Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates
![→[[Media:Chocolate02.jpg|Chocolate]]](#Media:Chocolate02.jpg|Chocolate){kind=link}
| Featured article (FA) tools |
|---|
|
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 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. While we tolerate some degree of fair use, a simple image gallery is of limited educational value (a requirement for fair use), and showcasing other people's work without their permission may be considered unfair.
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):
- Picture A. 7 in favour, 2 against. This deserves to be a featured picture and would be added to Wikipedia:Featured pictures and Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible as well as the current archive.
- Picture B. 4 in favour, 2 against. This one doesn't have a consensus and gets added only to the current archive.
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.
How to add your nomination
If you have problems formatting your nomination, someone else will fix it, don't worry! However, you may find it useful to copy this form and paste it in the edit box:
<br style="clear:both;" />
===[[Media:name.jpg|Name of image]]===
[[Image:FILENAME|thumb|CAPTION]]
Add your reasons for nominating it here,
say what article it is used on and who created the image. - ~~~~
* Votes go here - ~~~~
* And here - ~~~~
Once you have nominated the picture, use the Wikipedia template for featured picture candidates on the correspondent image page.
Current nominations
Please add all nominations and self-nominations to the top of this list.
I like this painting a lot. By By Gustave Doré (1855) →Raul654 04:46, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
My father is a bee keeper, and bees swarm in spring (Australia) so naturally I took a shot. There is an incredible number of bees in this swarm.
- Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:53, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice and big chunk of bees -- Chris 73 Talk 09:01, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not clean or crisp enough to be feature-worthy. Nice photo, though. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:21, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Since when is a swarm clear? --Alphax (talk) 02:54, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. You're a brave man/woman, Fir! — David Remahl 04:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Thanks - my camera has no zoom currently (for some reason anything beyond maximum zoom out comes out very blue - I'm saving up for the 20D!)--Fir0002 05:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Neutrality. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. The top of the image is blurry because the bees were very active, and their wings move very quickly. --Fir0002 05:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A nice shot of the Meadow Argus butterfly. I took this in my front yard. It is common to Australia. I perfer the first photo, but I though I'd put both up for a choice.
- Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support either but prefer second - feel like I'm getting vertigo from the first. -- Oarih 15:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support either, but with a slight preference for the second. — David Remahl 04:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support either; prefer second (more detail and less vertigo) Robin Patterson 04:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support second. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A pretty good look at chocolate.
- Support. Self Nomination --Fir0002 07:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. The solid chocolate looks "beaten up" with light brown dents at the edges. The brown glob of melted chocolate looks not so appetizing. Finally, the angle of the solid chocolate sticking in the melted one looks not like it is melting in progress but rather like a molten piece with a solid chunk stuck in it afterwards. Still a good image, but not quite feature material -- Chris 73 Talk
- Ditto. Chameleon 14:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Strongly support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:13, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Weak support. Does look like the slab has been inserted into the melted glob --Alphax (talk) 02:59, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Um, that was what was intended. I guess the idea was wrong then. --Fir0002 05:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. — David Remahl 05:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The business end of one of the world's most venomous and aggressive spiders. The article that hosts it could use some work, but this image is gorgeous.
Image uploaded by me, taken by wildlife photographer John Triffo, who gave me permission to use this image on Wikipedia. ClockworkTroll 22:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support, for what it's worth as nominator. ClockworkTroll 22:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The nominator vote counts fine, as it is not a self nomination. Its an excellent picture, but the image license status looks like a problem for FP. -- Solipsist 22:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Quite a lot of eyes looking at the viewer. Copyright status is completely OK for Wikipedia. -- Chris 73 Talk 22:51, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Alphax (talk) 01:58, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Brilliant shot. I'll now know to look out for them! Always wondered what the most deadliest spider in the world looked like. --Fir0002 07:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. License status is vague. Is this GFDL? Or non-commercial? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:16, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- It's not vague in the least. We can use it any way we want, but others cannot use it at all. →Raul654 01:20, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This was a photograph I took to satisfy a request on Wikipedia:Requested_images for artifical poppies to go on Remembrance Day. 11 November is coming up. -- Solipsist 21:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support (Self nomination). -- Solipsist 21:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Not sure:
- These aren't the typical artificial poppies I have always seen for Remembrance Day.
- If we're going to feature a poppy, I'd prefer a real one.
- There is a spelling mistake in the title. Chameleon 21:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. A pretty ordinary photo. Well taken, but still not that interesting. --Fir0002 07:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Rather plain Enochlau 10:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- oppose. agree that it is rather plain. Cavebear42 22:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
An illustration of a flea from the first book to show what the microscopic world looks like. Used in Micrographia. -- Solipsist 21:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 21:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Alphax (talk) 01:59, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very good. --Fir0002 07:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:19, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- The "colorized" version looks like a negative image of the original black and white picture - dark areas are bright and bright areas are dark. What is the rationale for the process used?--Eloquence*
- Support the inverted version, I think it makes the picture clearer. Small point regarding copyright status...The {{PD-art}} tag is not completely appropriate, since the image has been post-processed in a way that requires creativity. Solipsist has two options: license the new version under GFDL, or release the updated version into the public domain again. If the first, the tag should be GFDL. If the other, I suppose {{PD-art}} is fine, but solipsist must still make the release of the changes clear. — David Remahl 04:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Slight support; but I love the original - could we have it instead? Robin Patterson 04:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. It always seemed cool to me how identical to cicada shells fleas appear. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I found this image. Great pic of what it is. Chameleon 16:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment — I've just realised that someone previously nominated one of my lion pics. It was 5 votes for, 5 against. The votes against were mainly due to the unnatural background. This photo has a natural one. more pix. Chameleon 18:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:34, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- A rather unfortunate combination of light and shade make the thumbnail look as though the lion is breathing fire. Maybe some attention in the GIMP is required. Gdr 19:24, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
- Hahahahah. Vivid imagination. I see it now that you have got the idea in my head. I don't think it really needs any editing. Chameleon 19:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Breathing fire ?!?. Realy bad halitosis maybe, but fire? -- Solipsist 21:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I noticed the "fire" look as well. It looks more like rays of light. You can only see it on thumbnail view. But I think the fire effect brings interest to the photo. A good shot. Pity it was taken at the zoo though. --Fir0002 07:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Alphax (talk) 03:03, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I yawn in bright sunshine too. Robin Patterson 05:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't know why, it just doesnt look appealing to me in the slightest. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Beautiful shot from PDphoto.org. Used in the golf article. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:56, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Comment - Can we have some reasons for nominating, a caption, and a link to the article which this image adds significant information. -- Solipsist 07:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)Thanks.- Object. It's just a bit so-so. Nothing special. Chameleon 21:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Object. Nice landscape but overcast day makes everything dull, especially the background and the sky -- Chris 73 Talk 22:54, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- You do realise it's Ireland? ;) porge 23:22, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree that is nice, but its a so-so picture. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Self-nom. An excellent picture of beautifully-decorated sake barrels. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Looks too chaotic --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice picture, but the sake article could use a lead image which shows sake poured into sake-cups looking like a liquid, or possibly in a bottle. -- Solipsist 07:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice pic. Chameleon 21:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Good angle you've taken it at Enochlau 10:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Markalexander100 04:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very nice. — David Remahl 04:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
All the details you ever wanted to see on a cockroach -- Chris 73 Talk 12:14, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support (Nominator) -- Chris 73 Talk 12:14, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Janderk 12:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. So cute. -- Solipsist 14:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support weakly. I just really hate those white background pictures, but the detail is great on this little bug. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:10, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support, and hope never to see one in real life. fabiform | talk 16:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:08, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I think that white background look is very good for an encyclopedia (as you may have noticed). A good macro shot as well. --Fir0002 07:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Viewers will "gulp" then enjoy. Robin Patterson 05:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Great action shot. →Raul654 07:06, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Used in Battle of Okinawa.
