisting photos. I have absolutely no idea why, it is not a personal thing. If a photo does not meet the requirements any more, then it is not of featured picture quality. Also, the nominator didn't inform the original contributor of the photo that the photo is up for delisting. If the main problem can be easily fixable (like small resolution can be), then tell the original contributor!! What is hard about that? Dschwen ended up doing it, and I am glad he did, but it was not up to him. --liquidGhoul 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Suspended promotions

This is a temporary section created for an exceptional circumstance: to hold Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/POV-ray which is clearly due promotion, but which isn't ready yet. One of two new versions currently in production will become the Featured picture. Please feel free to add more comments in the meantime. c.f. Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#The POV-ray nomination

Update: As of 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC), the first 1554 lines of the rendering have taken 456:56:14. At this rate, it will take another 250 hours (or about 10 days) to complete. ~MDD4696 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer generated image

Image generated programmatically with aid of a computer.

As per discussion below, I nominate this awesome, completely "synthetic" image. It looks so natural, with all reflections and refractions, that you really have to look hard to see it's artificial. It's in POV-ray. (And, it's actually excellent as a still life, too!)

NOTE re closing this nomination: We are still waiting for two new renderings. Should we keep this here long enough to include them?

Hey, many real life objects can be completely made up of primitive shapes combined via CSG, like dices indeed. There are dices without round corners, you know? And i don't see the pouring thing you're talking about. A truly photorealistic work, if you ask me... (namekuseijin (at) gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.40.20.130 (talk • contribs)
I have asked the artist, User:Gilles_Tran, who created this image, to reply here. --Janke | Talk 06:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nomination (though people looking for a real still life master working with POV-Ray should have a look at Jaime Vives Piqueres' work)! The picture took a little less than 2 days to render at 1024*768 (blame the focal blur). I've put a resized version on line to smooth out some of the graininess in focal blur and some of the poor antialiasing, but the original version is available here. Of course, folks with better hardware than mine (P4 3Gz) can also re-render it at a larger size. When POV-Ray 3.7 is out (with true multiprocessor support), it will be even possible to give the scene code to a render farm and render a giant version of it. --Gilles Tran 10:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to two "supercomputers" (32 Xeon 2.4 GHz CPUs inside) that run Linux. Is POV-Ray going to get a multiple-processor version for Linux soon? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the Windows version serves as a platform for the beta version and there's no Linux and Mac 3.7 beta available. There has been massive changes to the core of the program (to add multiple-processor support among other things) so debbugging it gets top priority. Once the core is out of beta, the POV-Team should roll out the OS-specific versions (and the source code), including of course the Linux one. No deadline set though. Note that there are ways to run POV-Ray scenes on several machines, but there has been some issues until now with scenes using radiosity like the "glasses" one. 3.7 should solve that. --Gilles Tran 19:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to try and render the image at 3200x2400 on my Athlon64 3000+ (1.8GHz). It should be done in 2 days a long time. ~MDD4696 23:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We'll be waiting for the upload! --Janke | Talk 09:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Be sure to use an appropriate assumed_gamma value otherwise the image could be too pale. The scene uses assumed_gamma = 1 because I'm working on LCDs with a display_gamma = 1 in the POVRAY.INI file. --Gilles Tran 09:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, shucks. I had been rendering it without a Display_Gamma in the php.ini and with assumed_gamma 1. It looked fine on the rendering system, but was too light on my Windows laptop (which I know has a gamma of 1). The Linux system I am rendering it on has a really crappy monitor and video card (PCI!), so using gamma.gif as a reference I would say it has a gamma of 3.2. I have now set Display_Gamma in php.ini to that. I tried reading the documentation, but I'm still not sure what to set display_gamma to. Should I leave it at 1? For comparison. ~MDD4696 17:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try to have assumed_gamma = display_gamma and see what happens (the doc says "POV-Ray allows you to specify in the scene file the display gamma of the system that the scene was created on"). Not that I'm sure that is going to work... The gamma problem in POV-Ray has been a sore point and is currently being addressed in the next version to make it more manageable. --Gilles Tran 18:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general, computer monitors have a gamma of 2.5 or so (Macs are 1.8), so maybe that would be the right value? You can test your own monitor with the scale in the gamma correction article. --Janke | Talk 07:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, things are chugging along fine now. The first 252 lines (out of 2400) took 10:26:50 to render. ~MDD4696 06:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not release date set per official policy, as tentative release dates have been proven unreliable and problematic in the past (real life keeps getting in the way). The current beta expires on April 1st so we may have a better view then --Gilles Tran 13:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the index of refraction that gives it away; for real ice it's 1.31, and in the render it's 1.33 (the same as water). I think the problem is that real ice cubes are very imperfect; they have cracks, parts that scatter a lot of light, etc. But I agree — despite the ice the image is very convincing! —Deadcode 19:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can assume amazing means support... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed as of 06:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC). Additional comments may be made below.

