Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black and White (talk | contribs) at 01:16, 7 May 2006 (→Image:Dostoevsky 1872.jpg: Added vote: delist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the nomination for delisting section. For listing, if an image is listed here for seven days with four or more supporting votes (including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination), and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. If necessary, decisions about close votes will be made on a case-by-case basis.

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

To see recent changes, purge the page cache
Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Nomination procedure

  1. Review Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? to make sure the image is up to standards.
    1. If you think your picture may not meet standards add it to Wikipedia:Picture peer review for review.
  2. Create a new subpage named   Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ExampleName
  3. Copy the following content into the new blank subpage:
    Do not change this portion of text at all: {{subst:PAGENAME}}

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

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

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

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

<!-- additional votes go above this line  -->
{{-}}


  1. Add   {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ExampleName}}   to the top of the list in the Current nominations section of this page.
    2. 

  2. 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.


Please be aware that the first date on the subpage should always be the date when it was placed on this page.If you have problems formatting your nomination, someone else will fix it, don't worry! If you wish simply add your image to Wikipedia:Picture peer review, and if someone likes it they will nominate it. 



Supporting and opposing


  • If you approve of a picture, write Support followed by your reasons.
    • 

  • If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons.  Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed.

    • To change your vote, strike it out (with <del>...</del>) rather than removing it.


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



Evaluating dark images




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



Editing candidates


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






To see recent changes, purge the page cache


Your comments are also appreciated on images at Picture peer review.


Current nominations


 Chambord 


 Château de Chambord, in the Loire Valley, arguably France's most famous castle with 128m of facade, 440 rooms and 365 chimneys. 


 Yummifruitbat's downsampled version


I took this panoramic photo (4 photos stitched together), and Yummifruitbat touched it up on Picture peer review. A very similar version is used at Château de Chambord.

Strengths of this photo:



  • Detail is good (but not fantastic)
    • 

  • Subject is interesting
    • 

  • No clones :)
    • 

  • Dead straight (thanks Yummifruitbat)


Weaknesses:



  • Lighting pretty dull - was pretty much midday :(
    • 

  • Little people in centre of photo are possibly distracting.
    • 

  • There are already heaps of photos of Chambord at Commons. Not sure if that's a problem.


All your comments are very welcome. I suspect this photo isn't quite up to standard, but I look forward to learning how to make the next one better.



  • Nominate and support. - Stevage 22:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  •  Support: - Excellent illustration of the Château, and for the record, much better than any of the others at Commons [1] IMHO. Yummifruitbat 22:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Yummifruitbat's downsampled version, neutral on the other modifications.  The quality at maximum resolution still leaves room for improvement, but otherwise I think it's a great shot. bcasterline t 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment - When I did the editing, I considered downsampling so that the image was still 100% crisp at maximum resolution, but decided against it because it would mean losing detail (which would be needed if the photo was to be reproduced in print). Bear in mind the dimensions of this photo (6054x2155px) make it at least twice as large as it needs to be to meet FP standards. -Yummifruitbat 03:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Generally if it isn't sharp, you can safely downsample a bit without losing any detail, because softness usually means that there are (simply speaking) 2 pixels used to describe an object that could just as easily be described by 1. While it is certainly possible to lose detail if you downsample at an inappropriate ratio and don't check the image, I'm pretty sure there is room to do it in this image. Try downsampling to 4000 pixels wide and see if you can see any meaningful loss of detail. I tried and couldn't see any. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Neutral I like the picture, but I'm going to hold off because the image isn't in any articles yet.  The key factor that distinguished between a pretty image and a featured picture is whether it's illustrative, and while I'm sure this picture could be, I can't vote in good faith for an image that no one's seen fit to include in an article yet. Night Gyr 07:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Comment: OK, I've downsampled to 75% of the original size, and you're right, Diliff, there doesn't seem to be any noticeable loss of detail. --Yummifruitbat 16:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support nice :) Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 17:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]






Cloned out most of the people






Cloned out all of the people






crop




  •  Support Cropped, edited version. I would however like to see this picture redone. This shot is OK, but the lighting is terrible - and such a lovely subject I think can be done better. I like the colors and composition of Image:France Loir-et-Cher Chambord Chateau 03.jpg better, but the quality is pretty poor. My ideal would be something like this. I've uploaded three edits for consideration.