- Suppport. What does "draws a bead" mean? -- Chris 73 Talk 07:27, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- It means to take aim at something. →Raul654 08:04, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not bad, but there are more telling war images. Janderk 12:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose -- William M. Connolley 19:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- Oppose Enochlau 10:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Action"? Robin Patterson 05:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A featured image by Chepry on the Polish Wiki. Used to illustrate barrel organ, although perhaps it should be at organ grinder too. -- Solipsist 23:48, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 23:48, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:00, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Janderk 12:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Best Picture I have seen oon Wikipedia.
- Please sign your posts, especially when voting on something :-). --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- William M. Connolley 19:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- Support. I love it. Maybe I'm a little biased because of my Polish background. Still a great photo. Such a dignified organ player. --Fir0002 07:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 11:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Robin Patterson 05:03, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A featured image by Baba66 on the German Wiki. Illustration showing the elements used to construct a Turkish calligraphic seal, used on Tughra and Mahmud II. -- Solipsist 23:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 23:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Wow, excellent illustration! A pity it isn't a bit larger, though the current resolution is sufficient for screen use. However, it seems incomplete. When the animation completes, there are two strokes that are still gray. According to [1], they're part of the el-muzaffer word. I think it would be difficult to add colour to those strokes without access to the original files, though, because of anti-aliasing...I'll support anyway, with that minor reservation. — David Remahl 00:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I feel bad for opposing so many pictures lately, I just have high standards I suppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Was thinking of nominating this myself. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:02, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose because of the missing strokes noted above. It should be easy enough to fix if the original contributor is still around.Markalexander100 09:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Strongly Support, this illustration helped me understand Arabic names.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 10:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - the missing strokes are anoying - I want to know the rest - support if this is fixed - sannse (talk) 11:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I put a request on the page of the german creator -- Chris 73 Talk 12:20, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Great, then hopefully we can get it in a higher resolution too. — David Remahl 04:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I put a request on the page of the german creator -- Chris 73 Talk 12:20, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I agree with the missing strokes thing though.
- Oppose, the animation is irritating -- William M. Connolley 19:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- Support! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:57, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Would be nice if the missing strokes could be added though. Janderk 11:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. If you're going to illustrate nice calligraphy, at least choose an elegant font to go with it. Garamond, perhaps. The colours aren't so good either (yellow on white is hard to read.) Gdr 13:50, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
- Oppose. I loathe animated gifs. It would be just as useful without animation, just showing the coloured version. dab 14:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I beg to differ, I think it is a lot clearer with animation. — David Remahl 04:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Strong support. Pictures in an encyclopedia are meant to explain things, and this animation does a brillant job of showing the structure in what looks like a confusing mess, within just a few seconds. Gdr, I doubt you'll find many Ottoman sultans whose tughras were in Garamond. regards, High on a tree 03:59, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A featured picture by Nova on the Polish Wiki. A clear and detailed photograph in the finest tradition of botanical illustration. Used in Manitoba maple. -- Solipsist 22:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 22:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose for same reason I opposed JPEG example flower.jpg. I cant stand the white backgrounds. And even still I think it's pretty boring. Maybe a picture of the leaf in a natural setting perhaps in autumn would be more appealing. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Professionally executed extraction. Clear. — David Remahl 00:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I like the white background since it makes the subject "pop" off the screen. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:10, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:03, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Image is too small for a featured picture. The 37 KB JPEG makes JPEG artifacts show up and you can't see that details. Plus I agree somewhat with ScottyBoy that it would be better in a natural setting.Janderk 12:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Agree with Solipsist's comments. fabiform | talk 16:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - as a botanical pic its good (though should be higher res); but as a featured its not good enough -- William M. Connolley 19:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- Oppose, agree with WMC. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:47, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Ditto. Chameleon 21:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A featured by Softeis on the German Wiki. Predictably, I've added it to Chevrolet Corvette which is already rather picture heavy but mostly with unattributed or non-free photos. -- Solipsist 22:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Beautiful picture, beautiful scenery. beautiful car. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Agree with ScottyBoy900Q. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:04, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support Janderk 12:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support, great big pictureRustyCale 12:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:28, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Did I forget to support this one. -- Solipsist 21:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A similar picture is featured on the Polish Wiki, but curiously for a smaller less detail shot. This one is by Raimond Spekking from the German Wiki and of course illustrates Deutsche Bank. -- Solipsist 21:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 21:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:10, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. — David Remahl 00:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Cool shot -- Chris 73 Talk 02:05, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The background is too messy and lacks contrast with the subject. Fine for an article, not for a featured image. Janderk 12:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose (ditto Janderk) -- William M. Connolley 19:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- Oppose (ditto) - more twin towers? Robin Patterson 05:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Background houses rather distracting to the eye. Enochlau 10:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A featured picture by Marcela on the German Wiki. Nice to capture the vanishing traditional methods of working the land -- Solipsist 21:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 21:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support Dunc|☺ 21:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. His clothes also match the old style -- Chris 73 Talk 02:07, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Janderk 12:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. fabiform | talk 16:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- William M. Connolley 19:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC).