  • sorry, man. bad luck: it's way too dark. start over... ( namekuseijin (at) gmail.com ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.40.20.130 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 31 March 2006., referring to MDD's rendering
  • I can no longer say that no highlights are blown... the highlights in the stems of the glasses are extremely bright. —Deadcode 19:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting... my render has now passed MDD's percentage-wise, even though I'm only running a 32-bit binary on my Athlon64 4000+. MDD, you have antialiasing turned on, don't you? I have it turned off. The only difference I notice is that your render has a smoother highlight along the left side of the cone of the right wine glass. I have to admit that your higher resolution makes up for the graininess of the focal blur; I should've gone your route instead of increasing blur_samples. —Deadcode 22:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really don't know much about POV-ray, so I couldn't tell you if I had antialiasing on. Reassuring, huh? I installed it, and then hit render. The only thing I tweaked was the assumed_gamma. I saw your note about posterizing in the history view. You're right--anything above a minor gamma boost produces significant posterizing. Would I have been able to render the image with a higher-bit color, had I known? ~MDD4696 02:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just saw that you rendered the image with 3.5 and this is what causes the differences in highlights/brightness: the clipping of bright (> rgb 1 white) radiosity data was removed in 3.6, making possible HDR-like images with typical "burnt" highlights (caused by a bright sky for instance). Note that when focal blur is used antialiasing has no effect so it's unecessary to turn it on (for all versions including 3.6).--Gilles Tran 09:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of 2006-04-11 21:59 (UTC), my 2048×1536 render has finished. It took 560 hours. (Note that I changed the ice cube's index of refraction to 1.31 like real ice, but this doesn't make it look any more realistic.)
Here is a version matching Gilles Tran's render in luminosity, with its linear gamma and strong clipping of highlights
Here's one with very conservative clipping of highlights, lightened for monitors that have a gamma anywhere near 2.3 or so
Here is the raw linear render in 48-bit color, at 1/4 the brightness of Gilles Tran's render to reduce clipping of highlights
Suggestions on what kind of version to finalize would be welcome. —Deadcode 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see the finished pic! Personally, I'd go for the original version with the stronger highlights since this particular effect (due to the non-clipped radiosity values new in 3.6) was part of the demonstration and it will be less confusing for users if the image matches the available scene code. In fact it's often the rule in certain 3D circles that scenes must not be post-processed, so that viewers can appreciate fully the abilities of both the rendering engine and the 3D artist, otherwise it's a demonstration of image editing skills rather than 3D ones. Of course, this "rule" doesn't make sense when the image is meant to be appreciated independently of its technical origin (for commercial or artistic reasons, particularly). In any case, if people prefer the clipped version from an aesthetical point of view, I don't see that as a problem as long as a link to the straight-from the-renderer, unprocessed version is also provided.
The problem with the original version is that it has a gamma of 1.0, and most people use their computer at a gamma of at least 2.2. The only postprocessing I did was to apply a tone curve and boost color saturation; surely that doesn't count? It's nothing more than digital cameras do, even professional ones. —Deadcode 17:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the ice cube, it can be made more realistic by adding some surface normal perturbation. I'm testing that right now (on the ice cube zone only of course), but the render times go through the roof due to the extra calculation so it won't be finished until tomorrow. The ice cube render zone is +sc0.275 +sr0.665 +ec0.395 +er0.82 and the additional code I'm testing is normal{agate 0.25 scale 0.5} (to be inserted in the T_Ice texture definition). BTW the fact that testing glass scenes takes ages is also one of the reasons why it's relatively low in detail... --Gilles Tran 13:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a new version with a (possibly) better-looking ice cube as described above. I just rendered the ice cube (9 hours...) and pasted the rendered part on Deadcode's version.