    • The next time I'm in the area, I'll have another crack! (not likely to happen anytime soon) I regret not trying again later in the afternoon when there was really some nice afternoon sun. I agree with everything you say basically. Stevage 14:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Strongly oppose retouched versions. Why the hell would anyone clone out the people? They do not obstruct the building but rather give the image a sense of scale. Again another totally unnecessary photo manipulation. --Dschwen 12:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just on personal taste, I found a couple of the people distracting (right in centre, two people taking a photo, another woman walking towards camera). I suppose I like people sitting down, or wandering around, but when they're being unaesthetic, like taking photos, I'm not sad to see them go. That said, I have no strong preference either way, I can see the arguments for or against cloning them out. Stevage 14:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support for the original(not the edited version) I agree with Dschwen, the people give a sense of scale and don't distract from the subject in any way. Besides that, a very good image! --Pharaoh Hound 12:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • I agree that the retouching is unnecessary.. I don't think I can offer my support due to the bland lighting as it just doesn't do it for me. If anything, as far as a crop goes, I would prefer a little taken away from the foreground lawn and a little from the left and right edge of the frame, but keeping the proportions the same. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yummifruitbat's cropped version


  • Yet another edit - Not a big fan of Fir0002's edits I'm afraid, the sky looks artificial and I agree with Dschwen about unnecessarily removing the people when they're not obstructing the subject. If the activities of the people in the shot are 'unaesthetic' then presumably we should say the same about the photographer on the bridge in Carcassonne? I think Diliff's suggestion about the crop has merit and have tried a version with the same proportions. --Yummifruitbat 19:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well I guess it's a matter of personal taste, but to my mind a sky without completely burnt out details is less realistic to one which has them partially recovered. Also I find that the original has a blue caste which has also been correct in my edit. But obviously the edits were just there to give people choice, and you are free to make yours (choice that is) --Fir0002 www 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]





Promoted Image:PanoChambord2 yfb edit3 downsampled.jpg  ~ Veledan • Talk 08:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



This image has now been re-uploaded entitled Chambord_pano.jpg for snappiness :) --Yummifruitbat 09:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]




 MennekensF105KR 


File:MennekensF105KR.jpg
 Later winner Kimi Räikkönen during the free practice of the 2005 Belgian Grand Prix Formula One.


I have nominated this picture, made by myself (Nicki Mennekens), because I have noticed that there are not many motorsport related featured images. The image up for vote appears in the article Belgian Grand Prix.




Not promoted   Mikeo 09:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]





Salad


Vegie and white cheese salad


Cropped version


Nice, appetizing image.







  • Weak Support of both versions. Much improved. The "salad platter"   looks fake (for some odd reason), however it probably is more encyclopedic. I like the close-up view of the cropped one, but it may be too close cut, and the distracting elements -though mush less visible- are still there. --Pharaoh Hound 13:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Comment I've uploaded a cropped version. If you want to see other versions: Image:Salad platter.jpg, Image:Cold meat salad.jpg --Fir0002 www 23:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cropped version is difficult to put into perspective because it's so cut off. I'd say Image:Salad platter.jpg is the most encyclopedic. bcasterline t 23:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the totally uncropped version. Not sure why you were trying to keep the bread out of the original one :) Stevage 09:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh there're two different shots (obviously of the same thing). I just perfered to close up one. I don't know why but I'm really partial to that white "clean" look which I think the first one really has. To my mind it's a nearly perfect stock shot. But that's just me :-) --Fir0002 www 09:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Image:Salad platter.jpg


Salad platter



Comment I've rearranged the nom like this. Hope nobody minds... --Fir0002 www 11:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



