Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brian0918 (talk | contribs) at 05:21, 25 March 2005 (→Current nominations: f-15). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Featured picture tools
Shortcut

Featured pictures is a list of images and diagrams that are beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant (see also Wikipedia:Featured articles). 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. If you believe that you have found or created an image that matches these expectations then please add it below into the Current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image that currently exists in the Wikipedia:Featured pictures gallery should not be there, the Nomination for removal section of this page can be used to nominate it for delisting.

For delisting, this page is similar to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.

Images listed here should be either in the public domain or covered by the GNU Free Documentation License or a similar license. Since an image gallery is of limited educational value (a requirement for fair use) fair use images are not appropriate candidates for inclusion in the featured pictures gallery.

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 general consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Here are some guidelines to consider (decisions are made on a case-by-case basis):

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

Also, be sure to sign (with date/time) your nomination ("~~~~" in the editor).

When the time comes to move an image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures make sure you also add it to Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible and Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Procedure

How to add your nomination

Nominations are now created as subpages.

  1. Create a new subpage named   Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name-Of-Image
  2. Edit the subpage to give your reasons for nomination using the following format
    ===[[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name-Of-Image|Name-Of-Image]]===
    [[Image:FILENAME.jpg|thumb|CAPTION]]
    Add your reasons for nominating it here,
    say what article it is used on and who created the image. - ~~~~
    * Nominate and '''support'''. First vote here - ~~~~
    * '''Support/Oppose'''. Reasons for vote. - ~~~~
    <!-- additional votes go here -->
    <br style="clear:both;" />
  3. Add  {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name-Of-Image}}  to the top of the list in the Current nominations section of this page.
  4. 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.

Supporting and opposing

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

Community standards

Please adhere to applicable community standards and conventions of writing and layout as relevant for contributions to a dialogue.

Current nominations

Please add all nominations and self-nominations to the top of this list.

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

F-15 Eagle

F-15 Eagle

Pretty simple. An F-15 Eagle. Striking/beautiful/fascinating/etc. -  BRIAN0918  05:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  05:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nice shot! TomStar81 05:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Fantastic! --Fir0002 07:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Wow ! JoJan 10:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very impressive. Could use a caption in the article, though the source doesn't give much to go on. (Here's a link to the relevant back issue. Interesting reading.) —Korath (Talk) 11:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I did some research, and have a bit more infromation, I will be updating the picture. PPGMD 15:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you sure the photo is by that person? I know that's what it said in the back issue, but I thought they were talking about the photo OF the back cover, not the photo ON the back cover. Do staff sargents normally go up in planes and take pictures? No clue. -- BRIAN0918  15:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If the Staff Sargent's role is as a photographer, he typically does up on a regular basis. And here's where is says, that he took the photo [1] PPGMD 15:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, that's what I call striking! Mgm|(talk) 21:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Neutralitytalk 07:53, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • support --SPUI (talk) 08:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Beautiful. --Spangineer ∞ 20:13, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm surprised that no one has complained that the horizon isn't flat ;-) Well alright support - the horizon is about 5° off, but it doesn't really bother me that much. I dare say the F-15 can climb vertically even if this one isn't quite managing it. -- Solipsist 07:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Very good pic. --Electricmoose 17:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Incredible! --rlwelch

Promoted Image:F-15 vertical deploy.jpg +12 / 0 -- Solipsist 16:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Book of Hours

Two facing pages from a Book of Hours in the Biblioteca Trivulziana in Milan (Cod. 470)

Although this is not the most fanous Book of Hours (that would be the Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, I like this image because it gives the viewer a much better feel of the "bookness" of an illuminated manuscript. Too often pages are reproduced in isolation as if they were painted on canvas and hung on a wall. This is used in Book of Hours (Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, Cod. 470). I scanned the image from, Illuminated Manuscripts: The Book before Gutenberg by Giulia Bologna, and uploaded it. - Dsmdgold 02:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Dsmdgold 02:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very reluctant oppose. I don't think {{PD-art}} applies. The additional pages keep this from being strictly a reproduction of a two-dimensional work. See Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation. —Korath (Talk) 04:48, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support if the tag can be agreed as appropriate. Circeus 23:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • reluctant oppose. Unfortunately I agree with Korath. Its may be a grey area between 2D and 3D, but the inclusion of a frame in a photograph of 2D painting is considered a problem and this situation is similar (more accurately, I suspect that the inclusion of 3D elements in the photo makes the Bridgeman Art ruling less applicable, although it probably hasn't been tested in a court case). We could try nominating Image:Les Tres Riches Heurs F2r.jpg instead, but I'm not convinced there is sufficient quality in that scan. -- Solipsist 07:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • After some consideration, I'm afraid I agree with Korath also. I'm going to switch the tag to {{fairuse}} and am withdrawing this nomination. I also don't think that Image:Les Tres Riches Heurs F2r.jpg is a good enough scan to be featured. Dsmdgold 13:33, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not promoted , withdrawn Leonardo 04:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Navajo sheep & weaver

Just a historical photograph. Wikipedia always needs more pictures of non-Euro-American cultures.

William Pennington took this photograph sometime between 1904 and 1932. Digitally provided by the Denver Public Library.

Used on the Navajo Nation article. — ishwar  (SPEAK) 01:38, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. First vote here - — ishwar  (SPEAK) 01:38, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  • Oppose; fair-use image. —Korath (Talk) 04:41, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, don't find it to be particularly filling a criteria. Oppose Circeus 23:29, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Fair-use images aren't elligible for Featured Pictures, although I'm not so sure that the license is correct. It could be old enough for {{PD-art-US}} or similar, though this isn't clear. However, although it is historically interesting, I don't find it a very captivating image, and it seems to have been removed from the Navajo Nation article. The Image:Navajo medicine man.jpg there is rather good, but I recall seeing some other marvelous Edward Curtis photographs of tribal chiefs. It is surprising they are not already on the Curtis article, but they could be other articles in Wikipedia already (and yes we have recently had Curtis' Image:Zuni-girl-with-jar2.png). -- Solipsist 07:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not promoted +1/-3/0. Leonardo 04:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Common whipping

bind a common whipping (combined view)

This diagram, contributed by User:Hella, is used to illustrate common whipping, and I think it's simple, effective and elegant. There are actually five images here (helps with the captioning, I guess) but I suggest they be treated as a single image (they could easily be concatenated, of course). — Matt Crypto 01:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and Support. — Matt Crypto 01:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Should first be combined in a single pic. Until then, oppose. An informative and clear diagram. Support Circeus 23:28, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unless some way can be found to make this image any of beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant. Merely illustrative is not adequate. Denni☯ 18:46, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
  • Well I'll take the opposite tack - support - lovely illustration. But I don't see how it could be promoted and used on Pic of the Day unless the images were combined into one for this forum (the combined image wouldn't have to be placed on the article). -- Solipsist 06:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • uploaded a combined version (as it was drawn originaly anyway) - but I prefere them (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) separate in the common whipping article (easier to arange text around). --Hella 10:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC), who feels honoured to be nominated (but I did it only for illustrating/tutoring, not for winning anything)
  • Oppose. Good but not great. ed g2s • talk 14:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm usually a firm defender of diagrams as featured pictures, but this not very special. Junes 08:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a good diagram, not the best of W/P, but nevertheless is clear, and informative. Oliver Keenan 16:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) Oppose having considered the authors (Hella's) comments above. Oliver Keenan 16:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not promoted +3/-4/0 Leonardo 04:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Sprinkler

No.1
No.2
No.3

Although they aren't special sprinklers in that they are your common or garden type, but I think the lighting on the water droplets looks pretty cool

  • Support. No. 2. Self Nom --Fir0002 21:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, they do absolutely nothing for me. Denni☯ 00:15, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  • Oppose. — Matt Crypto 01:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose No way could this be a Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 13:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think this is fairly common sight... it doesn't need to be a featured picture. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -Boring/uninteresting.--Deglr6328 06:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - nothing special Brookie 10:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted . +1/-6. --brian0918&#153; 14:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Mites