--Gilles Tran 14:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice paste job, but I don't think that looks any more like real ice. I think what is needed is to give it an unevenly frosted interior (subsurface light scattering). Can POV-ray do that? (BTW, what's the best way to render a crop like you did, such that the pixels correspond?) —Deadcode 17:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The media{} feature in POV-Ray is meant to give an interior to objects (these icecubes use media (and photon mapping aka caustics)). The drawback of media{} is that it's extremely slow to render and difficult to tweak, so that tests alone are likely to take hours. Unfortunately, the features that would make the ice cubes more realistic (scattering media, blurred reflections, photon mapping) are also among the most render-intensive, and using them in a scene featuring glass, radiosity and focal blur is really asking for trouble...
To render a partial image, use the +sc/+sr/+ec/+er values given above (+sc = start column, +er = end row ; the value is given either in pixel or in percentage/100). In Windows, the partial output coordinates can be set automatically by shift-drawing a rectangle in the render window.--Gilles Tran 19:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. That is a stunning picture, if I didn't know in the first place, I never would have guessed it was a rendering. Nhandler 06:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Looks like nice ray tracing but not very interesting. No obvious use of more interesting computer techniques. Not much detail. Needlessly imitates small camera with limited depth of field. David R. Ingham 06:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • More interesting techniques such as? Buddy13 00:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Small cameras have lots of depth of field. It's the large cameras that allow you to have a shallow depth of field (or more precisely, cameras with large sensors and big lenses). Of course, they don't force it on you — the lens's iris can be closed down for a wide depth of field. But close it down too far, and the picture actually gets blurrier due to diffraction (POV-ray doesn't simulate this, incidentally) which means in reality, you can't have everything in perfect focus at once. So with no focal blur at all, the render would look unrealistic. At issue may be the amount of blur, but IMO it makes this render look like a photo taken by a professional camera. What I would criticize is that POV-ray forces the aperture to be square-shaped, whereas it should be circular. —Deadcode 18:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of remarks about David's criticism: the picture was conceived in 2004 as a demonstration scene for POV-Ray users that would feature HDR-style radiosity (but without a HDR bitmap) and focal blur. It has an educational - rather than artistic - purpose and is voluntarily limited in features and detail so that POV-Ray/Wikipedia users can test and modify the scene easily (in fact, the objects were originally created for this scene). It is not meant to be a demonstration of state-of-the-art CG, something that would require more powerful (and expensive) tools, and should not be presented as such if the image ends up as a featured picture. It is just an image that anyone can create using a free raytracer.--Gilles Tran 14:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vehemently and fiercely oppose, delist even - I dislike this image intensely, it's an awful demonstration of POV-Ray. Seriously though, support. Even though the other two have a 6-day headstart, I started rendering a 1280 x 1024 version of the image for a desktop background about 12 hours ago. 15% complete. ;) Nippoo 10:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