  • Oppose. Full-size, the photo looks rather unremarkable. I think it's the lighting. The angle of the plate is also offputting, but as I don't think it's FP-standard, I'm not experimenting. BigBlueFish 21:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose. The white background makes this photo look too artificial even though the plate itself looks good. I think that having a plate out of context is not very encyclopedic-- not a good explanation of the purpose of salad (i.e. to be eaten) Bonus Onus 22:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose all versions.  Uninteresting subject photographed as if for advertising purposes. It's nice enough, but this looks like something out of an upscale supermarket circular. Mooveeguy 17:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Um why exacatly is it a problem that it looks like an "upscale supermarket circular". I would have thought that a good thing. Certainly I can't see it as a valid reason for opposing. --Fir0002 www 07:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Comment Have replaced original nomination in the page with Image:Salad platter.jpg --Fir0002 www 09:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]




Closing comment: splitting up the vote like that halfway through really did not help me make the closing count!  Some of the oppose votes left above the line, I judge as being equally applicable to the final version too (Adrian's, for example). With hindsight, I think it would have been better to start a new nom, or just to leave all versions in a single section — those of us who close these regularly are used to having to tot up support for differing versions. Anyway, gripe over with, the second vote passes 14/6 even if we still count Adrian's and chowells' opposes. I discounted ragesoss's oppose which obviously only applied to the original crop   ~ Veledan • Talk 10:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Salad platter.jpg  ~ Veledan • Talk 10:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]





Fortified city of Carcassonne and the Pont Vieux


This panoramic view shows the restored fortified city of Carcassonne and the Pont Vieux crossing the Aude River in southern France.



The fortified city of Carcassonne and the Pont View crossing the Aude River




The bridge is indeed called "Pont vieux" which is not usual in french.  I don't know the explanation for this yet.  For your info also, the bridge from where the picture was taken is called "Pont neuf" which means new bridge and is the normal word order in this case.  - Jplavoie 00:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]




Promoted Image:Carcassonne vieux pont.jpg Mikeo 08:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Colonia, Yap sunset


Sunset at Colonia on Yap


Version #2 - modified


I saw this image quite awhile ago, and when I clicked on it, I was surprised that it wasn't a featured picture. I've now decided to nominate it, as I believe it meets all the standards. The image is currently in the Caroline Islands article and was taken by User:Marshman.




Do sunsets have to confirm to *your* idea of sunsets in order to qualify as an FP? :-P asnatu 17:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Not promoted   Mikeo 08:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]





Pigeon's Rock, Beirut


File:Beirut sunset(4).jpg
Pigeon's Rock, Beirut


Version #2 - modified


Lighter version adjusted


I came accross this image on Wiki Commons, and I really, really liked it. It is currently in the Beirut article, and the photo was taken by User:Bertilvidet.




  • Even the third edit doesn't have enough shadow detail! And I stick to my statment that a picture in the day-time has more value. Also, I just noticed that it's blurry. --Pharaoh Hound 21:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Not promoted   Mikeo 08:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]





Panoramic view of the Seine in Paris


Panoramic view of the Seine in Paris with St-Michel bridge on the left and Notre-Dame cathedral to the right.  I believe it shows well the Seine and it's surrounding area from a pedestrian point of view.



Panoramic view of the Seine in Paris with St-Michel bridge on the left and Notre-Dame cathedral to the right


New edit: restitched to straighten Notre-Dame and eliminate part of wall



Not promoted   Mikeo 08:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Kalmar Castle


Kalmar Castle in early August sunshine


Edit of original picture, has been cropped and straightened



Not promoted   howcheng  {chat} 18:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]





Sanaksarski monastery


 Sanaksarski monastery (Russia)


I think that this is a beautiful picture.
It appears in the article "Monastery". 
My colleague created this image during our visit to this monastery.




Not promoted   howcheng  {chat} 18:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]





Lotus Elise


 This is a yellow Lotus Elise


It is very high-quality and has a resolution of 500 x 333;
Rodrigol created this image. It is licensed under the GNU.




Not promoted   howcheng  {chat} 18:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]





 CRT 


A Cathode ray tube 
     
  1. Electron guns 
  2. Electron beams 
  3. Mask for separating beams for red, green , and blue part of displayed image 
  4. Phosphor layer with red, green, and blue zones 
  5. Close-up of the phosphor-coated inner side of the screen 


Edit 1.7 (purge cache to see) - Larger render with Photoshop fixes 
     
  1. Electron guns 
  2. Electron beams 
  3. Focusing coils 
  4. Deflection coils 
  5. Anode connection 
  6. Mask for separating beams for red, green, and blue part of displayed image 
  7. Phosphor layer with red, green, and blue zones 
  8. Close-up of the phosphor-coated inner side of the screen 


Excellent illustration. Even includes well-commented POV-ray source.