Peacock mite
Rust mite
Flat mite

Three particularly striking images of various mites created with a low-temp scanning electron microscope (LT-SEM; see snow crystal series below). I emailed the group and they gave me access to high-res versions for addition to Wikipedia (images are public domain). Please place them in order of preference for promotion (or we could always promote more than one of them). One or all of them can be placed in at least mite. -  BRIAN0918  22:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  22:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support #3, #2, neutral #1, oppose #3. At least, I hope I oppose #3, since it's on the basis of the scale: a 120mm bar would make the tick more than a foot long, and I don't even want to think about that. —Korath (Talk) 23:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've sent them an email about it. It's probably supposed to be micrometers. Vote assuming that it will be corrected (and if it isn't, we'll just look at your votes for the others) -- BRIAN0918  23:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I was trying to be amusing. I'll support #3 as well if it's corrected. —Korath (Talk) 23:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support number 1, What a cute little feller! Denni☯ 01:32, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  • Ick factor partially mitigated by color schemes. I support the third, as well as the second image. Sandover 06:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Aceria, Brevipalpus, Tuckerella is my order of preference, but all of these mites deserve to be better known. Sandover 04:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support all (if mm scale is corrected). Order of preference: 2, 1, 3. Junes 20:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - 2, 1, 3. Are these false-color images? I'm not sure how electron microscopes work (time for me to check out the article). Ground 22:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • They are indeed false color, as all SEM photos with color are. So there are some aesthetic considerations to be taken here as well :) Denni☯ 00:18, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  • I uploaded the fixed version of #3. It was micrometers. -- BRIAN0918  22:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support any, but three featured pics of mites would be excessive. No order of preference. Mark1 02:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support 2 (showing the most depth, nice composition), 1 (because of the color), 3 (too flat, still great ick factor). 3 featured mite would be too much indeed. I think it's best to promote the pic that comes out on top. : ) Mgm|(talk) 09:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The scale is unreadable when the image is thumbnailed. (Should be easy to fix.) Gdr 13:43, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
    • Why should it have to be readable in a thumbnailed version? Isn't the point of a thumbnail to prevent the page from being overly large in filesize? These ones aren't even thumbs, but 200px wide. I doubt you could get the text to be readable at 150px. -- BRIAN0918  14:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • It needs to be readable at the size the image appears in the article, say 300px. I mean "thumbnailed" generically, not specifically 150px. Gdr 16:54, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
        • I don't agree that it needs to be readable at the size shown in the article. There doesn't even necessarily have to be a scale with the image, if it is stated separately in the article (see the spider example below, and other insect examples). -- BRIAN0918  17:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support #1 strikingly beautiful Circeus 23:26, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support in order of 1,2,3. I don't think that it matters that the acutal scale value be readable. There could easily be a sentence in the caption that states the white line represents x um. Also, is it stated what the surfaces that they were taken on were? --Aqua 17:17, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • The first one is a tea stem. The others, it doesn't say. -- BRIAN0918  18:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support in the order 1,2,3. I have absolutely no problem with the scale. Even on a thumbnail it is clear that it is a scale and you can click through to see the figures or put them in the caption. Increasing the font size for any potential scaling would spoil the large scale views. And oh how complicated multiple nominations get. This one will be a real headache to figure out which image to promote. -- Solipsist 07:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Hehehe.. that's why I do it. I actually put them in the order i preferred. Even though 2 or 3 is probably the better picture (you see the mite's structure), I just really like the first one. -- BRIAN0918  22:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support 1 2 3. Wow. Smoddy (tgeck) 22:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support 2,1,3. Very nice --Fir0002 23:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Peacock mite, Tuckerella sp.jpg. Barely beat #2. --brian0918&#153; 22:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ambersweet oranges

Ambersweet oranges

The original version of this image was low-res and had some weird artifacts. So, I cleaned up the source version and uploaded over it. Currently featured at orange (fruit) and Vitamin C. -  BRIAN0918  11:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  11:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks a little too much like stock-art to me. What makes this striking enough to be featured? I mean, the lighting is fine, the arrangement is unoffensive, but beyond that... ? --Fastfission 14:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nice pic, but not striking enough for Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 18:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • "Striking" is just one of the possible criteria. How can a picture of an orange ever be considered "striking"? The orange isnt gonna shoot ninja stars at you and do roundhouse kicks. What does Image:Plums.jpg have that this is lacking? -- BRIAN0918  18:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Oppose have to agree, not striking, since you asked. It's a bowl of oranges, the plum pic is 1. on the tree still giving it a more lifelike/less posed feel 2. vibrant in multiple colors. 3 character is added by the water droplets. I do think that there exists a striking pic of oranges somewhere in this world, but this is not it. Cavebear42 19:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I would say the droplets give it a visual quality. Demi T/C 19:54, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
    • That's strange, the pic has no droplets on it! - Adrian Pingstone 20:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The ones I see are covered in water drops. Maybe increase the gamma/contrast/brightness on your monitor -- BRIAN0918  20:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • There are definitely droplets there. BrokenSegue 21:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm strongly biased to very high-resolution images like this one, and I don't see any technical flaws, and it's a good illustration for the orange (fruit) article, but the arrangement is boring - the four split halves are just too many - and the more interesting details aren't at all visible except at full resolution. I think OrangeBloss wb.jpg is a better composition and Blood oranges.jpg has more interesting subject matter than this, though neither of those are up to featured quality. In Vitamin C, an image with more than just one kind of citrus fruit would be more appropriate. This falls into the grey area where I'd support it if it were taken by a Wikipedian, but since it's from an outside source, it's not quite good enough. —Korath (Talk) 22:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Odd arrangement. Junes 20:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I love the detail, but it just doesn't meet featured pic criteria. Enochlau 01:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I like the detail and the colours. Halibutt 08:16, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Bevo 19:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support BrokenSegue 21:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted . +4/-6. --brian0918&#153; 21:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Adult citrus root weevil

Adult citrus root weevil
Diaprepes abbreviatus

One of the sharper insect images in the ARS gallery. Currently featured at Curculionidae. The coloring has been changed from the original version that I uploaded, but I'll support either. -  BRIAN0918  02:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  02:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -THIS is the beetle pic I was waiting for to support! :)--Deglr6328 06:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good. Enochlau 08:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Fir0002 10:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Good stuff. Longhair | Talk 11:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful! Mgm|(talk) 11:57, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Cool bug. --jacobolus (t) 23:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice. Jonathunder 19:37, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  • I wavered and wobbled on the weevil, but now Support it. Sandover 03:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Von Kármán vortex street

Von Kármán vortex street 1
Animation of the effect. Credit: Cesareo de La Rosa Siqueira

Von Kármán vortex streets formed as clouds pass over mountains or islands. A detailed example, and an animation of the phenomenon. I couldn't decide which to support, so I'll let you choose. -  BRIAN0918  22:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  22:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm currently trying to get proper permission for this animation, which might even be better for the article. Any comments? -- BRIAN0918  23:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -Pic #1. A fantastic example of vortex shedding!--Deglr6328 06:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Number #1. Very good illustration for the article. The article itself could use a little help though. -- Solipsist 13:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support #1 animation Denni☯ 21:18, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
  • Support striking and illustrative. Circeus 17:07, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support #1. Very interesting image. Jonathunder 19:06, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  • I just got permission to use Image:Vortex-street-animation.gif with credit, so I'll add it to the FPC just in case someone wants to vote for it.
  • Support the animation; the stills, while prettier, weren't especially helpful to me in figuring out what was going on. —Korath (Talk) 22:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support animation and first image. James F. (talk) 23:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support first image and animation together. Sandover 03:04, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. I have studied this phenomenon and find it fascinating. A landsat photo of Von Kármán vorticies adorns my desktop.-Casito⇝Talk 07:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Scanning electron microscope

Low temperature scanning electron microscope magnification series for a snow crystal, from 93x to 36,000x
single column
with rectangles

This image illustrates well the capabilities of a scanning electron microscope (SEM). This is a magnification series for a snow crystal, from 93x to 36,000x magnification, using a special low-temperature SEM (LT-SEM) [2] to preserve the crystal. -  BRIAN0918  18:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support either version. -  BRIAN0918  18:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this would work better if there were only a single column, instead of following the successive magnifications in the current zigzag fashion. I'll fiddle with it later today or tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. —Korath (Talk) 19:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • You asked for it and you got it. I actually like this version more, both because the progression is more natural, and because I didn't have to crop each individual pic to make them all the same size (adds about 300px vertically to the image total). The only downside was that I had to compress it slightly more to get below the 2MB mark. -- BRIAN0918  19:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I also created another version with rectangles indicating what part of the image was magnified. It's not 100% accurate, especially in the skewed one and the higher-magnification ones, but it isn't as necessary at those magnifications anyway. -- BRIAN0918  20:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Support either single-column version, preferring the one without rectangles. —Korath (Talk) 21:12, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support image with rectangles. Denni☯ 21:22, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
  • Support columnar version with sub-magnification rectangle highlights. James F. (talk) 23:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support columns with or without rectangles. Holy balls, that's the most intense snowflake I've ever seen. Matthewcieplak 05:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support What Matthewcieplak said. AngryParsley 05:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support all. -SocratesJedi | Talk 08:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Tower of Hanoi

#1 - Tower of Hanoi animation
#2 - another version with four discs

Whilst following up on a previous Feature Picture, I noticed that User:Aka has some other impressive pictures, including this animation of the Tower of Hanoi puzzle. - Solipsist 10:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support - Solipsist 10:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Although I think 4 discs would probably be better for illustrating the recursive nature of the solution, I think this is an excellent illustration. →Raul654 10:50, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree that more discs would be an improvement, but this still got an "Oh. Oh, wow." out of me. —Korath (Talk) 16:40, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • And even more support for the four-disc version. —Korath (Talk) 20:09, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the 4-disk version. -- BRIAN0918  18:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Pretty cool but would be heaps better with more counters--Fir0002 09:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support contributes to the article, nice colorful animation. Mgm|(talk) 11:59, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very cool, but an extra disc is needed. — Matt Crypto 16:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Support only if done with 64 discs...
  • support although i would like to see the ground marked showing that there are only 3 positions on which they can sit 19:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • support titillating pic. Agree it would look even better with a 4th disc, though. Circeus 22:08, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Does it move? It appears to be still on my screen. BrokenSegue 14:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Ayup. Do you have gif animation disabled in your browser? —Korath (Talk) 15:19, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • comment After reading the comments above, I have created another version with four discs. I dont see this as a replacement for this one. It is more like an extension, because the colors of the upper three discs are the same, which shows the recursive nature of this solution. Now I'm waiting for comments asking for a version with 7 discs :) .. (please keep in mind that you need 2^(number of discs)-1 steps for the solution and most of them require two to four frames) -- Aka 19:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think seven is quite necessary. (Though if you could do a version with 64...) —Korath (Talk) 20:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Hey, with full SVG support, 64 would be doable; the user gets to wait for it to finish and find out whether there are world-ending graphics. --Andrew 05:32, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the four-disk version as FPC, although viewing the two side-by-side is quite compelling. -- Seth Ilys 21:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support four-disc version (though side-by-side does, indeed, look "quite compelling" in demonstrating recursiveness). James F. (talk) 23:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, strongly oppose. The rendering is too sophisticated for the subject. Most importantly, it lacks smoothness, so it is hard to look at. If the goal is too illustrate the strategy for the Tower of Hanoi, then something simpler would be sufficient. We could put more frames in the animation without the file becoming too large. If the goal is to illustrate lighting and soft shadows, the image has nothing exceptional. --Bernard Helmstetter 00:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support either, but especially the 4 disk version. Spangineer ∞ 01:26, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I like the idea: it's a nice illustration of the solution method (bonus points if you create one using the non-recursive solution (color disks alternating black and white and add the rule that two disks of the same color may not touch)) but the graphics are more elaborate than necessary and the animation is somewhat distractingly jerky - a fine illustration, but not necessarily featured quality. --Andrew 05:32, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no indication of position... no "pegs". And the four disc version is grainy over the three disc version. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Considering the pic is a gif (otherwise no animation is possible) with complex color gradients, some graininess is to be expected. Circeus 16:40, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support four-disc version. Mark1 02:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support 4 disc version Leonardo 21:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Overwhelming support, 4 disc version promoted. --brian0918&#153; 23:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Two International Finance Centre