A featured picture by Richard Mayer on the German Wiki, where it is used as part of a series of photos on a rather interesting looking article on the Marginated Tortoise which could use translating. I've cropped it to be square and added it to egg, to redress the understandable avian bias (also on tortoise of course). -- Solipsist 21:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 21:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Hello World! -- Chris 73 Talk 02:09, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Poor turtle. The first thing it sees while getting out of the egg is a giant with a camera. Very nice picture. Janderk 09:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- sannse (talk) 11:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Mpolo 12:40, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) (I'm planning on working on translating Marginated tortoise...)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support, how wonderful! It would have been interesting to know the scale though. fabiform | talk 16:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- William M. Connolley 19:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:09, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Awesome image sequence showing the testing of the Mark 48 torpedo by the Australian Navy. Great visualization for Mark 48 torpedo and Torpedo. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:24, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's pretty cool, but doesn't seem to fit in with the idea of being a FP. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. A great image and adds well to mark 48 article.Cavebear42 15:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Although it beats Image:USS Port Royal CG-73.jpg. I quite like the 4th image (centre left) which more or less gives the whole story in one. It might be a better illustration for torpedo whilst keeping this sequence for Mark 48 torpedo. -- Solipsist 14:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:14, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. Would like to see two things tried. 1. obtaining larger copy of one of the middle sequence, 2. using an animated gif to run through it. Dunc|☺ 18:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- (1) Uploaded the 4th image of the sequence separately Image:Mark 48 Torpedo breaking ship.jpg. (2) IMHO a GIF sequence would be less desirable because the shots are from many different angles and distances, confusing the user in a slide show. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:32, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Striking? Yes. Shocking? Yes. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:48, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. The picture really is well done, regardless of content. The depth (with the soldier in the foreground and the perspective going back), the bright colors of of the flags contrasted with the muted background colors. . . It's a nice piece. And it's historically important as well. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:10, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. What's shocking about it, except for the terrible choice of colours on the coffins? That said, I agree that it is a well-composed photograph, possibly so well-executed that it would be POV to feature it separately from an article that can balance it. — David Remahl 22:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. It's used on Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (contrasting with the photo of an Iraqi casualty), 2003 Invasion of Iraq (in the last 3rd of the article), and Dover test (where its a very useful illustration). I don't think it is POV anywhere. (Disclaimer: I uploaded the image). -- Chris 73 Talk 23:00, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. 630x381, with visible compression artefacts. Just not good enough for FP. ed g2s • talk 01:52, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I will contact the MemoryHole and ask for the High Res version. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:14, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose -- not brilliant, only adequate in execution. As ed said, it's quite small and it is blurred, both in the distance and at the front soldier's hand. ✏ Sverdrup 15:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose -- i feel it is POV in the articles meantioned above in its contrast of our dead vs. their's. The choice of colors on the coffins is standard for all fallen soldiers. the pic is blurry and i would like to be respectful of their wishes and not propagate it across the net.Cavebear42 15:52, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Whose wishes? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:03, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
- The pic's page has a link talking about the controversy.Cavebear42 03:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- To save everyone reading the article (terrible newspaper!), they are the US Defence Department. Markalexander100 03:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The pic's page has a link talking about the controversy.Cavebear42 03:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Whose wishes? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:03, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Purely as a picture its not great, and also I roughly agree with Cavebear -- William M. Connolley 18:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- support. Might make some people think. Dunc|☺ 19:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. It is one of those images that raises everybody's awareness and gets talked about a lot. It clearly shows the dark side of war, which many do not want to see or to be shown, but always exists. Janderk 09:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support, if you can get higher resolution version, that'd be good too. BrokenSegue 21:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support, because it is an exellent picture, and not for political reasons. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support Enochlau 10:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose: I think the idea of "featured images" is to encourage people to gdfl their work, and not as an award for government propaganda (Yes, it's a good image, as you should hope they can come up with, considering their resources). dab 14:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment - Can we confirm that these are actually casualties from Iraq? I'm seeing nasa saying that many of the pictures on that page are from the columbia. I continue to oppose the pic either way but if it goes through let's be sure its factually correct. Cavebear42 04:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Brilliant in its concise simpleness, elegant, easy to understand. Essential to fully understanding the article, European Union.
- Support. Particularly like how the user also created and posted a Blank Version that was used in other languages. A wonderful example of creating an open-source, collaboration-friendly illustration. - [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:33, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Would support a colored version. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:46, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Umm. What? Are you on a greyscale display device? It has colour.
- Support. Clear and informative. James F. (talk) 01:52, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It is a map. Its information is claear, which any good map should offer. It is not scintillating, arresting, breathtaking, or in any other way noteworty as anything more than a map. Denni☯ 02:15, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
- Oppose. Informative indeed, but not featured picture worthy. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Just a map, not even a superb one at that. Too small to see the southern Slavic countries clearly.
- Would you rather it be out of scale? Or do you have a suggestion to rectify this? [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 00:49, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's just a map. Alphax (talk) 07:00, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. (1) Much too small; (2) The colours are hard to tell apart, especially the 2007 admission from the candidate country. (3) The italic serif font used for non-members is very hard to read, especially at small sizes. If I didn't already know the name of Serbia and Montenegro I wouldn't be able to learn it from this map. (4) The text is not always horizontal. (5)
Looks like it uses the Mercator Projection.(6) Inconsistent use of fonts: italic serif font means "neither member nor candidate" on the main map but something else on the inset. (7) Need a better caption for the inset than "Not on main map". Otherwise, nice. Gdr 11:14, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC) - Oppose, same reasons as Gdr, plus - GASP! - the font of Germany is smaller than the font of Poland! ;-) Chris 73 Talk 11:44, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I had a go. The map is so small that it's a real challenge to get all the names on and still have everything legible. What do you think? Gdr 18:01, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC) P.S. I'm pretty sure it's Guadeloupe, not "Guadalope". And I removed a spurious bit of border from near Moldova. (But should I have named Kaliningrad?)
Very professional image, great colors and focus, lovely clouds as well. Shot by fellow wikipedian Matt Crypto and featured in Canal lock.
- Support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 17:54, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice colors, good shot -- Chris 73 Talk 22:46, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice picture, but doesn't do a good job of illustrating the canal lock article. All the interesting stuff (the canal, the sluices, the gates, the water in the lock chamber) is out of sight. Image:Canal-sequence.jpg is much better. Gdr 22:56, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
- Support, but it'd be nice to have the location noted on the description page, too. -- DrBob 22:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 00:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. This photo makes no sense to a viewer without the information in the article. Moreover, it does not provide the photographic essence of what a canal lock is. It's a fine technical shot, but put up your hand if you say "Wow!" Denni☯ 02:18, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
- Oppose, but I do like it. I agree with the idea that possibly, it's just not the right angle. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, although I'm really chuffed with the positive comments people have made about this photo! I've had a browse through the current Featured Pictures and I'm not convinced that this image is quite in the same league, either aesthetically or illustratively. (See [2] for some funkier photos of the same part of the world). — Matt 15:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A photograph that illustrates precisely what the Red Hat Society is. Dmgerman 11:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Adequate, but I don't like the composition. Distracting background. GWO 11:45, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose Ugly. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 13:45, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose While it is very representative of the society, I don't "believe it is one of the finest images on Wikipedia". Cavebear42 15:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. A photo of say, 1000 red hats would be better. Alphax (talk) 07:03, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Trust Schumacher, Small is Beautiful. A very well balanced USDA photograph of a Bonsai tree. -- Solipsist 23:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 23:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Definitely -- Chris 73 Talk 00:22, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. We need more non geeky images like this. Janderk 08:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Chmouel 10:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Striking. --Cantus 01:22, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice color, and composition. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)