  • Nominate and support. - ed g2s • talk 13:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose.  It's a useful illustration, but has a variety of aesthetic problems.  The choice of colors and textures is ugly, the composition is a little cluttered, the font used for the numbers is inappropriate and some of the edges (for example in the circle marked '5') lack antialiasing. Redquark 18:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Support edit 1.  Okay, most of my concerns were addressed. Redquark 22:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Another POV-Ray!!! I would support a higher-res version. Who wants to bust out POV-Ray and do some crazy rendering? I think the colors are fine, from what I remember of seeing inside of a CRT they are fairly accurate.  -Ravedave 20:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Very informative. I don't see any problem with the colors, although I share Ravedave's concern about the resolution. If someone who has POV-Ray installed would like to give it a try... -Glaurung 05:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • STRONG Oppose In addition to the (slight) aesthetic problems, there is an error in the illustration: The phosphor dots. They are actually not hexagonal, but round (made photomechanically by exposing photoresist through the mask), and also, there is a black area separating the dots from each other. As shown, even the slightest error in focus or alignment of the electron beams would cause huge color/purity errors - the black area between the dots prevents that. This needs to be fixed before proceeding. --Janke | Talk 06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose My eyes! My eyes! It's a good informative illustration, but not a great one. --Surgeonsmate 08:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC) (Later: I've withdrawn my opposition after seeing the edits, but I still don't think it's striking enough for FP. --Surgeonsmate 07:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • 

  • Support very tedious work was required for this, and the result could be slightly better with better choice of colors. That red in cross-section of tube bothers eyes, but it can be featured as is IMHO... -- Mtodorov 69 12:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


... as long as that error is fixed, i.e. add some black around round phosphor dots. That shouldn't be too much trouble, and we'd have a technically accurate image. --Janke | Talk 16:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I made a larger render and applied the requested changes in Photoshop (sorry, I'm not much of a POV-Ray guru - it's my first try). Of course it could be larger still, but these two renders already took the better part of a night on my lowly machine... -- grm_wnr Esc 19:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, I don't mind the colors too much and it is informative. BrokenSegue 20:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support for edit 1. Good enough for me, although a higher resolution render is always useful. ;) Diliff   | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment The cutaway color needs to be changed. The red in the zoom makes it hard to tell that there is a cut-away in the zoom as well. Also the cutaways near the end are still bright red, when the rest are dull red. What does everyone think the cutaway color should be? I am thinking dull orange.-Ravedave 21:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • There should probably be a label on the big thing at the top which is the grounding cable I believe? I think they're usually a little smaller as well (or at least, could be for the purpose of this illustration). At the moment it looks like (3) is labelling it. ed g2s • talk 22:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am preparing a new render, with the cuts actually changed to the dull orange / light brown Ravedave suggests in the POV-Ray stage (it's necessary because the coils reflect them). I also added a label to the anode connection (per ed g2s), and another two additional ones to the two coils. It should be finished tomorrow. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • POV-Ray died on me just now, and I can't keep it running over night. I've uploaded a version with all the Photoshop fixes and an approximation of the new cut color, so you can comment on them while I'm sleeping ;). I'll incorporate any suggestions into a new version when I have the new render (should be tomorrow at this time at the latest) -- grm_wnr Esc 01:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Okay, final version is uploaded. Nearly all comments have been incorporated. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Very nice, however beam coming out of the electron gun is off. Also be sure to provide the updated POVRay source, the Edit is still pointing to the original source. -Ravedave 17:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support edit. This is getting better all the time. But you have my support already, since the errors are fixed. A great illustration whatever the final version will be. (PS: I don't think the "beam is off" - it's a delta configuration, not in-line.) - yes, it was off, but fixed now, I see...  --Janke | Talk 17:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Another small point: the blue beam doesn't seem to line up with the hole in the electron gun. ed g2s • talk 18:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment I think the current brown color of the cutaway is too close to that of the copper deflection coils. Maybe we should find a different color. (perhaps a pale blue or gray?) Ghostofgauss 21:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Okay, fixed the beam source, and nudged the cutaway color a bit towards yellow to seperate it from the copper(grey or blue don't look good, I tried). Source is available now. Again, a cache purge is in order. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Could you also upload a label-less version? ed g2s • talk 12:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Strong support -- me again, excellent improvements, just one thing: the coil that is around the tube has a brown cross-section instead of copper one. That was red in original, too. Is that too hard to be fixed? -- Mtodorov 69 08:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Support. Edited version. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support 1.7, I like a good diagram and this is a good diagram. -- BWF89 03:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support 1.7, great improvements. Just a little sad that they couldn't be worked into the povray source though. --Dschwen 11:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Most of them are by now, actually. The only really important missing one is the hexagon to round phosphor dot change, and that one would be quite difficult to do for a few reasons. Remember, the labelling / closeup compositing wasn't in the source to begin with. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Promoted Image:CRT color enhanced.png Another great example of image improvement through the FPC process. A round of applause for User:Grm wnr please:-) ~ Veledan • Talk 19:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]