Striking angle and well offset against the cloud cloud cover. Used in International Finance Centre — BesigedB

  • Nominate and support. — BesigedB 22:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support The image is clear and striking. Zantastik 22:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Fantastic picture.Jersyko 23:18, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Badly blurred. Too bad - the lighting is awesome. Denni☯ 02:27, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
  • Support A little camera shake, but it isn't so noticable at medium resolutions. The other photo of the International Finance Centre, is pretty good too. -- Solipsist 10:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Makes me want to support it (oh i love these night shots), but yes, the blurring is a little too noticeable when you view the original image, which is what we're voting on, not the automatically resized one. Enochlau 08:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Denni and Enochlau--Fir0002 09:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Bah. The bluring is not noticible unless you expand to the full image and look for it. Support. -SocratesJedi | Talk 08:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • When you vote to list a picture on FPC, you vote to list the original version. Enochlau 04:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


STS-1 at night

A timed exposure of the first Space Shuttle mission, STS-1, at Launch Pad A, Complex 39, turns the space vehicle and support facilities into a night-time fantasy of light. To the left of the Shuttle are the fixed and the rotating service structures.
sharpened image

This is one of the finest pictures of Space Shuttle Columbia from its first mission. It is featured on the page for mission STS-1, taken by Kennedy Space Center crew and added by Triddle. - Kitch 17:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. First vote here - Kitch 17:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. ed g2s • talk 20:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support What can I say! - Adrian Pingstone 22:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Beatiful and striking? Support. Mgm|(talk) 22:20, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have this one on my wall. Of course I support. Denni☯ 00:41, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • Support. Awesome. -- BRIAN0918  01:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Seems small a bit grainy... like someone used a scanner. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, although I must say I am suprised its not already a featured picture. TomStar81 09:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak support, its a great picture, but perhaps not better than Image:Shuttle.jpg which is already featured. There are quite a few excellent space launch images from NASA. I wouldn't want to see them all in Featured Pictures, so we might want to consider whether we want two shots of the same mission. -- Solipsist 09:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent photo, very dramatic. --Fir0002 10:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Hi-res version is quite grainy. My hamfisted attempts to clean it up were unsatisfactory; is anyone with a bit more competence willing to try? —Korath (Talk) 19:09, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Slight cleanup would be nice, yes, but necessary. James F. (talk) 23:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks great to me. --Spangineer ∞ 02:51, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • To counter objections of graininess, I've sharpened the photo somewhat. JoJan 15:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Promoted. +12/-1. ed g2s • talk 16:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Sahara satellite.jpg

Sahara desert by satellite

Not a self nom. I definitely think this image fills the striking/impressive, as welll as the beautiful/fascinating. The image is used at Sahara and demonstrate well the actual immensity of the desert, which many geographical maps does not quite carry over. - Circeus 13:17, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Circeus 13:17, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is actually a satellite-falsecolor composite as part of the Living Earth] project. It is manufactured. --Kitch 17:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is indeed a satellite false-color image, as are Image:Mars_Valles_Marineris.jpeg, Image:Antarctica_satellite_globe.jpg, Image:Eagle_Nebula_-_NASA.jpg, and Image:Sunspot_TRACE.jpg (all featured already). There are many other mosaics, false-color images, and evendiagrams, if you can imagine, that have been featured. I don't think "manufactured" (presuably meaning by a more sophisticated process than capture by photographic film, development, scanning, cropping, and photoshop editing) is a reasonable criterion by which to judge potential Featured Pictures; no such criterion appears anywhere on the instructions. This picture provides an accurate and striking representation of the Sahara desert. --Andrew 21:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Note particularly the image Image:PearlHarbor_Sm.jpg (already featured) which is a false-color composite image of a geographical region. (Much less striking in my opinion). --Andrew 21:14, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good God, what have we done? --Andrew 21:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • We have done nothing. The desertification of Northern Africa is an entirely natural process, and is no more under our control than the glaciation of once-tropical Antarctica. Denni☯ 00:44, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
Upon further reading I see that the issue is certainly not as clear-cut as I thought it was. Oops. This discussion doesn't belong here anyway, so I'll drop it. In any case, the image is certainly striking! --Andrew 02:52, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I don't care how it was produced, the one question is : Does this pic illustrate particularly well the extent of the Sahara Desert. Answer YES! - Adrian Pingstone 22:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -Oh heavens it's "manufactured"! What exactly was he expecting, a handpainted watercolor by astronaut? It's a very good image.--Deglr6328 00:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- BRIAN0918  02:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -So the picture is manufactured. So what? The machine that took the picture was manufactured. For that matter, so is the machine that we are all viewing it on. I don't see what the big deal is. TomStar81 09:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support False-color image does not negate the extent of desertification in north Africa. Denni☯ 21:05, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • Support. If it's a false-color image, that should be mentioned on the image page, and perhaps in the caption, but it in no way decreases the impact of the image on the article. —Korath (Talk) 19:14, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 23:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support OK, it's a false colour image... Note on the description page and some captions should be enough. WB 05:13, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • support --SPUI (talk) 08:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: An uncropped, immense (8460x8900) version of this image showing the whole of Africa is at commons:Image:Africa satellite plane.jpg. (There's a much smaller version at that name here, currently on IFD.) —Korath (Talk) 01:20, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)


Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis).

A Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis), courtesy of PDphoto.org. I love the expression on the sheep's face. Neutralitytalk 04:07, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Neutralitytalk 04:09, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great use of the blurring of the background to focus on the subject. Enochlau 10:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, although it could use some contrasting to make the sheep stand out more. -- BRIAN0918  18:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry to spoil the party but, although it's a very good pic, I would want the animals body to be in focus for a Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 22:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Jpeg artifacts (particularly along the horns), without even having the benefit of a jpeg's smaller size. —Korath (Talk) 23:11, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I think its a good photo. Even if the goat's coat is patchy. --Fir0002 10:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose agree with Korath about jpeg artifacts, uninteresting crop --jacobolus (t) 23:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Busy background makes it harder to see detail on face and horns. Jonathunder 19:12, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  • Neutral. It's undeniably a portrait of the animal as opposed to a non-creative illustration, which is cool, but it's not got a lot of personality. I'd like to see a crop showing the full length of the animal, though that might put the focal area uncomfortably far from the center. Matthewcieplak 05:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • How is a neutral vote included in the final count? If it's ignored, wouldn't it be better, Matthew, to decide one way or the other? Just a thought - Adrian Pingstone 13:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just a bit dull. Mark1 04:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Bevo 19:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Mackerel sky over Orlando, FL

A photo of a mackerel sky over Orlando.

I feel it's a good photo of a mackerel sky.—Boarder8925 03:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Self-nomination and support.—Boarder8925 03:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not particularly striking. Also, sun overexposes part of the photo excessively. Enochlau 10:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An interesting pic but not good enough for Featured (a little out of focus and just a little boring) - Adrian Pingstone 22:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's not much here to write home about. Denni☯ 00:47, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, I will have to oppose also. We already have a rather nice FP Mackerel sky in Image:Mackerelskybig.jpg, excepting that that image is rather small by current standards. More to the point, this picture doesn't appear to be illustrating an article at the moment. -- Solipsist 01:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Fir0002 10:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Chicago Skyline at Sunset

A picture of the Chicago Skyline at Sunset.