]] 11:24, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose.Neutral. Changed my mind partly because of what i've been reading about the trees. I'd much rather see a picture in a natural setting than against the blue background though. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)- Support. Very nice. I love the rock in the middle, causing the roots to stretch over it. Looks great. --Might and power 22:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very elegant. Alphax (talk) 07:04, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Shows clearly what bonsai is about. — Bill 12:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- support -- sannse (talk) 11:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I really like this image. I got the idea to upload it after seeing references to it over the past few days. I also uploaded a closer up image (Image:Eagle nebula closeup.jpg) but I believe the wider image of the whole nebula is just as vibrant and amazing. Click on it to see it larger. Looks great. Someone is bound to bring up the fact that it's a little fuzzy. To that I say...you get a clearer picture of an object 7,000 light years away and we'll use that. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support closer image. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support image as shown on the right, better than the closeup -- Chris 73 Talk 00:23, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Support full image. James F. (talk) 00:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Love it. --Cantus 01:23, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Fuzzy and is missing a substantial portion of the nebula due to cropping. Better, less-fuzzy and more complete picture here: [3]. A better up-close picture is here: [4] and here: [5] - [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:05, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- I was debating whether or not to upload the closer picture of the "fingers," but decided not to because it did now show the entire image. Now that I see the other larger image of the complete nebula, I do admit that I like it, but I also like the one I submitted for this vote. Anyone else have any comments about this new image? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support full image, don't like the closeup. Alphax (talk) 07:07, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support either/all but only one. I can't make my mind up which I prefer. The wide-angle shot has less detail, but has the advantage of being less familiar. The even wider shot that DAVODD points to is excellent too. -- Solipsist 07:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment The original image I submitted (Image:Eagle_nebula.gif) I picked because I think it is a lot more vivid and appealing than the whole nebula. Don't get me wrong, the whole nebula is amazing, but I think the closer image is what I was focusing on. I think the closer picture is much more colorful and nicer to look at. You also can not pick out the eagle head as easy in the later picture. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The picture, when nominated was never used used to illustrate any article. Wikipedia is not a collection of photographs, re: Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not. - [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 23:37, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose version 1 because it is a GIF image limiting the amount of colors to 256, making it look ugly and pixelated. I will support a full color PNG or JPG. Plus it can not be nominated because it is not (yet) in an article. I do support the full version (alternative) though. Janderk 11:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, well lets just go ahead with the full version then if that's what people like. It is in the Eagle Nebula article so it can be voted on. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:41, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
![[3]](https://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0206/eagle_kp09_big.jpg){kind=link}
I've just realised that we don't feature this picture of the Earth taken from Apollo 17 known as The Blue Marble. This view of the Earth has become an icon and is often used to illustrate the fragility of the environment. -- Solipsist 22:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Solipsist 22:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Definite support. I've actually had this in my profile for a while now. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:14, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Oh yes.-- Chris 73 Talk 22:41, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 22:44, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. BUT can't we get a higher res version. Obviously the 6.5 mb version is overkill, but someone should take it and resize it to a 1.5 or 2mb jpg. --Prisonblues 23:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. ed g2s • talk 19:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 00:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Poor quality, blurry. Better, higher-detailed images of Earth exist. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 00:52, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)- Comment - you can see the large square "pixels" that make up this image, instead of a smooth high-resolution quality image. The boundary of the globe is noticeably jagged. I guess it has historical interest, but I'm not convinced that excuses the lack of image quality. I may have to think about this before I make a decision. The successful photos of scenes of warfare from WW-I are not "picture perfect" either, yet certainly tell their tale spectacularly. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 03:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment - well I was going to upload the larger version mentioned by Prisonblues, but I see that ed g2s has already done it. Admittedly the full NASA .tiff shows some surprising problems with dust and scratches, but Ed's version looks pretty good to me - are these concerns over blurs and pixelation just a wiki-cache problem? Does a <CTRL>-Reload help -- Solipsist 06:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support - better than the original. Alphax (talk) 07:10, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support (the image quality of the recent version is so much better) - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 12:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Robin Patterson 05:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nice to see a moody monotone image of the London Millennium Bridge. It looks like this shot was taken before the bridge's novel latteral wobble was corrected. The picture's copyright status is a little odd, but looks more or less equivalent to Creative Commons by attribution. -- Solipsist 20:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Was actually taken post-damping (24 May 2004) -- PaulLomax 09:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I
standwobble corrected. What I should have said was 'It looks like this shot was taken after the bridge's novel latteral wobble was corrected.' Thanks for the better quality version. -- Solipsist 06:49, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I
- Was actually taken post-damping (24 May 2004) -- PaulLomax 09:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Solipsist 20:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I'm a big architecture fan so I gotta say yes. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. According to page refereced "Email me [email protected] for licensing/purchasing enquiries" This does not say that we can use it as the tag on picture states. Did someone email him and he gave permission maybe? Cavebear42 22:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Well Paul Lomax uploaded it. I doubt he emailed himself, but he did take the trouble to use a carefully chosen copyright tag. I think we are OK. -- Solipsist 23:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Nice, bit the image is compressed way too much to 41KB making JPEG artifacts clearly visible. Will support if a higher quality version is uploaded and the license is changed to something more standard.Janderk 08:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)- Support. I see that a much better image with a clear license has been uploaded. Janderk 11:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. nice shoot but a better quality of the picture would be better. Chmouel 10:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose -
really bad quality (and small) JPEG.(this has been fixed, I see) ed g2s • talk 19:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)- Much better quality now, but still looks a bit far too heavily photoshopped, there's a unnatural white-glow around the top of St. Paul's for example. ed g2s • talk 00:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Fixed now - well spotted. I didn't do a very good job with the dodging on the spire (to correct darkness from the grad) first time around. -- PaulLomax 23:55, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Much better quality now, but still looks a bit far too heavily photoshopped, there's a unnatural white-glow around the top of St. Paul's for example. ed g2s • talk 00:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Opposed - agree 100% with Janderk. -- ChrisO 18:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. I have uploaded a larger version of the JPEG, based on the full-size version found on Paul's website. I have also emailed the photographer to ask for permission to license it under the CC-BY-SA. Let's wait for his response so we can evaluate a proper quality image or none at all. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:21, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- License is now CC-BY-NC-SA - hope this helps. Thanks for the support -- PaulLomax 09:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. The picture is now licensed under CC-BY-SA, thank you Paul! I would like to note that the tally for the updated large high-quality photo is now 3-0, not counting oppose votes cast for the initial small version. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:14, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support, good work on the licensing issues. Lorax 22:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Alphax (talk) 07:14, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very clean lines, excellent contrast - a great opportunity to show what monochrome can do. Denni☯ 21:25, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
- Support. Lovely. James F. (talk) 11:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(Self-nomination) Shocking, titillating, fascinating? Probably yes for most non-Japanese. It also add significantly to the understanding of the article about the Japanese toilet. -- Chris 73 Talk 15:10, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Humorous but still definitely no. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 21:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The Porcelain Strikes Back - I like it, but not as a featured picture. -- Solipsist 23:31, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Very funny (did you get sprayed at all?), definitely useful for the article, but the quality of the photo (grainy, flash indoors in a constrained space) isn't high enough, I think. Definitely more illustrative than the Japanese TV ads that show bidets spraying peaches in space to the sound of the music from 2001, though. -- Oarih 09:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Alphax (talk) 07:16, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
One of the NOAA's better photographs of coral. Rather reminds be of the Eagle Nebula. So good, I had to write a stub for the Pillar coral article to use it, although it could also be used on the general coral page. -- Solipsist 08:29, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Solipsist 08:29, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Markalexander100 08:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Denni☯ 18:46, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