 Lantana_invasion 


Lantana Invasion of abandoned citrus plantation; Moshav Sdey Hemed, Israel; May 2, 2006


I took the photo for article Invasive species, that had no illustration or image. Imho it clearly demonstrates the concept of plant invasion.




I'll try to do a better one - panorama or else. How do I remove this candidate? RickP 08:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted   --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]





 Mandoe.JPG 


 Abandoned shoe, Kåre Sand, Wadden Sea, Denmark 


I was quite struck by this image when I first saw it on Bertilvidet's user page.

Abandoned shoe, Kåre Sand, Wadden Sea, Denmark. Photo by User:Bertilvidet




Not promoted   howcheng  {chat} 18:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted    ~ Veledan • Talk 18:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]





 Cyclone Gafilo 


 Cyclone Gafilo approaching Madagascar. 


Satellite image of Cyclone Gafilo. Amongst the feature pictures, we don't have any good, straight-from-above pic of a tropical cyclone. Catarina pic is good, but we should also have a high-res feature photo from powerful cyclone showing the structure more clearly. Wikimedia Commons has similar feature pic about Hurricane Dennis, but this one is clearly better, showing great eye detail and more symmetrical spiral bands. Plus, it's a pretty pic and kinda ominous with huge cyclone next to hapless Madagascar.






Promoted Image:Cyclone_Gafilo.jpeg



Yellow rose


Yellow rose


Nice close up of a yellow, rose with green fringes, beautiful core pf the flower visible, it's a spike-less yelow rose.




Not promoted   howcheng  {chat} 18:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted    ~ Veledan • Talk 18:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]





 International Phonetic Alphabet chart 


Chart showing the pronunciations of the IPA.


This chart shows information on every symbol recognized by the IPA as a distinct human speech sound. This is extremely useful, well-arranged and pleasing to the eye, of high quality, and of extraordinary importance in the world of linguistics. Appears prominently in International Phonetic Alphabet. Created by User:Kwamikagami.



  • Nominate and support. - Dylan 19:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose.  It's very informative and uses a nice font, but I can't bring myself to support a boring black-and-white chart for FP.  Sorry.  Actually in some sense this is not even a "picture" since it looks like it was generated straight from a PDF or similar format.  I might support this if it was spiced up with color and the layout was rearranged to take advantage of the fact that pictures don't have to be shaped like A4 pages. Redquark 22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppozzzzzzzz - oops, nooded off there...--Deglr6328 00:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose. LOL at previous comment. Its all been said. Informative sheet, but not a featured picture. It doesn't visually represent the article, its merely a useful reference for the article. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose, It's just a black and white paper -- BWF89 01:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose That is just the kind of information that we do not want to be hidden in pictures - that is what the text in the articles is for. Mikeo 07:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Seems a bit dull to be a FP --Scott 11:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak oppose.  It's very informative, and organizes the information in a way that explanatory text could not. However, as per Diliff, it's a useful reference for the article but is not useful on its own. bcasterline t 12:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak oppose If it could be made into something an english teacher would want to laminate hang on thier wall I would support. I would say it needs to be colored up nicely and put into a wide rather than tall format. More like Image:Leaf_morphology_no_title.png. -Ravedave 17:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Fierce, full blooded, ravenously oppose This is supposed to be a featured PICTURE Ben Payton