I think it's a great picture that I took of Chicago. I believe it is of FP quality. - AllyUnion (talk) 13:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Self-nomination and support. - AllyUnion (talk) 13:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Slightly out of focus, and there are some horizontal lines, but its dramatic enough that little quibbles don't really matter. If you could include more water it might be better. -- BRIAN0918  14:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If you take a look at the originals, which are linked in the image, you'd see that I end up with more boardwalk or that pier thingy. This was taken during the Winter, so going down to the bottom of the steps at the level of the water would be dangerous for me, so I did the best I could. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very impressive - Adrian Pingstone 14:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Dramatic, nice composition. Duk 16:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A worthy image. Denni☯ 16:38, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • Support. Dramatic, striking, nice composition --> Perfect! Mgm|(talk) 19:28, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent panorama with emphasis on the fact that it's on Lake Michigan. --Kitch 17:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks a little ragged on the full resolution view, but that is simply because the image size is so large. Composition and colours are very nice. -- Solipsist 01:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a great skyline shot taken from the best vantage point in the Chicagoland area. I believe I've stood there myself too when I was up there. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:53, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nice picture, nice job! WB 05:14, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Promoted. +10/-0. ed g2s • talk 16:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


University of Guanajuato

The University of Guanajuato

This image, of the University of Guanajuato in Guanajuato, Mexico, I believe nicely shows the beautiful architecture of the main building and its dome. --Spangineer ∞ 03:31, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Self-nominate and support. --Spangineer ∞ 03:31, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Only a small bright detail, lots of dark area, no good overview of the building -- Chris 73 Talk 03:41, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with above. Oppose. Can't really get an understanding of the architectural aspects of the bldg. Enochlau 07:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too dark, can't see any detail. Mgm|(talk) 11:08, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose The dark red foreground spoils it and not enough seen of the dome - Adrian Pingstone 14:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -Awkward, poor lighting, chopped dome, etc. --Deglr6328 01:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Grainy, and too much contrast between the dome and the foreground (though less so on the hi-res). I like the composition, however, and would likely support a daylit photo from the same angle. —Korath (Talk) 23:21, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Too dark. - Longhair | Talk 12:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted -1/+1


Spotted Flower Chafer

Spotted Flower Chafer

A spotted flower chafer

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Outstanding pic. Good focus, and the beetle stands out from the background nicely - Adrian Pingstone 10:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent pic. Mgm|(talk) 11:17, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Image could be larger and I'd really like to be able to see the full pattern on its elytra. We do need a beetle pic featured, but I don't think this is it. --Deglr6328 02:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think we need a higher resolution image here. The jpeg compression leaves unacceptable artefacts. Enochlau 07:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • NOT Promoted. +3/-2 -- BRIAN0918  04:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Brightly Colored Tarantula

#1 - Tarantula
#2 - Tarantula

This photo was actually of a museum display, so I can't credit bravery for this spider :) Unfortunately due to the lighting (and the tarantula being behind reflective glass) This was the best angle I could get

  • Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Junes 09:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Did the display say what species it was? My guess is it's a Mexican Red-kneed Tarantula, but I'm no expert. -- BRIAN0918  13:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah i though it was something like that as well. I think the display did have a name, but I didn't have the foresight to write down a name unfortunately --Fir0002 21:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose All eight legs out of focus. Too bad - I like the colors and the composition. Support sharpened image. Denni☯ 22:04, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
    • Have tried a bit of sharpening, but I didn't really think that the legs were much of an issue, and am not sure if this edit is much better --Fir0002 08:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I like this one. Its a good bold image of a spider which many people will recognise. The quality imperfections are small enough not to worry me, although it would be good if the specific species could be identified. -- Solipsist 08:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support but I'd suggest loosening the crop a little. Top is more comfortable. jk 06:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cut-out looks too unnatural. ed g2s • talk 14:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Promoted 2nd. +6/-1. (supporters of first are assumed to support 2nd unless they reply to the contrary, as has always been the case) -- BRIAN0918  06:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)



Long Beach, CA at night

A picture of Long Beach, California at night.

It looks pretty and stunning. Used in Long Beach, California. Public domain image. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I like how it sits at the edge of a cityscape surrounded by the glow of lights in the sky, not to mention the smoke of industry on the side. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:06, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I think its striking. TomStar81 03:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a dramatic pic all right, but I oppose because it looks like after the apocalypse. What an evil orange that is! I find it a genuinely uncomfortable picture, which I'm sure is not the intent. Denni☯ 00:00, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
    • I don't see any mushroom clouds. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:55, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • It reminds me of the advertisements for the Need For Speed games that EA runs every now and again. TomStar81 09:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks great to me. --Spangineer ∞ 03:53, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow, makes me want to go on holidays to the US. Enochlau 08:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The orange sky works wonderfully with the opposing blue water, lights, and buildings. -- user:zanimum

Promoted +6/-1


Stormy skies

#1 - Turbulent Skies
#2 - Stormy Skies

Two quite different sky shots, which believe it or not were taken in roughly the same spot with maybe 2-3 hours between them

  • Support. Self Nom --Fir0002 23:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the first one. -- BRIAN0918  23:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support picture No. 1. Those are some nice clouds. TomStar81 00:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the first. I'm not sure what type of clouds those are – I'd probably go with altostratus or nimbostratus, but I'm no meteorology expert. --Spangineer ∞ 21:07, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These are both quite nice, but we already have several better cloud/sky photographs - in particular Image:Rolling-thunder-cloud.jpg. I'm surprised there isn't a night sky picture on the sky article. -- Solipsist 08:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not that stunning. ed g2s • talk 14:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not promoted. +4/-2. ed g2s • talk 14:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


WMAP CMB

The first detailed, all-sky picture of the infant universe. The WMAP image reveals 13 billion+ year old temperature fluctuations (shown as color differences; red=warmer, blue=cooler) that correspond to the seeds that grew to become the galaxies. Encoded in the patterns are the answers to many age-old questions, such as the age and geometry of the Universe.

This image adds significantly to anything it touches. For the first time, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature fluctuations were captured in detail, using WMAP in 2003. This image answered several questions, such as the age of the universe (13.7 billion years with only a 1% margin of error), or when stars first appeared (only 200 million years after the Big Bang). It is the best evidence yet for Big Bang and Inflation models, and sheds light on the nature of dark energy. This image and future, more detailed versions may even provide the first experimental tests of string theory. [3]. See the mission site for more info. -  BRIAN0918  17:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  17:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm I guess I'm slightly biased :)... but I say support.--Deglr6328 17:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose An FP, while it must significantly add to an article, must also be capable of standing alone as an interesting, stimulating, exciting image. This does not. This image is pretty much nothing without its accompanying article. Denni☯ 19:24, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
  • Support – adds significantly to its article, and is quite fascinating, thus in my opinion it satisfies FP requirements. --Spangineer ∞ 21:19, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I look at it and can't see anything but a bunch of weird color inside what looks like the earth. --Fir0002 02:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Major picture in history of astrophysics. Circeus 22:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted. +4/-2. ed g2s • talk 14:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Two Plums

Two beautiful plums

Some nice plums after some light rain

  • Self Nom. --Fir0002 11:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Yummy! Rather similar to the apricots shot though, but I don't suppose that's grounds for objection. Junes 11:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. How come the fruits I grow never look this good? —Korath (Talk) 16:54, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Really quite nice. I'd like bigger, but...it's ok as is.--Deglr6328 18:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The plums are very nice -- but the background is overexposed with a fair bit of chromatic aberration too. Jpatokal 06:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Works for me. Denni☯ 17:35, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent pic - Adrian Pingstone 10:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Thomas G Graf 15:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose could be more visually interesting. Try some different camera angles, move some of those leaves around --jacobolus (t) 23:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. They look like apples to me; the picture doesn't highlight their essential plumbness. But very nice pic. -- Seth Ilys 20:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • ???? what exactly do you mean by "their essential plumbness" --Fir0002 21:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Promoted. +7/-2. ed g2s • talk 14:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Huntsman Spider

#1 - Huntsman Spider
#2 - Huntsman Spider with a scale

This impressive specimen was on my verandah one night attending to the flies which had gathered around a porchlight, and I took the opportunity to take a snap. I tried waiting for an opportunity to get the spider with a fly, but as soon as he/she got one, the spider would run off into a corner to eat it in peace.

  • Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice shot. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. That thing is creepy. How big is it, actually? Junes 11:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't actually go up with a ruler to measure the spider, as I didn't fancy getting bitten, but it was at least 10cm from leg to leg --Fir0002 23:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Brrr... I support the unscaled version, though. Junes 09:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Nothing in the world would get me this close to a huntsman spider, except this photo. - Longhair | Talk 15:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I was really hoping he wouldn't jump up at the annoying thing flashing at his/her face!!! --Fir0002 23:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ugh... I hate spiders.... Opp...... Oppo......... fine, Support. (Can you please put some sort of copyright tag on the image?) -- BRIAN0918  16:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Support the unscaled version. -- BRIAN0918  06:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. (Besides the copyright tag, could I trouble you to upload it at Image:Huntsman spider.jpg or something similar? "Huntsmen spider" makes me twitch.) —Korath (Talk) 16:49, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done. --Fir0002 23:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ughh. Horrible. Support!--Deglr6328 18:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While a fascinating and clear image, provides no idea of how big the thing is. Not that I want to know. :P →mathx314(talk)(email) 20:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I hope you like the scaled version, its probably not 100% accurate, but it is very close. Leaned to slightly underestimate the size of the spider, rather than over estimating. --Fir0002 23:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I support the scaled version, but not the unscaled. →mathx314(talk)(email) 22:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the version without the scale - the slant is great and the image is striking. The size of the spider belongs in the article, not necessarily the picture. --Spangineer ∞ 21:23, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support both pics - Adrian Pingstone
  • Support unscaled pic. Mgm|(talk) 11:20, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Promoted first. +11/-0. ed g2s • talk 14:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Vitrification

Molten glassy vitrified material poured from a crucible.
3rd version, auto-levelled
4th version, background to black

