Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gdr (talk | contribs) at 16:20, 28 October 2004 (→[[Media:Jacob-angel.jpg|Jacob Wrestling with the Angel]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
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):

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.



Air Force One over Mount Rushmore

Air Force One over Mount Rushmore National Memorial.

A stunning image, contributing to Air Force One as well as Mount Rushmore National Memorial. A PNG version of the image was originally uploaded by User:Neutrality. This much larger JPG from www.af.mil is worth nominating.

  • Support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:04, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Background a bit dark, but still featureable -- Chris 73 Talk 09:25, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a nice picture, but I don't see how it really adds all that much to Mount Rushmore National Memorial or Air Force One - there must be better (or more concise) pictures of those, individually, than this. -- Oarih 15:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good picture. I thought of nominating it once myself but decided I just didn't like it. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Full support. It really does add to the Air Force One article. Thanks, Solitude! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 14:31, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Jack Russell Terrier

Alert broken-coated Jack Russell terrier

JRTs are feisty little creatures, always on the move and difficult to photograph. It is unusual to be able to catch them with pricked ears like this. Self nomination by Moriori 20:02, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, if as nom I am permitted to. Moriori
  • Oppose: Not a particularly interesting composition, and red-eye. Pdefer 21:52, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The red-eye is what gets me; the composition is all right, methinks. ugen64 01:39, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It appears to be a picture of someone's dog. How is this one of our finest pictures? Cavebear42 17:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I have no idea if this picture is any good....perhaps the red eye disqualifies it. But I want to note (if no one else yet has) that we all seemed pretty biased around here. Photos of amazing landscapes, architecture, astronomical objects, etc., seem to have an easier time here. But no matter how we shoot a dog's picture, everyone either thinks it's "posed" or "too cute" or "just someone's pet" or "not notable". Now, we may have excellent reasons for rejecting each one of these pictures on its individual merits, but I'm starting to suspect that what at least a few of us are saying is "I don't think a picture of someone's dog is featurable". And I don't like that much. I'm not a big dog fan, personally, and I know they're not as fascinating to most people who edit here as the Eagle Nebula, but I think we should probably figure out soon what we can reasonably expect from a featured picture of an everyday thing (like a dog or a screwdriver). I know, we'd rather have amazing photos, and maybe we should restrict photos of the day to the incredibly cool and unusual. But I think there is room on Wikipedia:Featured pictures for some good photos of ordinary, everyday life. I didn't know where else to say this, so pardon me for intruding on this vote. But I think it needs to be said. If this is better on the talk page, please move it there -- thanks. Jwrosenzweig 21:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:10, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Jacob Wrestling with the Angel

Jacob Wrestling with the Angel

I like this painting a lot. By By Gustave Doré (1855) →Raul654 04:46, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I don't think pictures of pictures should ever be featured pictures. Us sitting around deciding whether Doré deserves to rank alongside our dog photos is an excellent illustration of why. Markalexander100 07:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It is hard to have a single criteria to judge photos, drawings and works of art. Perhaps there could someday be a Wikipedia art gallery just for paintings and other works of art. Perhaps a "Wikipedia:Featured art" page in place of the subcategory we currently use. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 20:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do think we should have pictures of pictures, otherwise we would exclude a significant subject area. But this one wouldn't be my choice. The Seurat last month would have been better. -- Solipsist 08:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - very nice picture. ugen64 01:41, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose; there are much better paintings, even religious ones. Dunc|☺ 11:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not brilliant at all. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:10, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A brilliant work. There are many more artworks in Category:Public domain art that could be featured. Gdr 13:17, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)


A large swarm of honey bees

A large swarm of honey bees

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)
  • Support, although the purple hue is a bit of a put-off. ugen64 02:36, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as it's not truly representative of a prime swarm. It's either an afterswarm (with virgin queen), or a swarm cast by sick bees (varroa or acarine infested), or bees that have absconded due to some kind of stress (such as hive beetles). Though a non-beekeeper might be impressed by the number of bees, it is really a tiny swarm with perhaps three or four thousand bees, as opposed to a true reproductive swarm which normally would run to twenty or thirty thousand bees. Nothing against the photographer. Sorry. Pollinator 02:51, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • On second look, I doubt that there are a thousand bees. No drones are seen either. Their presence is characteristic of a prime swarm. Pollinator 02:54, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • On a third look, you may notice that its is not an entire swarm. The edges of the image are characteristic of a crop of the whole image. The bee swarm is doing fine after a week in its new hive. I'm not sure how big the swarms in America are, but here in Australia they are generally slightly smaller than the one pictured. I chose this crop because the bees where in close detail. For the full image see Collection of the swarm--Fir0002 09:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Nice photo, I like the blurred moving bees, the colour of the green is a little sickly, but other than that good. Pdefer 00:24, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
  • Support. Color is somewhat off, but its not distracting. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:11, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Meadow Argus butterfly