    • 

  • Oppose this is a chart.--K.C. Tang 07:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose this is a chart, not a picture Leidiot 12:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support just to make it clear that charts and tables (such as this one) can be nominated and promoted here (we promote images here, not just pictures). BrokenSegue 21:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose. I agree charts could become featured, but I don't see this as an interesting picture. If it had historical value at least it might work.say1988 03:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - heh, I'm actually intimately familiar with this chart. Every phonetics student ends up basically memorising it. It's actually extremely well presented and contains a lot of useful information. But as a picture, it's as boring as a newspaper. Stevage 12:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - I highly suggest you all revisit the page and look at its contribution to the page. From my understanding, it is the basis for the page itself! There are whole sections that are used to break down each individual section within the image which shows its complexity. Even if you vote against this, I hope you will not simply say no because its just a chart; boring or otherwise.--Jonthecheet 08:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose, it puts some IPA characters in italics, a practice best avoided. I'm also not convinced of its copyright status: while it is not identical to the official chart of the International Phonetic Association, it is awfully close to it. Perhaps close enough to it that User:Kwamikagami does not actually have the right to release it under the GFDL, I don't know. Angr (talk • contribs) 22:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - I have no problems with the image, however its not a 'picture' and will not brighten up the front page.


Not promoted  

Not promoted    ~ Veledan • Talk 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]





Mt Hotham Summer Scenery


Mt Hotham Summer Scenery


I might have to take up Dschwen on his suggestion for a round the world trip. I know this is poor timing but Hotham is such a beautiful place and I like this photo.




I actually think the red pole is an integral part as to my mind they typify an alpine road. You know you're on a road where it snows when you get those red poles. But that's just my perception of it... --Fir0002 www 09:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have known that was a snow pole (not needed in England!) but my opinion on the pic doesn't change - Adrian Pingstone 17:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there are lots of snow poles on the high routes over the Pennines. Halsteadk 22:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I live in Bristol where we rarely see snow nowadays - Adrian Pingstone 22:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Not promoted    ~ Veledan • Talk 18:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]










Nominations older than 7 days, the maximum voting period, decision time!




When NOT promoted, perform the following:



  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:

    • {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }}
    

    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
    2. 

  2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the June archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
    3. 

  3. Remove the {{FPC}} tag from the image and any other suggested versions.


When promoted, perform the following:



  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:

    {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}}

    • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted.  It should show up as:
    

    Promoted Image:FILENAME.JPG

    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
    2. 

  2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the June archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
    3. 

  3. Add the image to Template:Announcements/New featured pages -  Date, then alphabetical order
    4. 

  4. Add the image to Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom
    5. 

  5. Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian)

    You might want to use Template:FP: {{subst:FP|file=|description=|at=|by=}}
    6. 

  6. Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian)
    7. 

  7. Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top
    8. 

  8. Update the picture's tag, replacing {{FPC}} with {{FeaturedPicture}}, and remove {{FPC}} from alternatives of the promoted image.
    9. 

  9. Notify the nominator by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|Image:file_name.xxx}} on the nominator's talk page. For example:  {{subst:PromotedFPC|Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}
    10. 

  10. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|Image:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example:  {{subst:UploadedFP|Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}
    11. 

  11. Optionally, you can check Wikipedia:Picture of the day and feature the image as upcoming POTD. Note that these are featured in order they are promoted.


Nomination for delisting


Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. Please leave a note on the original uploader and/or nominator's talk page to let him know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.



Note: Please use Delist or Keep as your vote.


  • If consensus is to keep status then archive nomination for removal on archive page and optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page, also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section.
    • 

  • If consensus is to remove status then remove the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag and leave a note on the picture's talk page, also note your conclusion on the bottom of the removal candidacy section.  Also remove the image from Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
    • 

  • Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from FP in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).


Image:Dostoevsky 1872.jpg


[3]
Nice picture, but very small - it was promoted a long time ago. I can't find a bigger version on the internet (except for one slightly-larger image that is inferior to this one in terms of color). I put a message on the uploaders talk page a while ago, with no response.