A striking image of an experiment at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in which radioactive waste materials are heated and "glassified" into obsidian-like insoluble ingots for eternal disposal. High detail and conrast with the depth of field just shallow enough to fix the viewers attention on the perfectly focused subject. Also nicely shows the viscous undefined phase transition of amorphous materials, I think. --Deglr6328 02:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and Support.--Deglr6328 02:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I liked this image, and so couldn't resist cleaning it up. I took the source TIFF and ran it through photoshop (maybe I went overboard?). So, now I submit a 2nd, cleaned-up version. And, sure why not, a 3rd version that's been "auto-levelled", which adjusts the contrast, shadow, and highlight. Support any of them. -- BRIAN0918  05:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I like the 3rd version better now. I contemplated doing that crop myself before submitting. Though I don't like that it's smaller than the original I'm sure this is an unavoidable consequence of the edits. Also, the contrast adjustment appears to have made the glass lighter in color, giving it an apparently higher blackbody temperature. Definitely NOT a big deal though. Very good work! Thank you! :o)--Deglr6328 17:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support- I like them both, so either one will do. Nice shot. I like the third one best. TomStar81 05:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, any of them, slight preference for third one. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Actually, I like the first one best Junes 11:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It appears that originally, the only difference between 1 and 2 was some spots. Ehm. But I think the non-cropped version is better somehow, it's 'calmer' or something. I still support all versions though. (EDIT: prefer fourth Junes 11:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Junes 11:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support beautiful picture. FirstSecond one is best. Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 14:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The only difference between the first and 2nd one is that I cleaned up the spots in the background, and several of the surface marks on the photo. You like those marks? -- BRIAN0918  15:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • D'oh. Half asleep there. Sorry. Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 16:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. First and second images are miscropped, and the colors in the third are inferior to my eye. (Png is inappropriate as well, for the latter two - a jpg would be a third the filesize, with no visible loss of quality.) —Korath (Talk) 16:39, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've attempted to crop the 2nd and 3rd images. If it's still not right, be more specific. -- BRIAN0918  16:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Support 2nd or 4th version now. I'd meant the beige border around the edges, though I agree that the bolder crop now in place makes for a better picture. (And, my, that was quick. Glad I checked back here before doing it myself.) —Korath (Talk) 17:03, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support version #3. Fredrik | talk 18:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support second version. ed g2s • talk
  • Support second version. The colours are about right in this one. It might work slightly better if the black edge on the left were extended a little so that the top of the drum is centred, but it probably wouldn't make much difference. Hmm, perhaps not. The first version is centred on the drum and the composition looks a little unbalanced to the right. -- Solipsist 07:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support fourth version. In photoshop, i lightened the picture a ton, and there are fingerprints and scratches and dust all over it. I believe it is a scanned in photograph, and it appears that the background was intended to be black. So I took the whole background area and made it pure black, instead of slightly off, which 1) removes the scratches Brian0918 was worried about, and 2) improves the visual appeal of the image. I also took the liberty to remove many dust motes and scratches from the main part of the image. I left the color almost wholly untweaked, however, only slightly boosting the white (there were no 255 value pixels in any channel before). I also cropped this image a bit, but not as much as the 2nd and 3rd versions. Someone else should feel free to crop more or less. Now it's easy, as the background is just black. Oh, and I removed a small distracting blue thing from the right side, halfway down. --jacobolus (t) 05:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I never realized how bad it was until I touched that little "gamma" setting. :o) Thanks much for the work, this is obviously now the superior image in every respect.--Deglr6328 05:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Simply gorgeous. - Seth Ilys 20:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Promoted second version. +10/-1. ed g2s • talk 14:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Treasury of Athens

Treasury of Athens at Delphi, built with the spoils of the Battle of Marathon
further deskewed image

Self-nom. Taken a little while back while in Greece. I think it's as good a photo as you'll see of the most complete building at the site of Delphi. Oh, and the colours are totally natural!

  • Nominate and support. Clearly. Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 18:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- I've never been to Greece, but this image took me part way there. - Longhair | Talk 21:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: My support is for the original image. The others don't appear natural. -- Longhair | Talk 12:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a nice picture, but it's not particularly interesting or striking. Junes 22:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose If nothing else, really bad geometry. This needs Photoshop help big time. Denni☯ 00:41, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nice but not great. Foreground rocks are in focus while building and columns are slightly out of focus, when the reverse should be true. As already noted, the skewed shot angle is not pleasing to the eye.--Deglr6328 02:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Can I ask what each of you means here? By my reckoning, the treasury itself is equally in focus (this certainly ought to be the case, given my depth of field on my camera). I would agree that the view is perhaps unorthodox, but it is my opinion that the picture is enhanced by this. To me, it fulfills "striking". Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 13:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't take it personally, there's no accounting for taste. For me, if either the focus were better or the perspective were fixed I could see supporting. But not both issues as they are now. If a suitably large image were uploaded there might be a chance to fix the blurryness. Like I said this is a nice picture, it's just that I'm very nitpicking with pictures that are to be featured.--Deglr6328 18:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- As Longhair, I too have never been to mainland Greece but this picture gives me a feel of the kind of things one might see there. I find the picture aesthetically pleasing and striking too. I feel that the comments about focus and the odd camera angle are simply nitpicking: photography is not a science, it's an art! There are pictures with technical problems much worse than this that have been made featured pictures. Dan 14:53, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • While still not as good as it could be, this image is on the right track. Denni☯ 19:48, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
      • I can support this third effort. Denni☯ 02:18, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
  • Support original, what's so wrong with perspective!? ed g2s • talk 11:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose skewed, fails to follow rule of thirds or have any symmetry. boring. Dunc|☺ 18:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I support the well-taken first image; the second and third seem off-center to me. --DanielNuyu 05:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support original. —Korath (Talk) 12:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral I like the subject and the perspective correction in version 3 is a good idea, but now it seems to tightly cropped on the left hand side. Also, is the whole image a little blue? Several of the restored portions, in particular the triglyphs look oddly blue tinged. -- Solipsist 08:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support original, the others look unnatural to me. Circeus 15:28, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Promoted original. +8/-3. ed g2s • talk 13:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Z Machine