Since I originally nominated this, I feel a responsibility to get the nomination finished, too.

We now have five versions to choose from:

  1. Here is a version matching Gilles Tran's render in luminosity, with its linear gamma and strong clipping of highlights
  2. Here's one with very conservative clipping of highlights, lightened for monitors that have a gamma anywhere near 2.3 or so
  3. Here is the raw linear render in 48-bit color, at 1/4 the brightness of Gilles Tran's render to reduce clipping of highlights
  4. new ice cube version
  5. An edited version of #2: slightly higher contrast, brighter highlights(now overwritten with promoted version, see comment below the closing statement.)

MDD4696's long-awaited version is not ready, and since he's had some problems, he said to go ahead with the finalizing.

N.B. A few people have asked for a slightly larger (but not huge like the above renders) version of this image. I've rendered a 1280x1024 version for those people, available here. It's not really meant for voting, as I don't *think* it's got anything special about it; if you do find it visually pleasing feel free, though :P Nippoo 10:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nippoo, but that's waaaay too light on my calibrated monitor... --Janke | Talk 06:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree... probably nothing not correctable with some balance correction. But let's not pick nits; I'm sure this rendering was for the experience of rendering it, not necessarily for improvement. After all you could easily scale down one of the larger versions for a desktop. BigBlueFish 15:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this image is already chosen for FP, please only state your preferred version below, and if possible, the reason for your choice.

Maybe we ought to remove the dice, too? ;-) Technically, #4 really shouldn't be here - it was not the version that received 100% support - the ice cube was changed after the nom was suspended... But, if the new ice cube does get a lot of support, I could transfer it to version #5, if no-one opposes that. --Janke | Talk 08:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer #1; the version that got the support. I don't see anything wrong with it. #5 is my second choice (unless the ice cube gets imported). Ice cube #4 looks like a cube of water rather than a cube of ice... talking about fake. Besides, the changed versions weren't the ones that got the initial wave of support. As soon as changes were made, support dropped. I think that initial support should be counted. We don't need this extra poll. - Mgm|(talk) 08:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer #1 - Mgm is right that it's the one that got the support in the first place. I also prefer the light balance of this one to the others; the slightly high contrast I think adds to the beauty of the image; #5 doesn't have enough dark areas and looks just a bit more artificial. As for the ice cube, after lots of flipping back and forth between the two versions I decided the original works better. Neither look more like real ice than the other, more like different sorts of ice (leave a large smooth ice cube to melt for a little and you get the original, some machines give you ice cubes with the rough surface of the new version). The original looks more in place in the scene; the new even stands out a bit too much due to the roughness. I'd rather see the new ice cube than the new colour balance though. BigBlueFish 20:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer #1 The light is noticeably better, especially on the tall thin glass to the right (looks like a champagne glass but it appears to have wine in it). Staxringold 14:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • #1. The clipping just "works" somehow. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1, seems the most realistic, at least on my monitor. |→ Spaully°τ 23:24, 20 April 2006 (GMT)
  • 4, which is identical to 1, but for the better ice-cube. ed g2s • talk 12:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1. The ice cube on #4 looks like it has had more of a chance to melt, but there isn't any water collecting at the bottom. The ice cube in #1 looks fresh, and there isn't any water underneath it, which is logical. I also prefer the stronger highlights.. though they appear blown, that's how the human eye interprets light from the sun. drumguy8800 - speak? 21:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 The modified ice cube looks dodgy. --Fir0002 www 08:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer #1 Mikeo 10:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 A lot could be done to improve it of course, but in any case I prefer the higher contrast of this version. --Gilles Tran 09:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer 5 or a synthesis of 4 & 5. The highlights seems to glare in #1. Let's not get hung up on procedure... the point is to select the best possible image among a set where any one would have passed FPC voting. Future viewers are not going to care whether they look at the "original", but they may care about the ice cube and the highlights.--ragesoss 16:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. Better highlights. It's not unrealistic for an ice cube to look like that, especially if it's wet. bcasterline t 01:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 5 number 1 has terribly blown out highlights (the rest have at least some blown out...), I can't belive anyone is supporting it. -Ravedave 14:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted Image:Glasses 800.png ~ Veledan • Talk 17:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Just a note: The original file was temporarily ovewritten with # 5 during the poll, but is now overwritten with # 1, the one promoted. --Janke | Talk 05:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
To see recent changes, purge the page cache


Template:MarchCalendar2006

Template:AprilCalendar2006

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=47888845"