- Support. Steschke 21:02, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
- Support. Chris 73 Talk 06:30, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I'm actually gonna go look for a good Eagle Nebula picture now. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 00:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Alphax (talk) 07:17, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:52, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Fascinating. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]]
- Support. Interesting shot. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. Although it's nice to see it in such close detail, I think the composition could be better. The scratches on the right of the coin are a little distracting. -spencer195 05:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The scratches, for me, give the penny a personality. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 18:34, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Should be the whole coin, centered. Even then it might be boring. -- William M. Connolley 09:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Steschke 21:03, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
- Oppose, agree with William M. Connolley -- Chris 73 Talk 06:42, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Boring. A Euro coin would be better. Alphax (talk) 07:17, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support; scratches are characteristic of all coins. A euro coin would clearly be inappropriate if one were illustrating American currency, for which purpose I am sure this picture is intended. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I was going to nominate Image:Aurora-SpaceShuttle-EO.JPG, but in the process of checking for other Aurora pictures, I came across this one which I kind of prefer. -- Solipsist 19:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- De-nominating since the image is copyright. -- Solipsist 14:40, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- support. - Solipsist 19:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Is there a larger version to be found though? --Prisonblues 22:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Looks nice, but the image is blurry even though it's small. Also feel it would be better without the house, since it looks like the aurora is somehow coming out of the chimney or something. - Oarih 02:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose sadly. I'm sure there's a better aurora picture out there somewhere. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:21, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This picture is not NASA PD, see http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/aurora/gallery_01jan04.htm where it states
"Unless otherwise stated, all images are copyrighted by the photographers.", this picture is then listed 3rd from bottom. As such it its not eligible for FP status. With so many NASA aurora photos around, I doubt if we can even claim fair use. ed g2s • talk 12:48, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I think you are right. That page also has a link to the photographer's aurora web site at http://www.aurorawebcam.com/ which also states copyright. Better move it to copyvio. -- Solipsist 14:23, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Very Large Array is still one of the biggest telescopes in the world, illustrated with rather a nice photo from User:Hajor. -- Solipsist 19:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. - Solipsist 19:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Looks crisp and interesting. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:23, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Steschke 21:19, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
- Support -- Chris 73 Talk 06:29, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. 640x480 is too small. Will support if larger version uploaded. ed g2s • talk 11:40, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- So you're judging pictures by their size not their quality? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:05, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support, but would be much happier if of a larger size. James F. (talk) 00:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:13, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
On Passchendaele. It illustrates the total devestation of this infamous WWI battle better than words could. (Public domain) - fabiform | talk 17:51, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- oppose, needs explaining, too careful examination. Isn't Polygon Wood already featured? Dunc|☺ 17:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- support – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 18:10, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. In this case, a picture is worth way more than a thousand words. Denni☯ 01:56, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
- Support strongly as long as it's explained good. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:23, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- War is hell. Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:14, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I judge solely on the picture, which must be striking by itself with out any explanation. In the context of an article this would be a very illustrative addition. As an image that can attract interest it fails. --Oska 14:45, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Explain how this image is not striking? I knew what it was before even reading the caption. I think it sends a very striking picture.--ScottyBoy900Q∞ 15:35, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It is not visually striking. The top image is simply a fairly average black and white aerial shot of a village. The bottom image is another low resolution aerial shot of the same area but now with most features removed making it even less visually interesting. I know that conceptually, the idea that a whole village has been wiped out is striking, but what is striking there is the idea, not the picture. Mentally stunning ideas are important but not the province of this forum, in my opinion, unless they are matched with a similarly striking picture. — By the way you display your bias for using images as props when you say that it sends a very striking picture rather than saying that it is a striking picture. --Oska 06:17, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- I suppose visually striking is in the eyes of the beholder. I believe it to be very visually striking. And in regards to your other comment, you're right, I do see images as props. Is it not you displaying your own bias that they can't be used as such? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:12, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It is not visually striking. The top image is simply a fairly average black and white aerial shot of a village. The bottom image is another low resolution aerial shot of the same area but now with most features removed making it even less visually interesting. I know that conceptually, the idea that a whole village has been wiped out is striking, but what is striking there is the idea, not the picture. Mentally stunning ideas are important but not the province of this forum, in my opinion, unless they are matched with a similarly striking picture. — By the way you display your bias for using images as props when you say that it sends a very striking picture rather than saying that it is a striking picture. --Oska 06:17, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Explain how this image is not striking? I knew what it was before even reading the caption. I think it sends a very striking picture.--ScottyBoy900Q∞ 15:35, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I find it very interesting -- Chris 73 Talk 06:29, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. 1). The photo is Imperial War Museum Q 42918A. 2). For some reason, all the published sources I have rotate the photos so that west is at the top. 3). This photo was one of my first attempts at scanning and is pretty dreadful -- way too dark. Geoff/Gsl 06:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Clearly shows how bad war can get. Janderk 19:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Are these two images supposed to be approximately the same scale? Are these two images supposed to be oriented approximately the same with respect to axis? I just can't seem to convince myself that they are of the same geography. I know that's basicly the point (that the warfare disrupted the surface to a large extent), but I'm still not convinced they are images of the same area. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 03:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I see now. You have to rotate the top image clockwise by about 10 degrees to get the alignment. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 18:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Suport. Markalexander100 02:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Dunc|☺ 16:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- support – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 18:10, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Nor shocking or titillating, but otherwise more than worthy. Does, however, require some assistance for strong left-leaning. (No politics here, folks). Support horizon-corrected image. Denni☯ 02:16, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
- Support the original uncropped image. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:25, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support the horizon-corrected version. --Steschke 21:05, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
- Support either version -- Chris 73 Talk 06:29, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 00:56, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support rotated version. Alphax (talk) 07:19, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support; but I think it needs a bit more rotating. Robin Patterson 05:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The beauty of a midnight sun is something anyone should see sometime in their life. This photograph shows the simplicity and splendor of such a setting. - Engmark 14:41, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
- Oppose, on the somewhat shaky grounds that I cannot view anything like the whole of this 1600 by 1200 image on my 1024 by 768 screen, so the "simplicity and splendour" remains unseen by me! - Adrian Pingstone 16:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I certainly don't think this should stop an image for being featured! (My browser is smart enough to fit the image to the screen, maybe more wikipedia readers have this ability. Anyway, larger resolutions are better). --Sv.
- That's the worst objection I've seen here! Surely you've forgotten your smiley. Try making a sandbox at User:Arpingstone/sandbox and add [[Image:Midnight sun.jpg|thumb|1024px|Midnight sun at [[Nordkapp]], [[Norway]]]], then view at liesure. A better objection is that the image page suggests the photograph was taken at 15 minutes past midnight, so it isn't really the midnight sun at all :) -- Solipsist 17:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I certainly don't think this should stop an image for being featured! (My browser is smart enough to fit the image to the screen, maybe more wikipedia readers have this ability. Anyway, larger resolutions are better). --Sv.
- Support. ✏ Sverdrup 16:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. - Solipsist 17:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- support – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 18:10, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, because unless you watch it not setting, its just a sunset, and thus not particularly striking -- William M. Connolley 22:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC).