I know I've been adding a lot of candidates lately, but I couldn't resist this one. I worked with this group over the last two summers, and took a tour of this machine twice (not while it was on :)). The point of this thing is to produce high energy x-rays to be channelled into uniformly collapsing a 2mm-wide deuterium capsule for fusion purposes. The whole bang is over in a tenth of a microsecond, and destroys most of the inner bits. An overhead camera was triggered to take a picture when the event occurred. Informative article here. Permission granted for usage on Wikipedia. -  BRIAN0918  04:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  04:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Wow! -- Chris 73 Talk 04:28, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG Support Outstanding!! Where on earth did you find this picture? TomStar81 05:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This picture's pretty old. It's officially nicknamed "Arcs and Sparks", and you can see it plastered all over the labs (well, back in the 90s you could, now the security's ultra-tight). They gave us posters of it back in 2003; I think they've got a surplus of them sitting around in a warehouse. -- BRIAN0918  05:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • All these years this awsome picture's been out there and I'm just now getting to see it. Boy, do I have lots left to see and learn. No wonder I love this site ;-). TomStar81 05:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, very strong Support. A classic indeed. BTW what did you do with the z-machine group? I work with the group that made the optics for Z's X-ray backlighter laser Z-Beamlet [4].--Deglr6328 06:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I was actually trying to find a good Z-Beamlet image of the capsule implosion, but it looks like those images are still copyrighted. These last two summers I've been doing QMD simulations for electrical and thermodynamic data, and parametrizing a current profile for isentropic flyer-plate acceleration. I'm more like a cog in the wheel. :)  BRIAN0918  07:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Beautiful picture! I think I first saw it on the cover of a physics textbook (Benson's Univerity Physics?). I went looking for it for Wikipedia a few months ago. Are you sure that this image is in the public domain? The only copyright notice I can find is "All Rights Reserved. 1997-2003 Sandia Corporation." Unfortunately, government contractors are not required to produce public domain work... --Andrew 08:42, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • On the source page it says "Media are welcome to download/publish this image with related news stories." Based on the vague wording and a google search for places this image has shown up, it appears that way. I don't think PD is the proper tag, so I'll switch it to {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} or something like that. Let me know if this sounds correct. -- BRIAN0918  15:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that's a reasonable license although "free for any purpose" provited that the purpose is to accompany a related news story is not actually very free. This raises the ugly question of whether this beautiful picture can actually be featured (much as I would like it to be). --Andrew 18:52, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't think it's as big of a deal as you're trying to make it. Their wording is vague enough that, as long as the article has something to do with the Z machine and with its current abilities, or as long as it mentions the Z machine, it should be alright. -- BRIAN0918  19:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • If it's a featured picture, it will very, very difficult to argue that it's accompanying a "related news story", for the same reason we don't feature fair use images. Saying that the caption is enough badly twists the permissions that they do grant. —Korath (Talk) 19:39, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, couldn't it be argued that any of the small versions of the picture which are displayed in articles are fair use due to their small size, while the larger image at Image:Zmachine.jpg is free because it has the news story along with it? I don't even see how they can actually copyright any of it; just because a puppet "corporation" does the work, everything that went into the creation of the image was funded, created, and owned by the government, as is the image itself and the webspace and bandwidth that went into displaying it. Any government facility could suddenly decide to call themselves a corporation, find a company to look over them (ie Lockheed Martin), and then copyright everything coming out. I've sent an email to Sandia to see where they stand on this. My guess is they'll gladly allow it to be used freely on Wikipedia. -- BRIAN0918  23:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I've switched the image source to another one that is smaller (1500x991) but which was much less compressed and has fewer artifacts. -- BRIAN0918  15:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think this is PD-USGov. Sandia is a national lab that while operated privately, is fully owned by the US government. Works produced by or commissioned for them would therefore I think be pd. --Deglr6328 19:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, this may be, but they don't think so; their pages definitely do claim copyright for Sandia Corporation. If you like, you can (politely) email them and ask what the copyright situation is, but it seems pretty clear what they think. (Personally, I think it's an absolute scam that if the federal government wraps a group of people in a corporation, they get to keep copyright, but then I live in a country where the government just claims copyright on everything they produce (Crown copyright)). --Andrew 18:52, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • See my reply above. -- BRIAN0918  19:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Unreal image --Fir0002 10:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Fascinating. —Sandover 21:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless we can show it to be public domain. Currently it looks like fair use to me. ed g2s • talk 11:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm working on getting permission (although it isn't clear that we don't already have it) right now. I should have a response in a day or two. -- BRIAN0918  17:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • It's certainly not fair use (in the sense of using it legally without permission) since we do have permission to use it to accompany an encyclopedia article (I suppose an encyclopedia). But I'm not convinced we have permission to use it for other purposes (such as including it in WP:FP). It's certainly not freely redistributable (which is what we would like from images). And yes, it's an absolute scam that the government gets to keep copyright if a puppet corporation does the work; but it's a scam that works, and we have to live with it. --Andrew 21:40, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I have to oppose on copyright grounds unless some really compelling statement comes out of Sandia. --Andrew 21:40, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said above, wait a couple days. -- BRIAN0918  21:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Support. Nice work getting the permission for this beautiful picture! --Andrew 18:55, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose until copyright/licensing is resolved. This is a stunning tech picture, and I considered nominating it my self last October when the original news story broke (in fact it has been on the front page). However I decided that the license probably didn't qualify. That was actually for the very similar Image:Z machine.jpg, and it is interesting to see that User:Duk has reconsidered the Copyright tag on that image a couple of times. I think the current tag is about right (at least until User:Brian0918's email bears fruit). There is an argument that we can still use it for FP, if you consider FP as less of a gallery of images and more of a source for Pic of the Day leading people to the related articles. A FairUse tag probably wouldn't be OK in either respect. -- Solipsist 13:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I should have waited a couple of hours. The clarified license position looks OK to me. In fact it is probably closer to {{CopyrightFreeUseProvided|Credit is given}} which perhaps isn't good enough for WikiCommons, but is good enough for Wikipedia and most derivatives. It should also be good enough for Featured Pictures status — except for the thumbs page, we don't use Featured Pictures anywhere without mentioning the credit. Keep up the good work. -- Solipsist 20:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I just got a reply from Sandia, permitting usage in Wikipedia articles. -- BRIAN0918  15:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - nice job getting permission Brian. --Duk 16:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • From the top of the page "Images listed here should be either in the public domain or covered by the GNU Free Documentation License or a similar license". This is a gallery of the best Wikipedia has to offer, best not to have images we can't even offer people. Cancel nomination. ed g2s • talk 17:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That comment is just a suggestion, not policy (as you note at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#GFDL only). It doesn't say that images used with permission are not appropriate candidates (as it does say for fair use images). I see no reason not to include it. We've gotten permission to use this image throughout all of Wikipedia, and anyone else can by contacting the original source. If we were to deny featured picture status to images such as this which have the proper permission, that would wipe out the possibility of any photos which require specialized equipment, such as rapid-shutter, micro-photography, or imaging done in the non-visible parts of the spectrum. The only reason we have space images (such as from Hubble) is because we are lucky that the U.S. Government releases them into the public domain, when they could easily restrict them, as they have done with this image. You stated that it is "best not to have images we can't even offer people." But, I don't see anywhere on this page (or at Wikipedia:Featured pictures where such a guarantee is made. Keep nomination. -- BRIAN0918  17:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Featured pictures states that some fair use is tolerated, so an image used with permission should unquestionably be allowed featured picture status. -- BRIAN0918  18:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree. Of course a free license would be preferable, but commons:Featured Pictures is the place for such ideological purity. --Andrew 18:55, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great picture. Glad to see the copyright issue seems to have been resolved. But if it was done with DOE resources, it is PD-USGov-DOE no matter what they claim on their website. (There are a lot of people who erroneously claim copyright on DOE photos -- CORBIS is a major offender, claiming that they own copyright to Los Alamos mugshots taken during World War II! I don't think so...). --Fastfission 18:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That might be the case, but we've gotten permission so everything should be alright. -- BRIAN0918  18:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Please discuss this policy here ed g2s • talk 11:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Wow! What can I say. -Casito 05:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The conditions of this image prevent usage in most circumstances so it is not a free use image. I have re-tagged it appropriately, and its listing here should be archived. ed g2s • talk 19:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Inappropriate nomination. Archived. ed g2s • talk 09:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Lincoln cent

2002 Lincoln cent, Obverse, proof with cameo

High in detail and contrast, and an excellent example of cameo on coins. Currently featured at Penny (U.S. coin), cameo, and proof coinage. This image is definitely striking :)  BRIAN0918  16:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  16:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The Lincoln cent is so familiar after 96 years, it's hard to see it with fresh eyes. You may need to be a coin collector to know just how exceptional this image is. The peculiar mirror-like quality of a "cameo" proof coin (the result of an exceptional strike just after the proof die is re-polished) is difficult to capture in a photograph. I particularly admire the way the coin here is lit from the side, appearing only half-mirrored, and accurately conveying the fleeting, flashing quality of turning the coin under the light. Amazing strike detail in the wrinkles of Lincoln's coat and around his eyes. I've collected these since childhood, and never noticed these details. This is what a perfect MS70 grade coin should look like. Support. (written by User:Sandover)
  • Oppose. A shiny penny. Ho-hum. "...is so familiar..." also applies only in the US. We occasionally see them in Canada; I would guess never in Europe or Australia except by those who bring them home as souvenirs. Denni☯ 19:48, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
    • So, are you completely against an image of a coin ever being a featured picture, simply because currency is different in different parts of the world? Should we delist Image:Ph physical map.png because it's too Philippine-centric, or Image:Cockroach closeup.jpg for being ho-hum just another bug? -- BRIAN0918  23:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Not at all. It depends on the coin. I would support a high-quality picture of a bone or shell coin, or one with unusual properties, such as a unique shape, a multimetallic composition (ie, Canada's twoonie), a visibly unusual metallic composition (the photographic technique employed in this image would suit a gold coin to a T), a special manufacturing technique ort finish, such as Canada's recent red poppy quarter, or one which represents a distinctive event or age. Sorry, I think it's a nice crisp shot of a =really= shiny penny, but not particularly noteworthy otherwise. Denni☯ 23:36, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
        • Find me a better example of cameo and extreme high quality (ie MS70) in the same coin and I'll support it 100%. I don't think you'll find either of those in a bone or shell coin. -- BRIAN0918  23:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • And yes, I would vote against the rather mundane cockroach picture. I did not do so because the vote was pretty much already cast against it, and I didn't need to bother. I would also vote against the Philippine map if it were just another map, and have voted against maps in the past for precisely that reason. I have also voted =for= maps which have "broken the mould" in presenting their information. Please do not try to prtray me as anti-American just because I don't find this image especially exciting. Denni☯ 23:50, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
        • Where did "anti-Americanism" come from? It just seemed like a bad argument on your part (currency not the same everywhere => can't be a featured picture). I'd support an Austrian 50-schilling 1999 Johann Strauss commemorative coin if it exhibited the same quality and contrast (and was also public domain) -- BRIAN0918  23:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I would also support such an image. Equally, I would support a cameo of the Susan B. Anthony dollar, partly because of its poor reception by the American public. Tell you what - I'll change my vote to support because of the exceptional clarity of this image. Denni☯ 00:13, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
            • Thanks! I think the reason people didn't like the SBA dollar is because, according to most numismatists, it's just ugly. :)  BRIAN0918  02:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, exceptionally high quality coin-- Chris 73 Talk 22:50, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, being Australian, the penny is a new sight to me, and the photo is of great quality. --Fir0002 04:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, although it's a bit hard to see that it is actually a coin ;) Junes 22:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent photograph. --Theaterfreak64 02:50, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • ...As would be expected of a featured picture. Sorry for the lousy comment ;-) --Theaterfreak64 02:52, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - incredible picture. --Spangineer ∞ 16:58, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Can't wait to see this thing grace my user page. →mathx314(talk)(email) 20:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Wow. Smoddy (tgec) 21:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Really nice picture. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Marvellous pic - Adrian Pingstone 10:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. 'nuff said. -- Solipsist 08:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I just don't find it striking at all... it's just another coin... Enochlau 10:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not exactly. If it's MS70, which it appears to be (and I'm sure the Mint would want in their press picture), it's worth $1000 -- BRIAN0918  02:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Unless we want to say that only certain subjects are featurable as pictures (and I hope we don't), we have to accept that there can be featurable pictures of coins. And if this isn't a briliant and striking picture of the cent (and I've never found the Lincoln penny remotely attractive), I don't know what is. It's making me think of the coin in a new way...certainly whatever we can say about it, "it's just another coin" doesn't seem right to me. Jwrosenzweig 00:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Promoted. +14/-1. -- BRIAN0918  02:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Skeletal muscle

A top-down view of skeletal muscle

Spent the better part of an afternoon making this. It's a montage of 6 pictures - (one public domain and the rest GFDL). Rama did the initial drawnings, and I cleaned them up and put them together.