Archived removal requests


Suspended promotions


This is section is for FPCs put on hold for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.

Current suspended nominations:



Circlestrafing.png


Circlestrafing.png


SVG version


Animated GIF


It might be illustrative for the subject it explains, but I don't think it's good enough to be a FP. It has been a candidate for delisting once before, in November 2004, and the votes were 3/6. –Gustavb 01:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I'd make an SVG of it, but only if everyone promises not to go all "oppose, not a macro shot of an insect"... err, "not striking", of course. Just kidding, I think I'll make one anyway. ;) (might take a while, though) -- grm_wnr Esc 01:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support an SVG. Do you know of a good tutorial for making SVGs out of Gifs? I tried making one for a gerotor but failed pretty bad. My lines turned out pretty crappy. I looked at the inkscape tutorial and it showed the automated one, but not what to do if the results sucked.  -Ravedave 01:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Last time this was nominated people suggested making an animated version, anyone wants to take up that challenge? SVG sounds good though... Neutral for now. BrokenSegue 02:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Once there is an SVG I will make an animated version. -Ravedave 04:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote to delist this one and replace it with an animated version. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, let's see what Ravedave will provide. The presentation needs to be clearer than this. --Janke | Talk 07:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I suggest we move this to the "Suspended Promotions" section because it seems we all would just like this changed to a better or animated version.--Jonthecheet 17:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



SVG version is finished, see right. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made an animated GIF as well, just because I always wanted to do that. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit fast? BrokenSegue 20:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's slower now... -- grm_wnr Esc 23:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... but still quite jerky. Any chance of doubling the number of images? Then it would be much smoother, and even slower. --Janke | Talk 06:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Good idea with the animations, but it doesnt properly convey the theory behind circle strafing. The guy in the center doesnt moveusually the guy you are circling tries to shoot at you, but can't keep the same rhythm as the strafer.--Chris 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the center person should be rotating to the left as well, just not keeping up with the outside guy?-Ravedave 20:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've added my version, which is not complete. The last animation is not correct, it's missing part of the circle. Also I need to slow it down.  Any other comments? Which style do people like better? What do you guys want to see in an anim? -Ravedave 20:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've overwritten my version with a new one that tries to adress above points - Clear your caches to see it. (for reference: old version) -- grm_wnr Esc 20:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Alright, I'd say demote the current version and promote the svg and this animation. BrokenSegue 02:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • The animation looks great (with inner person moving). What now? Does this have to go through the featured pictures candiates again?--Jonthecheet 02:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes. Delist the old still picture, and nominate the first of the animations for FPC. Be sure it's been in the article for a while, though... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Delist original. I've removed the 'on hold, don't vote' notice from the top as the animated versions and the svg are here now. I vote delist original and nominate gnm_wnr's animation independently. Good job on the svg version, but I wouldn't support it over the improved animation and I don't think we need 2 ~ Veledan • Talk 17:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Delist. The original is made obsolete by an animated version of the SVG. Send animated one for FPC (which ever animated one we end up selecting). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment - I don't like the animated versions at all. For starters, the characters are moving around the same speed as their bullets. If this was the case, the strafer could never hit his target - his bullets would always miss to the right. And as a spectator, it's really hard to make sense of all the bullets flying around.  A good picture should try and break down and synthesise the situation - the nice static SVG does this better. I would probably remove the red guy's bullets though - remember the picture is about about the blue guy shooting. As soon as they're both shooting, the picture represents some sort of combat, instead of a simple shooting/moving technique. You could even replace the red guy with some symbolic "target" to make it even clearer. Stevage 12:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I like the SVG version with the red guy shooting back.  The whole point of circlestrafing is to avoid return fire, after all.  making it not "combat" would be rather silly. Night Gyr 18:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevage, there is no sideway momentum from moving in a circle imparted on the bullet. So they will hit. Would making the blue guys bullets all different colors help? (I also removed my crappy anm)-Ravedave 20:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]






To see recent changes, purge the page cache












Template:AprilCalendar2006





Template:MayCalendar2006













Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=51912674"