Wikipedia: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.
This page works similar to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, only the other way around: If a page is listed here for at least a week with no objections, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. If there are objections, they have to be worked out, until a nearly unanimous consensus is reached.
If you nominate a page to which you have contributed all or a large majority of content, then it must be seconded by at least one more person in order to be accepted. Some people may object to self-nominations on principle.
Also, be sure to sign (with date/time) your nomination ("~~~~" in the editor).
Good composition. — Sverdrup 12:16, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Neutral. FWIW, I like your "rolling dice" Image:Dice.jpg one better than this one. If the lighting on this one was more like the dice picture, I feel I'd like this one better- Bevo 22:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Actually the source lighting was identical. The dominoes are a deep ivory colour, the dice are almost silver. - Gaz
Nominated by MykReeve 01:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC). Excellent photograph. Not only the photograph, but also the subject were created by the user!
Second. What a great, detailed, image. fabiform | talk 01:37, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes. It would be wonderful if every Wikipedia article were accompanied by such an excellent photo of the subject matter. - Bevo 01:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Marvelous! - check out the depth of field - I wonder what he could do with 100g of pure sodium ;-) - Gaz 12:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Who ever thought that chemistry could be so gorgeous? --mav 12:13, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Add it, add it now! — Sverdrup 13:44, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It looks so nice, I almost want to eat it. Jalnet2 23:43, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I actually don't care for it, but no objection. I don't know enough about Gallium to say if this is a fine example of it or not, and the camera work is good, but it looks messy and icky to me ;P Sam Spade 03:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. Great image. --Minesweeper 04:05, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Support. There are very few such photos in color that are better. It's actually an incredible shot of most of the head as well as the eye. - Bevo 02:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Great picture. --Minesweeper 04:05, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
since no votes have materialized, I clipped it to eliminate the on-photo annotation to make it more a simple photograph - Bevo 22:15, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have received comments that the utility lines in the foreground are too distracting. I'm inclined to agree that in spite of the interesting glimpse of nature's show of force caught in this photo that unless cleaned up, it's just not good enough (as is) to be a featured picture. - Bevo 03:26, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In spite of the power lines, I think this is a great photo. --Minesweeper 04:05, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Beautiful. fabiform | talk 21:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Neutral. I feel like it could possibly have been much much better. It seems too dark to be as detailed as it should be. Maybe some photo-editing would help. - Bevo 02:45, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Neutral. The lighting and lines are great, but I feel like I'm "missing" part of building (i.e. the shot feels 'narrow'). --Minesweeper 04:05, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Neutral. There are so many of these kinds of photos that I wonder how we could ever fairly sort them out, and I don't think that we need all of them in the featured picture gallery. They are all, so "far out", so to speak! - Bevo 02:50, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Qualified support - I think we can have a few astronomy shots, but they have to be damn good. - May a quota of 5? - Gaz 11:49, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I strongly disagree w quotas (in any area of life) ;) Sam Spade 03:10, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Neutral. As with the astronomy pics, there are so many great pictures of great art that it's hard to critically compare them against one another. - Bevo 02:52, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - What I want is a photo of the artist in his studio painting his masterpiece. THAT would be worth featuring - Gaz 11:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If fine art isn't worthy to be featured, I think the majority of what little we have that IS featured should be turned out on its ear ;). Wiki is not paper, and we have plenty of room for all extremely high quality images. If you object to the artistic merits thats one thing, but simply that it is art? Sam Spade 03:11, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - I fail to see how this adds significantly to the article. - Gaz 12:03, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I do see how it fits into the article about that man's profession, but I'm not overly impressed with it as a photograph. It serves its purpose well, with the child inserted for appreciation of scale, but without the context of the words in the article, I was completely puzzled. - Bevo 17:24, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
From Music of Armenia. These men were performing outside of a 9th century church in northern Armenia, so I took a photo. The two on the right are playing 'Duduks'. I especially like the rightmost man's cheeks.
Very nice. Gives you a feeling of being there - must be the perspective.—Eloquence 22:11, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice words everybody! I actually try not to look at that photo too much since doing so causes a strong emotional response in me that I don't want diluted by overexposure (my partner and I were nearly brought to tears when we were there because the scene was so perfectly beautiful). That photo in fact does not do the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone justice. --mav 12:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
From Tamar Bridge and Royal Albert Bridge. I uploaded this image so I've put it in self-nominations, but it was taken by a non-wikipedian.
Nominated by fabiform | talk 14:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Triffic!! (take that as a second) - Gaz 16:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Approve. I've never seen a panorama that inclusive. Bevo 17:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I heartilly approve, I've never seen anything like that... Sam Spade 05:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Nomination for removal
USS Port Royal
Been here since before the voting procedure was in place, and I never could understand how it made the cut. It's a ship picture, from the U.S. Navy. We have scores of these, this one doesn't seem any more special than any of the rest of them, to me anyway. - Hephaestos|§ 03:03, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. I've wondered why it's been "featured" so long as well. -Minesweeper 04:05, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Recently removed pictures, and reason for removal
Western-Grey-Kangaroo-with-joey at Western Grey Kangaroo by User:Tannin. Removed by Tannin 13:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC), (a) because it's a charming subject rather than a great picture (it's sort of OK but I've certainly posted better ones, as have many other contributors) and (b) (a purely personal reason that I don't expect others to share) because it wasn't taken in the wild. For me, it's a bit like catching your trout in a net.