  • Nominate and support →Raul654 05:30, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - while technically outstanding, the large amount of blank space detracts from this image - it looks like something has been forgotten. Maybe you could scale the final image to fill the space or find a more efficient arrangement. There's also a vertical line between the photo and the first diagram. Lupin 13:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Nice job, but not technically accurate and agree with Lupin on the white space. --jag123 22:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I have uploaded a newer version with tweaks, that satisfies all of your concerns except that some portions of the muscle are slightly out of proportion (actin is shwon as being half the size of myosin instead of 1/3). →Raul654 04:10, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Fir0002 04:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose blank space could be filled with molecular structure of myosin/actin and there could be more detail in the labelling of structure. Also I'm totally creeped out by the 'roidhead muscle freak. --Deglr6328 07:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose No consistent style, images don't form a natural whole, use of color and B/W at the same time, small letters only (comfortably) readable at highest resolution. Also, I too am scared by that monster Junes 22:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose until someone can make it more ... complete. - Vague | Rant 13:19, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not Promoted. +1/-6. -- BRIAN0918  02:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Missouri fires a missile

File:Missouri missles.PNG
#1 - USS Missouri fires a BGM-109 Tomahawk missile.
#2 - enhanced and sharpened picture

An image I found and uploaded while adding some history the USS Missouri (BB-63) page. I think its striking, impressive, fascinating, and it does much to illistrate the modernization of the Iowa class battleships carried out under the Reagan Administration. This is a self nomination and this is my first time nominating an image for featured article status. TomStar81 02:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support TomStar81 02:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The image is used to illustrate articles on the ship, which we can't see properly because of the cropping and the B/W. The image name is also misspelled. ;) Mark1 05:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I am spellologically challenged, and it drives even me nuts! ^_^ TomStar81 05:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • You can see the CIWS mounts just fine if you know what to look for. As for the ABL launchers, If you look just past the bridge on the right side of the photo, then look down, there is a big box that is sitting on the lower half of the picture. I believe that box is one of the ABL boxes; unfortunatly there is no article in the Wikipedia that explains how the ABL system works, therefore this is only speculation on my part. I base this assumption off of a picture of Wisconsin that I have saved on my computer that shows the ABL boxes to be in roughly the same position.
        • Yes, the large rectangular box in the bottom right of the picture is an ABL. The ABL that fired this particular missile can't be seen in the photo because it's actually on the other (starboard) side of the ship. The amidships ABL's fire across the ship - so the ABL you see in the picture is actually "pointing" to the left, across the ship. -B- (USS Missouri, BB-63) --64.65.96.206 23:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 00:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support I think its a great photo, shows the missile beautifully. --Fir0002 04:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I find the unfocused cables distracting, as well as that you can't see all of that tower. Junes 22:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have enhanced and sharpened the photo somewhat. This should look better. JoJan 16:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't really support this image, but the second one seems a bit too light (sky for example) --jacobolus (t) 23:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • support, prefer the first. --SPUI (talk) 08:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • NOT Promoted. +3/-2. -- BRIAN0918  02:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Dew on spider web

#1 - Dew drops adhering to a spider web
File:Water.drops.on.web01.jpg
#2 - sharpened picture

I noticed a similar image was on FPC back in November (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dew on Spiders Web). Although I liked that one as well, this one doesn't have the problems mentioned by the opposers. Currently featured at Dew and Adhesion, it demonstrates adhesion of water molecules to the web, as well as surface tension created by the Van der Waals forces within the water drops. Notice the larger drops at web intersections. -  BRIAN0918  02:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. It also reminded me of another Featured Picture, Image:Soda bubbles macro.jpg. -  BRIAN0918  02:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -I'm sorry, I really, really want to support this but it's just much too out of focus to ignore. Also, it is worth noting that the effects of high surface tension in water owe overwhelmingly to hydrogen bonding instead of instantaneous dipole (van der waals forces) effects. Incidentally thank you for this [5] perfect addition to the UV article.--Deglr6328 06:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I never liked chemistry :)  BRIAN0918  14:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting picture, but is out of focus. Oppose. Tygar 03:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A good pose, but the focus just isn't up there --Fir0002 04:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nice shot. TomStar81 21:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Compression and focus aren't up to scratch. Enochlau 10:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think User:Fir0002 had quite a nice dew on web picture a few months back, but I can't help feeling that we should be able to find a similar picture which cleanly shows the full shape of an Orb web. -- Solipsist 01:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have sharpened the picture somewhat. This should look better. JoJan 17:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • New image is much lower resolution? --jacobolus (t) 01:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • NOT Promoted. +2/-5. -- BRIAN0918  02:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Numeral systems

1-500, in base 2 through 10.

Very clever diagram; I wouldn't have thought of illustrating numeral systems like this. Created by User:Fredrik.

  • Nominate and support. - grendel|khan 22:04, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Took me a good minute to figure it out. Left column (b=2) is binary black white with 9 digits, b=3 has three colors with 6 digits, etc?. Needs more explanation if possible. Larger image would also be nice, the last digit is really hard to see. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:04, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Is the description better now? Fredrik | talk 16:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Now Support. I also changed the table on the image page a bit. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:00, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very elegant! Support Denni☯ 00:29, 2005 Mar

9 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I don't think it's that informative, it's more of a gimmick. Junes 21:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • In what way is this a "gimmick"? For base 2, it is a perfectly legitimate representation. For bases 3 through 10, using a shade rather than a shape is actually a =better= way of indicating the relationships between the bases than using numerals. Denni☯ 00:52, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
    • It's a gimmick in the sense that it doesn't aid the understanding of the concept very much, which is a must for an image with minimal esthetical value Junes 11:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, agree with Junes. Thue | talk 00:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, great image. Jeff8765 03:27, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not promoted. +4/-2. -- BRIAN0918  02:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Magellanic penguin

#1 - Magellanic penguin in its natural summer habitat near Punta Arena, Chile
#2 - with background somewhat brightened up

Significant amount of detail, in a setting you don't normally associate with penguins. Currently featured at Magellanic penguin. -  BRIAN0918  16:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  16:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -If i'm being super nitpicky I'd say the DOF is a bit too narrow but it's otherwise very good, so... easily overlooked!--Deglr6328 17:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That is one beautiful penguin. Support. Tygar 10:02, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, though I'd prefer a little bit more contrast between the black colors in the penguin and the background. Mgm|(talk) 12:21, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • If you want contrast, go with one of those antarctic penguins, this one doesn't like the cold :)  BRIAN0918  15:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The penguin in the low res photo looks a bit raggedy, but the full image has great clarity. --Fir0002 04:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have somewhat brightened up the background in the second picture. The background was just too black. Now the pinguin stands out against the background. JoJan 15:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Support the modified version. -- BRIAN0918  20:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support for version 2. —Korath (Talk) 22:20, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support #2, just what the image needed. Junes 20:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • support either. --SPUI (talk) 08:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Promoted #2. +9/-0. -- BRIAN0918  02:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Itsukushima torii

The torii at Itsukushima Shrine appears to float in the water.
auto-colored, auto-contrasted

Self-nom; a vibrantly-colored illustration for Itsukushima Shrine and Three Views of Japan. — Dan | Talk 13:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral. Good composition, but the image looks a bit pink to me. Is it possible to adjust the white balance a bit? This may change my vote to pro. -- Chris 73 Talk 14:03, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support 2nd version or Rdsmith4's modified version. -- BRIAN0918  15:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Image requires a couple of degrees of clockwise rotation. Support Denni☯ 00:33, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
    • To Denni and jk, I have rotated it as Photoshop suggested to make the horizon perfectly horizontal. As for the color, I lowered the saturation very slightly; I tried going further, but the colors went quite dull. I can hardly see the difference on my LCD screen, but you might if you have a better monitor. Hope this addresses your concerns. — Dan | Talk 01:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
File:800px-Itsukushima torii 3.jpg
desat. clouds, rotated 1.25 degrees CW
  • Support Nice photo: very illustrative. jk 19:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I like it. It's pretty! Support. --Sonjaaa 23:28, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Oversaturated colour. Mark1 03:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
File:800px-Itsukushima torii 4.jpg
bold crop
Bold crop with higher resolution and lower saturation
    • The saturation has not changed from the original image, which is quite well within bounds for color saturation. The most notable change to my (IMHBEO) opinion is to the color balance, which has eliminated the unnatural green cast. I might suggest a bold crop to help feature the shrine, though. Denni☯ 23:55, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
      • The red and green on the torii still look weird to me. There's also some kind of purple, hazy border around the hills and the torii. Mark1 01:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice setting. Support. (but if it got better i wouldn't object either) -- Dbroadwell 21:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Original photo looks a little drab and all the adjusted versions look too saturated, I also don't like the canoe being in the photo. Doesn't suit the atmosphere --Fir0002 04:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Totally disagree about canoe - provides scale and puts it in context as a tourist destination, not a temple. jk
  • A tough call. Support any of the rotated versions (all but Image:Itsukushima torii distance 2.jpg at the moment). Lower saturation in the sky is a plus for the latter two images; lower resolution is a minus. I'm also undecided whether I like it better cropped or not. —Korath (Talk) 19:54, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support boldly cropped version (EDIT: with larger resolution), Oppose all others. The composition of the last one really adds something the others lack. Junes 14:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I'm allowed to vote since I took the picture, but I oppose the bottom two because of the lower resolution. — Dan | Talk
  • Oppose. Not particularly striking and actually rather cluttered. - Seth Ilys 20:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Bevo 22:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support any, killkillkill --SPUI (talk) 08:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not promoted. +8/-5. ed g2s • talk 13:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Mammatus