Meadow Argus Butterfly
Second pick

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)
  • Support. ugen64 02:43, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although I can only comment on the first version, as the second won't load in my browser. The first is a highly detailed photo, with excellent focus, color balance etc. Though I am not familiar with the species, it would seem to be a good representation. Pollinator 02:58, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)'
  • Support. Prefer second. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:12, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Chocolate

chocolate

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)
  • Oppose. The chocolate looks worn. Norman Rogers 12:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good idea, but the result is far from perfect. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:13, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Brazilian wandering spider

File:Brazilian wandering spider front.jpg
Business end of the Brazilian wandering spider (Phoneutria nigriventer)

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)
      • in which case it isn't GFDL-compatible and should be listed on unfree images and deleted, or you should go back and ask the author for specific GFDL permission. I know it sounds a bit mad, but the idea is that the whole 'pedia should be GFDL compatible. Dunc|☺ 16:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. While we might use a "with permission" image in the absence of a free one, I don't think we should feature one. Gdr 01:13, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Gdr, we should not feature an image with a license like this. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:02, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)


Remembrance Poppies

File:RememberancePoppies.jpg
Wreaths of artificial poppies, used as a symbol of Remembrance.

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:
    1. These aren't the typical artificial poppies I have always seen for Remembrance Day.
    2. If we're going to feature a poppy, I'd prefer a real one.
    3. 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)
  • Oppose. Not interesting, also when featuring an image, please re-upload the image without the spelling error, then speedy the original. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:15, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Robert Hooke's Flea

Drawing of a flea from Robert Hooke's Micrographia of 1664.

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*
    • I was following a similar treatment which I saw in Zembla magazine last year. Its purely for dramatic effect, with the link to the original BW for authenticity. -- Solipsist 08:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, I have to oppose the inverted version on grounds of being an inaccurate representation both of the object being depicted, and the artist's effort. However, I would support the original picture.--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)
    • Good point on the copyright tag. I hadn't really thought about it, but then I guess the colourisation isn't that creative. I'll put a note on the page in any case.
  • 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)
  • Oppose. I think the original image is more dramatic and easier on the eyes, would support that one. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:19, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Lion snarling

File:Lion snarling.jpg
Lion looking tough

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)
  • Oppose. Let's get one in the wild, anyone off for a safari soon? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:20, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Irish golf course

Irish golf course

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)
  • Oppose. I've played the course numerous times, and the scenery allows for truly fantastic photos. This, sadly, isn't one of them. If I got my hands on a good camera, I'd try to get one. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 16:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's too grey and boring, let's see what Ludraman can get us. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:22, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Sake barrels

File:Sake barrels.jpg
Japanese sake barrels at Itsukushima Shrine

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)
  • Support. Definitely very lovely, colors are great. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:23, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Cockroach closeup

Cockroach closeup

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)
  • Support. *YUCK* -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:24, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Ww2 158.jpg

A Marine of the 1st Marine Division draws a bead on a Japanese sniper with his tommy-gun

Great action shot. →Raul654 07:06, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Used in Battle of Okinawa.


Polish Barrel Organ

File:Polish-BarrelOrgan.jpg
A Polish barrel organ player.

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)
  • Support [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 21:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Brilliant. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The organ player is worth featuring alone. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:26, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Tugra Mahmuds II

Animation showing the structure of the Tughra of Mahmud II.