- Context is what's important in the encyclopaedia. Pictures shouldn't be expected to stand completely on their own. — David Remahl 22:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Actually that's a good point. I have seen the midnight sun illustrated as a composite of timelapse images taken every hour. - Solipsist 05:07, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Context is what's important in the encyclopaedia. Pictures shouldn't be expected to stand completely on their own. — David Remahl 22:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. — David Remahl 22:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --Prisonblues 22:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. This could be 1600h in the middle of December where I live. No sense of direction in this photo means the real message is not being delivered. Agree with William. Denni☯ 02:18, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:26, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. →Raul654 21:04, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Chris 73 Talk 06:44, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 00:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's a nice picture, but just another sunset without knowing the context. The associated midnight sun article is sorely lacking content. -- Netoholic @ 01:40, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
Very useful diagram. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:42, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Useful, but unappealing. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, I'm finding it difficult to visualise it in 3 dimensions as intended (though I'm a very 2 dimensional person) Dunc|☺ 22:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Good content but ugly diagram, especially at full resolution. --Prisonblues 22:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The picture is marred, in my opinion, by the use of colors that are unnecessarily muddy and idiosyncratic. Denni☯ 02:21, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)Denni☯ 02:21, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice pic, but the numbers and jaggy lines are weird. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:18, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose and redirect to Banana split. — Bill 12:59, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is beautiful, and it's GFDLed by the uploader. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:42, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. I love it, but i think it may be too dark. Great photo though. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Meets my criteria for FP. If the contributor can lighten it up a bit, that would be great, but I support as is. Denni☯ 23:58, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
- Support the color corrected one. I took the liberty of adjusting the colors. (not much red at 30m, even in the caymans). I was surprised myself what a HUGE difference it makes (Press CTRL Reload if you see the old one). Compare the new image with the old one. -- Chris 73 Talk 07:25, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose the second version: too artificial. (A picture taken at a depth of 30m should show the colours you see at that depth, not the colours you would see at the surface). Could you put the revised version under a separate filename, so we can choose between them? Markalexander100 07:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support the first version. The "enhanced" version doesn't look very good. Should we try to just lighten the image a bit? ✏ Sverdrup 07:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Good to have a photograph like this from a Wikipedian and I like the resemblance to a glove. Unfortuantely this is the sort of thing that the NOAA can do rather well. I've added a better picture to the sponge article.
Also, are we sure this is a sponge? They look a little more like the casings of a sea worm.Actually there is a similar looking Yellow Tube sponge here -- Solipsist 06:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Neutral, I took the picture :-) It is a sponge which measured approx. 3 feet, on a "wall" in Cayman at 100-130 feet. As a rule, I never colour correct my pictures. Even at shallow depths the colours on the sponges were somewhat muted, and nowhere near as bright as those of the corrected version. Dlloyd 10:57, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I would like to apologize again if you felt that I was stepping on your toes by changing the image. Please do not list all of your image contributions for deletion (Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Images for deletion), they are quite good and we DO appreciate your contributions! -- Chris 73 Talk 04:16, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The sponges are nice, but the light and visibility weren't. Janderk 19:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can't believe this is true - but it is!!! Probably the best illustration of this awesome illusion.
- Support. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 19:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. This can't be right. This guy must have found a way to put a measuring bug in every image editing progam. -- Solipsist 19:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:44, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. When I put this pic on WP I could not convince myself they were the same grey. So I printed the larger pic, cut out one of the squares, slid it over and, yes, they are identical greys!! - Adrian Pingstone 20:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I have also uploaded a version that I made in POV-Ray if you'd rather have one made for Wikipedia: PaulStansifer 21:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Yeah it's cool, but is it really featured picture worthy? I think not.Changed my mind Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)- Oppose. I'm in ScottyBoy's camp. Denni☯ 00:02, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
- Support the first version, which is cleaner. Markalexander100 01:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support the first one -- Chris 73 Talk 07:30, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Support strongly. I've seen a forum where the posting of this figure triggered lengthy discussions about optical illusions and the mechanisms of visual perception (along with visual tests such as the one performed by Adrian). If that doesn't make a diagram or figure featured picture-worthy, then I don't know what does. Perhaps it should be paired with the same figure superimposed with a solid bar of the same colour connecting the two squares, though, to reveal the illusion. I guess that would require using the second (imo less attractive) version made by Paul since the original is not GFDL or in the public domain. - Oarih 10:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Although the original isn't under GFDL which would support modification, if you follow the source link you can find the grey bar version exactly as requested, which is also copyright but freely usable. -- Solipsist 10:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I created the POV-Ray version because I thought that that would give it a cleaner look. It would be easy to change if you think that there's something specific that would make it more useful for Wikipedia. (The wood frame, for example, I just put in to look cool.) PaulStansifer 17:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I think it would look better without the wood frame and if the dark side of the blue cylinder were a little lighter. Lorax 23:00, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a new version, sans frame, and with an adjusted color. I've decreased the amount of perspective, but not eliminated it (I think that a little bit is good here). The letters are still in red, because I think that the original picture's use of opposite colors for "A" and "B" is "cheating" by using a different (albeit related) affect. PaulStansifer 06:08, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) (P.S. since I just overwrote the old one, it may take some time before the thumbnail updates)
- Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support, because it is so hard to believe -- William M. Connolley 21:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC). Slight preference for the second one. Query: the original of the first image has the authors name on. Is it clear the permission to reproduce includes permission to remove the name?
- Support. I would prefer the second version, if it could be adjusted to use the same isometric projection. — David Remahl 22:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support the 2nd version. Well, it's an amazing graphic. --Menchi 02:56, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The new POV-Ray version is better than the earlier one, but it's still not as effective as the original: both the squares on the POV-Ray version look quite dark to me, while the squares on the original seem to contrast more. Markalexander100 06:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support original image. I can tell that the squares are of the same brightness in the second if I squint. Actually the same applies for the first, but I have to squint harder there. Fredrik | talk 16:45, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support first version - the apparent (though not real) contrast between the squares is greater in the 1st one. (still, I like how in the 2nd one the hex value of the colours is 3D 3D 3D. :-) Evercat 23:33, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 00:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Either version, but prefer the 2nd because it comes with pob-ray source. Lorax 22:54, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support first version, because the effect is more striking in that one. Janderk 07:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Can't believe my machines color meter. Little Eyedropper must be broken... [[User:Ctrl_build|Ctrl_buildtalk]] 20:31, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Quite an impressive and useful illustrative photo of a historically significant plane - the Enola Gay. Taken by User:Lorax.
- Support - Solipsist 18:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - background is distracting, not all of the plane is visible. Regrettable. If you got a shot of the plane in the open air, I probably would support. - Ludraman 20:32, 14 Oct 2004
- Oppose. I tried to take this exact same picture at the A&SM but I couldn't find a single shot I wanted to upload. the background there is so cluttered its very hard to get a nice shot of anything. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, same reasons as above -- Chris 73 Talk 07:32, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
She is so cute! Awwww -_- Used in boredom. —Joseph | Talk 05:54, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose: not sharp. Markalexander100 05:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose: agreed not sharp. I would like to also see us supporting pictures that are stated free rather than just not stated not free. Cavebear42 17:39, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't understand. The image is stated free. The site license says "You may use any of the photos in our system free of charge for any commercial or personal design work if you obey the specified restrictions concerning each photo you download" and the individual restrictions are "There are no usage restrictions for this photo." – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 17:51, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I'll retract my statement about copyright. While I still support original photos and explictly stated free licences, this is clearly public domain. Cavebear42 18:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't understand. The image is stated free. The site license says "You may use any of the photos in our system free of charge for any commercial or personal design work if you obey the specified restrictions concerning each photo you download" and the individual restrictions are "There are no usage restrictions for this photo." – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 17:51, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Support: The very slight haziness increases the bored feel. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 17:51, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:30 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. A very boring (and obviously staged) photo. Denni☯ 00:03, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
- Oppose. --Prisonblues 22:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. 1. Smacks of vanity; like somone wants to show off their offspring. 2. Child's look doesn't scream "bored" any more than it looks like it is a "pout," "embarassed" or "irritated" look. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:19, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Nice colors of a typical rural Australian horse. It shows what the field the horse feeds on, as well as the hayshed which makes up part of his diet.