Mammatus clouds in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1973

Probably fits the criteria of beautiful/striking/fascinating, and adds qualitatively to the article Mammatus. -  BRIAN0918  16:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  16:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good photo, very illustrative --- Chris 73 Talk 00:05, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -Too blurry/muddled. Perfectly adequate for article, just not good enough for fpotd. From looking at the original on the NOAA site I suspect too liberal a use of the despeckle tool was used in effort to reduce the very severe graininess of the original scan.--Deglr6328 02:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That actually wasn't the source photo I used. I just copied the text from the original photo in the article (which was another adaptation of the same image), but I used a different source photo. I'll work on a redone version which isn't as liberal and uses a larger source photo. -- BRIAN0918  03:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • OK. good luck! That source photo is horribly grainy. --Deglr6328 17:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with the too blurry. Janderk 11:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Definitely lacking in focus; if an image which can deliver the promise of the thumbnail can be found, it will have my wholehearted support. Denni☯ 00:36, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  • Support TomStar81 06:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Striking. Mgm|(talk) 08:21, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No detail, seems extremely out of focus. - Bevo 15:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Not Promoted. -- BRIAN0918  02:04, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Pine cones

male and female pine cones

Spring is coming, and its nice to see the trees out and about and having sex. This rather good illustration for pine cone was taken by User:Menchi, apparently using a video camera. - Solipsist 19:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Solipsist 19:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 23:03, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Longhair | Talk 18:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. An understated eloquence is at work here. Sandover 17:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Great photo. Really good job --Fir0002 04:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Promoted. +5/-0. -- BRIAN0918  01:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Kyoto Fushimi Inari shrine

A row of torii arches at the entrance to the Fushimi Inari shrine in Kyoto, Japan.
Edited (cropped) version.
Large (3072x2048) version.

I noticed this evocative and mysterious image on the Kyoto page and was quite taken with it. We've all seen Japanese torii arches, but perhaps never a path of them, congested like this, a kind of stairway to heaven. (Was this an inspiration for Christo's "The Gates"?) I support this photo and made it my screensaver this week. Sandover 08:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, but could we remove the copyright notice at the bottom? As it is now GFDL'ed by the author, this should be possible -- Chris 73 Talk 10:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done! Sandover 23:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Support the cropped photo now -- Chris 73 Talk 00:04, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks mysterious indeed. Mgm|(talk) 08:30, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Longhair | Talk 18:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. However, removal of a copyright notice is explicitly forbidden by the GFDL. Neep should have been asked first. —Korath (Talk) 00:28, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that! I didn't know that about GFDL, and I don't think Chris 73 did, either. I've apologized to Neep (photographer Paul Vlaar) and asked his permission for the image to be used in cropped form. He has published the photo on an external site with the copyright credit in the border, which makes sense. Because Wikipedia always provides links back to the photo credit page, perhaps he'll allow this cropped version here. —Sandover 06:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose -Would certainly offer support if a suitably large version (>1280 wide) were uploaded. --Deglr6328 02:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) Support large version. --Deglr6328 05:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Quite excellent. — Dan | Talk 04:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm the author of the photo, Paul Vlaar, and I don't think I am in a position to support it being rather biased towards it (I think the photo worked out quite well :)). I have no problem with any cropping as long as it still looks like the original photo. Removal of the copyright tag and the border is fine with me as well as long as the photo links to my name and the original published version on my website. I'm really quite happy to be able contribute to Wikipedia with specific photos, and I'm content with having the connection back to my credit even if indirectly. BTW thanks for the positive critique! It's well appreciated and an incentive for me to continue creating and contributing the products of my favourite pastime. As for a larger version, I have a 2000x3000 pixel version available for upload, if the interest is indeed sufficiently large. --Neep 06:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The larger version would be cool. It is indeed an excellent photo. And apologies for my mistake with the GFDL above, I am glad you did not mind. -- Chris 73 Talk 14:05, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Like I said previously, it's a good photo and I'd definitely support if uploaded....--Deglr6328 17:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Wow! The higher-res image really does add a new dimension; thanks, Neep (Paul Vlaar), for your support. Did you see it was added to "The Gates"? Your photo definitely drives home the resemblance. —Sandover 18:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; prefer cropped. James F. (talk) 12:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Mark1 03:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Fg2 01:43, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Fir0002 04:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • While I personnally find the perspective in the picture odd (the camera is too close to the ground for me), the picture is striking and beautiful. Support Circeus 13:29, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Simply, wow. --Kitch 17:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Promoted #3. -- BRIAN0918  16:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Root Canal Illustration

#1 - Root Canal procedure: unhealthy tooth, drilling, filing, rubber filling.
#2 - Root Canal procedure: unhealthy tooth, drilling, filing, rubber filling.

This is a simplified explanation of Pulpectomy that makes the article come to life beyond simple Xrays of teeth.

  • Nominate and support. First vote here - jk 23:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, even if it makes my teeth hurt. It would be nice if a higher-resolution version (or, ideally, SVG) were available (but SVG cannot currently be uploaded, let alone viewed). A few odd white flecks in the brown blob at the bottom could perhaps be removed (or explained?). (Increased Res, fixed flecks, Thx!--jk) --Andrew 02:18, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good graphics. Also: Could a dentist check if they are correct? I know these only from the receiving end (ouch!) -- Chris 73 Talk 10:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- BRIAN0918  05:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Informative and crisp image. Mgm|(talk) 08:29, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Based on Metju12's vote below, I'm afraid I'll have to change to oppose until facts have been checked and changed. Mgm|(talk) 19:32, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm sorry, but it isn't correct. I now, I'm dentist. The cavity must be wide open, drill seems funny, endo-instrument is file not needle, rubber filling must be till end of canal. --Metju12 08:14, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My dear doctor! I have made changes based on your suggestions and our conversation in Talk pages. I think I've addressed everything. Do you support this image? jk 01:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support #1. Great! It's perfect, brief, well-arranged. It's not exact but enough popular. JK, you're skillful --Metju12 06:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose #2. Just for now. I gonna talk to jk. --Metju12 23:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. There was an earlier nomination that prompted me to look at some of jk's images, and this is the one I would have nominated (except that I am a little too squeamish on medical images). I wouldn't have spotted User:Metju12's expert objections, but assuming they have been addressed satisfactorily I would have to support as the standard of illustration is very good. Oh hang on, there is a rather nice new mouse illustratio now as well. -- Solipsist 01:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support #2. Oppose #1. (with respect to #1) I don't see how those drawings of teeth illustrate the same anatomy as the X-rays in the article Root canal; the drawings seem to over-simplify the structure - Bevo 17:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point. See the revised molar version on the entry for root canal. jk 21:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice use of illustration. I don't see the inherent problem between this and the X-ray photo, and if the dentist doesn't object to its accuracy then I'm not sure what the problem is. --Fastfission 14:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, (with respect to #1) the X-rays show two "legs" of root for each tooth. The drawings show only one per tooth. In a typical Root Canal, are both "legs" involved, or only one? If the drawings at least showed the same view as the X-ray in the article, I'd have a much better understanding (without having to ask). Compare to the image at http://www.endodovgan.com/images/Retx_file.jpg - Bevo 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The original image is no longer featured in the Root canal article, but an improved version by the same Wikipedian is (see #2 above) - Bevo 22:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, its a bit of an edit conflict. I was just working through the closed nominations, and jk was updating with the new image whilst I was trying to promote the original. -- Solipsist 22:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted original. +7/-1. ed g2s • talk 14:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Moved this nomination back to the nominations page. The original illustration is not used on any Wikipedia article, and is therefore not eligible as a Featured picture. Illustration #2 is the one used in Root canal. - Bevo 16:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify, I was about to promote #1 on the 22nd March when jk uploaded the double root version #2, to address Bevo's objections. As far as I can see the new version is better in every way, although user User:Metju12 has switched back to objecting, presumably on some issues of detail which are easily corrected. Lets give it another couple of days, but sssuming that jk has addressed Metju12's & Bevo's objections with the new version and there are no new objections from previous voters, then we should promote version #2. -- Solipsist 21:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • The original the second version had equal votes, but after I promoted I noticed the second one was being used, so I changed it to the second version.
  • Promoted #2. +7/-1. ed g2s • talk 14:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)




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

When an image is not promoted, please perform the following:

  • Move the nomination entry to the June archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Feature picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the archive.
  • Remove the {{FPC}} tag from the image and any other suggested versions.

When you promote an image, please perform the following:

  • Move the nomination entry to the June archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Feature picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the archive.
  • Add the image to Wikipedia:Goings-on - latest on top
  • Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian)
  • 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|file_name.xxx}} on the person's talk page. For example: {{PromotedFPC|Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}
  • Optionally, you can check Wikipedia:Picture of the day and feature the image as upcoming POTD.

Nomination for removal

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel do not longer live up to featured picture standards.
Note: Support = Delist | Oppose = Keep

Template:MarchCalendar2005

Template:AprilCalendar2005

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=11534777"