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)
  • Support (see below). 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)
  • Support with the new information (this should be mentioned in the caption though) -- sannse (talk) 15:19, 27 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)
  • 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)
    • Garamond would be misleading, to say the least. Garamond is from the 16. and Mahmud II from the 19. century. During his reign the first sans-serif founts where designed in Britain so a sans-serif fits the time as well as Wikipedia's standard font settings. --217.185.10.207 21:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Sans-serif would be fine. All I'm asking is that it look nice! Gdr 13:16, 2004 Oct 28 (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)
    • Comment: I believe Gdr was referring to the bit in roman script at the bottom. Markalexander100 06:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I received more info from the german creator of the image:
    Die Schweife an den Hasten hatten ursprünglich nur Zierfunktion und können später, je nach Name, auch als Buchstabe alif verwendet werden, wie im Beispiel ganz rechts. Auch der linke Teil des «Fußes» wird mit Verzierungen gefüllt, wenn der Zeichenbestand des jeweiligen Sultansnamens nicht ausreicht. Aus diesem Grund bleiben in der Animation einige Linien grau. --217.185.10.205 08:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC).
i.e. some of the lines had initially only a decorative function, and only later turned into part of the name. In this animation, a few of the grey-only lines fall in this group, and a few more were added only to fill up some space. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:15, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Did you ask wether he kept the original files? — David Remahl 08:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that! Markalexander100 01:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I added this info also to the image page. I did not ask for a larger resolution. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:00, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very, very, very illustrative. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:27, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Manitoba Maple

The leaves and seeds of the Manitoba maple.

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)
  • Oppose. Too small, and not even interesting. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:28, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


1958 Chevrolet Corvette Roadster

A 1958 Chevrolet Corvette takes a breather in Germany.

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)
  • Oppose. Its just a car. Pschemp 01:11, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow! Although I'm VERY biased towards anything showing fancy cars. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:30, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Deutsche Bank

The headquarters of the Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt.

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)
  • oppose. Cavebear42 16:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Building is worth featuring, this portrayel is not. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:31, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Horse and Plough

File:HorseAndPlough.jpg
A farmer works the land in the traditional way with a horse drawn plough.

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).
  • Support. --Fir0002 05:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Pollinator 03:06, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC) It envelops me in waves of nostalgia.
  • Support. A plowing RACE! -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:32, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Tortoise Hatchling

File:Tortoise-Hatchling.JPG
A baby tortoise hatching from its egg

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)
  • Oppose. I'm swimming against the current, but I dont think its quite feature worthy. Thumbnail looks good but full image isn't so good. Also the shell almost looks as if someone was helping it along - the othermose 'layer' of the shell is the part which as the most cracked from it. I dont know whether its natural or not, but my first reaction was a suspicion that someone peeled of some of the shell - no offense meant though. --Fir0002 06:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Based on extensive experience watching chickens hatch (though admittedly none watching tortoises), the uneven cracking of outer and inner layers does not look too unusual to me, and I think it is very reasonable to assume the tortoise was not receiving help (though of course this is a very general amateur opinion). Besides, I think it's a very good picture, and well worthy of featuring even if the tortoise was getting assistance. Jwrosenzweig 22:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Utterly cute, hope it wasn't "helped" to hatch though. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:33, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


Mark 48 Torpedo testing

File:Mark 48 Torpedo testing.jpg
Mark 48 Torpedo testing
File:Mark 48 Torpedo breaking ship.jpg
Mark 48 Torpedo breaking ship

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)
      • I think the image by itself works best, and would support that. Dunc|☺ 17:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support the original sequence, a single image has much less impact. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:35, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


U.S. war casualties arriving at Dover AFB

U.S. war casualties arriving at Dover AFB

Striking? Yes. Shocking? Yes. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:48, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Used in Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003.
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • Comment: The memory hole did a freedom of information request for images of coffins returning from Iraq, especially excluding Space Shuttle Columbia images. When they got it they assumed that they all were from the War, but apparently some were from columbia. Meanwhile they have sorted the images and this image shows Iraq casualties. Also, columbia had a crew of only 7 people, and the image has 16+ coffins (see Space Shuttle Columbia disaster). -- Chris 73 Talk 07:37, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Pschemp 01:11, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - great picture, bad compression. ugen64 02:48, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As mentioned before, the image quality is not good enough for a FP, if you can get a better version I will support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:39, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


EU Map

Map of the European Union. Click to Enlarge for full-size version.