- Support Self Nomination. --Fir0002 22:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Object to only half a horse, bad lighting, and generally non-spectacular photograph. Denni☯ 22:49, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:38, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Don't like the shadows and the fact that it's not the whole horse. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:02, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unfortunately, the eye is in the shadow, so the image looks dull -- Chris 73 Talk 04:03, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - it's a bit half-assed. ;-) -- ChrisO 18:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
.jpg.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Good but not sleazy pic with a good color composition and a nice model. Used for Sunlight (Sunbathing) and Towel -- Chris 73 Talk 09:56, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Support (Nominator) -- Chris 73 Talk 09:56, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment -- that's a small beach towel! Imagine trying to lie on it on a sandy beach... +sj+
- Support - perfect illustration for the two articles - Adrian Pingstone 11:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - Maybe it's just me, but when I visualize a typical beach towel it is more tacky and kitschy than the one in this picture. For the sunbathing article, I would think that a photograph of several individuals with some kind of context (on an apartment roof, front lawn, beach or whatever) would be better. - Oarih 12:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. A beach towel on a lawn? -- William M. Connolley 18:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --Oska 00:18, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose (but not totally unpleasant) --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - what William M. Connolley said. ~leif 05:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is not your typical beach towel, beach towel in general want to "show off", so they'll combine impossible colors and patterns, at least not be boring blue, blue is for your own bathroom (and I mean the international meaning of the word). -- Solitude 06:59, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with William M. Connolley. It's clearly a lawn towel. Cavebear42 22:07, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. 1. It's a bath towel; not a beach towel. 2. possibly inappropriate for sunlight.
- BEACH TOWEL (BATH SHEET): approx. 35 x 60 inches
- BATH TOWEL: approx. 27 x 52 to 30 x 58 inches (includes Oversized Towels)
- HAND TOWEL: approx. 16 x 30 inches
- WASH CLOTH: approx. 13 x 13 inches
- FINGERTIP: approx. 11 x 18 inches
- TUBMAT: approx. 22 x 34 inches - [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:26, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Doesn't look like a beach towel (but I might add the girl looks quite nice to look at :)--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 10:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice green grass, nice blue towel, nice bikini'd girl, but not a fantastic or relevant photo overall. Chameleon 19:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. OK for an article, maybe. Robin Patterson 05:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A trio of white ibises, captured at close range by Dutch wikipedian Jcwf (and slightly cleaned up). Nominated for the clarity and humor of the composition (perhaps I just think ibises are comical?). Used in White ibis. +sj+ 10:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support - very amusing - Adrian Pingstone 11:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral for now - Looks a lot better on the full image, and the composition is excellent. However, I think the picture has been over-sharpened. The original looks a little soft, so halfway between the two might be about right. The trouble is the Ibis on the right doesn't fit against its background. It looks a little fake, as if its been composited into the shot. And the grain on the wood is perhaps too pronounced to be natural. -- Solipsist 17:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- William M. Connolley 18:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Love the background too. Meshes well. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support Markalexander100 08:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:43, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I've seen prettier bird photos around. Agree with Solipsist about it being too sharp Enochlau 10:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A Bald Eagle photographed at Combe Martin Wildlife and Dinosaur Park, North Devon, England by Adrian Pingstone. I prefer the pose for the subject's grace, fine coiffure, and dancer's pose; but those who dislike the surroundings might prefer the close-up. Both images have been modified slightly. The latter is used in bird of prey; a wider version of the former is used in bald eagle. +sj+ 10:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support the one on the left; he looks like a clever chap! Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support the full body picture -- Chris 73 Talk 10:43, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Nominating two pictures always is a problem. Anyway, my thoughts are: The picture of the head only is brilliant, and I'd support its promotion, while the full body picture is somewhat dull. ✏ Sverdrup 11:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support - I prefer the closeup - Adrian Pingstone 11:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support the head shot. I was going to say it was hard to support this Bald Eagle when this one didn't get promoted. However, on a side by side comparison it think I might prefer Adrian's shot, apart from the background. -- Solipsist 17:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support the headshot. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Wow! Support both/either. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:17, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Support the closeup. Woa!! It's breathtaking! Unbelievably sharp and detailed. The whole-one is a bit too farway and white. Not really suppporting that. --Menchi 22:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice photo, but the unnatural background destroys it. It may as well have been taken at the zoo. Where is the interest in that? --Might and power 07:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support either. Nice pics. Alphax (talk) 07:26, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support especially the full-length pose: we don't think of birds as having such a shape or stance; the other is just another pretty face. — Bill 13:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: votes seem to fall: 5/4/1 for the full pose, 7.5/1/0? for the headshot, counting only explicit (M&P's 'unnatural background' opposition doesn't seem to apply to that). +sj+ 14:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A jackdaw amid some chrome cafe furniture, also photographed by Adrian P (and sharpened). I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about this photo grabs me. Used in jackdaw. +sj+ 10:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose -- too messy. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose (and I took it!) - background is just a little too messy - Adrian Pingstone 11:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - agree with Dunc and Adrian. The outline of the jackdaw is fairly clean, so if anyone could be bothered you could probably photoshop out the chairs and replace them with a branch and a bit of sky. But even then I doubt it would be a feature candidate. -- Solipsist 17:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:05, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Shows the use of an ancient tool. Fits in beautifullly in the axe page
- Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 06:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's a nice shot, but there is not much axe in it. Also, the saw cutting the wood left grooves that at first glance looked like the grain of the wood, and I was wondering why the axe was splitting the wood at a 90° angle to the grain. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:17, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose; it's a very good picture, but it does not illustrate the article axe well enough. ✏ Sverdrup 11:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, agree with Sverdrup and Chris - Adrian Pingstone 11:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, ditto chris 73 -- William M. Connolley 18:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. How does it illustrate an axe? I thought it was a bench... The blade being some elbow rest or ...something metallic.... It is a very confusing photo. --Menchi 02:54, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. More axe needed! Enochlau 10:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Dramatically illustrates the quality/size tradeoff in JPEG. Illustrating a technical principle so well is rare. GFDL work by David Crawshaw. Twinxor 06:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Twinxor 07:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The white background makes it hard to really follow the degrading of the image. Very nice idea, though. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:26, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose; maybe a better picture to do a similar thing to would be Image:Sunflowers.jpg? Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:54, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, the changing loss of quality is not well shown - Adrian Pingstone 11:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Don't like white background. Pretty flower though. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Another US agriculture one. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I took the liberty of uploading a larger version of the image and adding a link to the source. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:21, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:31, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The focus is not sharp enough. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 18:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Self-nomination. I think it's pretty, I like the composition and I consider it a good illustration for the subject. Also, it's tasteful. - grendel|khan 08:21, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
- Support grendel|khan 08:21, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