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.ed g2s • talk
    • Would you rather it be out of scale? Or do you have a suggestion to rectify this?
      • "Too small to see..." refers to the whole map of course, the whole map should be larger. One does not expect to be able to see the text in a thumbnail. ed g2s • talk 14:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[[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)
Second version, with all text horizontal and "Guadeloupe" spelled correctly
  • 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?)
  • Support. It's not "just a map". it's a good map, and good public domain maps are very rare. (it is a bit small, and there are some strange antialiasing-effects however) dab 10:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support the second version, which I think is rather lovely. Markalexander100 01:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think the non-member countries should be named on that map. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The named non-member countries are the neighbours of the European Union. These countries are important to the EU and deserve to be mentioned. Gdr 13:20, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC) P.S. What about Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Merino, the Vatican and Transnistria? Should they appear on the map?


Canal lock

Canal lock in England.

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)


The Red Hat Society

The Red Hat Society

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)


Bonsai Trident Maple

Bonsai Trident Maple. Grown in the Root over Rock style, and with foliage trained to resemble a dragon.

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)


Eagle Nebula

File:Eagle nebula.gif
Eagle Nebula taken by the Hubble Space Telescope.
File:Eagle Nebula - NASA.jpg
More complete version.

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)


Blue Marble

File:Earth-apollo17.jpg
The Blue Marble

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)


London Millennium Bridge

The wobbly London Millennium Bridge

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 stand wobble 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
Well, as I mentioned in my email, we cannot accept NonCommercial content on the Wikipedia, let alone nominate it for Featured picture. If you can't provide us with a Commercial license this nomination will be retracted. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:11, Oct 20, 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)
  • Support. ugen64 02:51, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)


Japanese toilet bidet

This jet of water would cleanse a user of this Japanese bidet toilet

(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)
    • Managed to stay dry :) Made an awful mess on the floor, though :( (See image page for details) -- Chris 73 Talk 09:04, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
      • Shudder... that brings back memories of getting an unexpected facewash... :-/ -- ChrisO 18:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Alphax (talk) 07:16, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)


Pollen and Gerbera

Pollen from a Gerbera.

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) That would effectively make nominated on 17 Oct 2004, so I have moved it up into that time slot. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:21, 26 Oct 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)
  • Brilliant. Support. ugen64 02:52, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support without reservation. Pollinator 03:13, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)


Pillar coral

Pillar coral

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)


American one-cent coin

American one-cent coin.

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)
  • Support, although I'd like to have seen the entire face of the coin. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support I like the scratches and the odd camera angle. A straight shot would be boring. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 21:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)



Very Large Array

The Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico

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)
      • Size is an important factor, as Wikipedia already has printed selections (WikiReaders) and will have more of them in the future. Low-res pictures look pixelized on paper. It would be nice if we could find a higher resolution version of this photo.--Eloquence*
    • I'm judging both, hence "support if larger version uploaded". ed g2s • talk 14:49, 28 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)
  • Support; will change to big uber support if larger size is found. ugen64 02:54, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)


Village of Passchendaele

Aerial view of the village of Passchendaele before and after the Third Battle of Ypres, 1917

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)
    • I can't parse your first sentence (sorry!), are you asking me for an explanation? And, yes, the other image on this article is already featured. Is that a bar? fabiform | talk 18:53, 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)
  • 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)
    • Yes, they are approximately the same scale. Yes, they are approximately the same orientation. The bottom image is offset downwards slightly. You can see the original at the IWM here. I am willing to attempt to make a better scan. Geoff/Gsl 05:28, 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)


Red water

File:Iron in rocks make river red.jpeg
This red water caused by iron
rotated and cropped image

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)


Midnight sun at Nordkapp, Norway

Midnight sun at Nordkapp, Norway

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Comment. Is the GFDL status of this photo verifiable? It is asserted seemingly secondhand. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:38, 28 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:





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

USS Port Royal CG-73.jpg

USS Port Royal

Not particularly striking. There must be hundreds of US Navy photos better than this one, including Image:Uss iowa bb-61 pr.jpg

  • Nominate and support delisting. ed g2s • talk 12:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 06:42, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 20:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. James F. (talk) 03:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. The image does not contain anything special that would make it featured Janderk 20:49, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Circlestrafing.png

Circlestrafing

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)


Control-of-stomach-acid-sec.png

Diagram summarising control of stomach acid secretion

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)
    • I think that most of those voting already use common sense to decide that there are. James F. (talk) 03:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And this one was submitted lately. James F. (talk) 03:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Calendars

Template:OctoberCalendar

Template:NovemberCalendar

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=6933580"