- Support. Simon A. 16:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 22:43, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Good illustrative photo for the article in that it shows well how much wax may be used in this type of activity. I don't see much to recommend it as a feature picture though. It's not visually striking to me at all. --Oska 22:46, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Support - nice shot, nice model -- Chris 73 Talk 09:14, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Yes, pretty AND a little odd... — Matt 10:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. But along with Image:BDSM collar back.jpg I have to worry about what might come next. - Solipsist 17:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:05, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. - Oarih 05:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. ~leif 05:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The colours are not visually pleasant. The plastic bag in the front is distracting too. I admire the subject's endurance of hot wax, however. Incidentally, it reminds me of the shower cleanup scene of the 90s remake of Psycho. No, Anne! [joking] --Menchi 23:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Interesting picture, the problem is that the featured images section already contains the BDSM collar picture. One image about this sexual behavior subject seems enough. The Wikipedia featured images section should be an encyclopedia collection covering a broad range of subjects, not a BDSM collection. Janderk 09:02, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I think this is an unfair reason for opposition. I suggest that we should simply judge pictures on their own merits (with regard to their article context) and not with the aim of creating a balanced collection of Featured Images. If it's a great image, it should be featured (and if it's not, it shouldn't). — Matt 10:04, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Another comment: The collar image shows off the B&D (Bondage and Discipline) side, but of course there's no S&M implied. This wax-play shot is clearly S&M, but without the B&D. (She's not tied down, for instance.) So the two shots show off different fetishes. They're as different as, say, amphibians and lizards. No one would object to a good amphibian pic, just because we already had a lizard featured pic. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 11:58, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Would be better with a bit more of the body form, and by losing the distracting plastic tarp. -- Netoholic @ 01:46, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
- Oppose. Come off it you guys. The only reason you're nominating this photo is because it has a naked women in it. Whats beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant about an ugly combination of waxes. Featured picture! [I oppose this form of expression]. No way. --Might and power 07:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Your offensive comment has been refactored, without destroying context nor the core of your argument. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:05, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- I supposed I'd run into this sort of thing sooner or later. The model is naked, yes, but is obscured both by scads of wax and by the framing of the image itself. I thought we were here to be relatively neutral about the merits of the image. I didn't think this was a soapbox for subjects that bother you. Shouldn't you be over on VfD trying to get rid of wax play, if the subject offends you so much? (And I think your hysteria reveals that the image at least fits the 'titillating' criterion). I can understand people opposing the image on artistic grounds (and thank you all for your suggestions, but I didn't expect anti-perv bias here. I suppose I've been living in a bubble. grendel|khan 16:17, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
- Note: User has 4 edits, all on this page -- Chris 73 Talk 01:18, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: User:Might and power is a probable sock puppet and should be ignored. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:30, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Note: User has 4 edits, all on this page -- Chris 73 Talk 01:18, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Picture provokes an emotional reaction from viewer, even if unpleasent. Brilliantly fitting for an article in BDSM. The plastic illustrates the reality of this lifestyle. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:15, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I've considered the possible psychological damage to children caused by seeing someone's back, but I think the risk is worth taking. Markalexander100 02:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support Enochlau 10:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. DrGnu 04:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) The picture has both aesthetic and photographic value. As a photograph, it is yet another use of the human form displayed and yet augmented by the multicolored wax. Aethetically, it has erotic value as a nude supporting the multi-color waxes. I support this picture on these levels as well as representative of an art/playform within the BDSM community.
Note: This nomination was lost for 5 days due to an edit conflict (see Talk). Please extend voting period for another 5 days if necessary -- Chris 73 Talk 23:30, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- This is not a flower. It is really a picture of pollen, so there is a more interesting article behind it. However, the flower which I think is a Gerbera or Transvaal daisy, is quite attractive too. -- Solipsist 07:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support - Solipsist 07:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Why do you say it is not a flower when it so obviously is? Even if you intend to use the photo to illustrate pollen, the image still fully features a flower. I would judge the photo as a whole and not on one particular part which you seem to wish us to focus on. --Oska 23:08, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- The instructions on WP:FP say There are many beautiful flowers and we don't want too many nominations of the same type. Hence this shot is to illustrate pollen and happens to feature a flower, whilst Field of Sunflowers is more for the field effect. (Alternatively I could say I was going for a surrealist angle with Ceci n'est pas une fleur.) -- Solipsist 09:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. It is an Osteospermum - and should be in that article. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 23:27, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. A fine illustration of both glorious colour and the primordial urge to reproduce. +sj+ 07:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Chris 73 Talk 09:12, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- A closer view of pollen for anyone who wasn't persuaded by the Scanning Electron Microscope image below - although this one is not taken by a wikipedian. -- Solipsist 07:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support - Solipsist 07:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Chris 73 Talk 07:53, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Yes, this one I do like. -- Solitude 11:29, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Just added the pic to the SEM page as well. Simon A. 16:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- At first glance appears to be golf balls! Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:47, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent example of the use of SEMs where identification of pollen in soil samples is very important in paleo-geography research. --Oska 22:31, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- What a collection! Reason enough to have made those fidgety scopes in the first place. Support. +sj+ 07:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent! timo 15:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Awesome. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent, stunning. --Wpopp 08:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Strong support. --Prisonblues 22:51, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- sannse (talk) 11:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Great GFDL image from the German Wikipedia. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:18, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - very ordinary and a liitle soft in focus - Adrian Pingstone
- Support. I like. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- oppose, out of focus; like a dodgy movie or something. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: The image should have some information on attribution or its source. I guess this might be on the German version of this image. -- Solipsist 16:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It does not contribute significantly to the article as the rest of the plant is not in focus. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nominations older than 14 days, the minimum voting period, decision time!
Old nominations should be archived when they are removed from this page: October archive.
When you promote an image, please perform the following:
- 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)
- Update the picture's tag: {{FPC}} -> {{FeaturedPicture}}
- 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
Not particularly striking. There must be hundreds of US Navy photos better than this one, including Image:Uss iowa bb-61 pr.jpg
I am proposing and support the removal of this image from featured picture status. I came across this randomly and just couldn't figure out at all why it would be featured. Does anyone remember the votes for this? I see the point of the image, but for what reasons is it featured?? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 06:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC
- Comment - promoted in June 2004: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_candidates/June-2004#Circlestrafing. -- Solipsist 14:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. Janderk 16:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:44, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose delisting. Like most, I read this image the wrong way round when I first saw it (perhaps it would help if the colours were swapped, the eye is drawn to red as well as the centre). Nor am I particularly interested in the subject. But this image does significantly add to the article and its well executed. I think we are being way to hard on diagrams and illustrations at the moment. -- Solipsist 17:49, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Pretty good actually. Agree with Solipsist -- Chris 73 Talk 12:15, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose delisting. Clear, informative, adds significantly to the subject. Why on Earth has it been listed at all? James F. (talk) 13:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose delisting (although the concept might be better illustrated with an animated GIF version) - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Would support an animated version. --Alphax (talk) 02:29, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
I'm proposing this image also be delisted for essentially the same reasons I listed the Media:Circlestrafing.png image. I just don't think it lives up to FP status at all. Most of the diagram-like images that have been submitted for FP lately have been shot down and I have a feeling if this was submitted today it would be also. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as featured picture. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:45, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support delisting Enochlau 10:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. The criteria for featured drawings and diagrams should probably be distinct from the criteria for photographs. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)