Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PaulLomax (talk | contribs) at 09:42, 7 November 2004 (→[[Media:Hazelnuts.jpg|Lots of Common hazelnuts]]). 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.



Hurricane Ivan seen from the ISS

File:Ivan iss.jpg
As Hurricane Ivan's sustained 200 km/h winds wreaked havoc in the Caribbean, the swirling eye of the hurricane was photographed on September 11, 2004 from aboard the orbiting International Space Station (ISS) at an altitude of about 230 miles (370 km). Photo by science officer and flight engineer Edward Fincke.

Saw this on Hurricane Ivan, was amazed.


Icicles

Icicles hanging from branch

Neat picture of icicles from Ice page. Picture is self-taken, I have larger resolution.

  • Support. Self-nomination. Barfooz 22:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The right side background is a bit confusing, but the colors on the left are really pretty. Support. - RedWordSmith 04:03, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)


Giant isopod

Giant isopod

Strikingly yukky rare creature. Chameleon 12:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Chameleon 12:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised this didn't make the cut last time. Support. - RedWordSmith 12:47, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Isn't a bit too soon to renominate it? Oppose for this reason. ed g2s • talk 14:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The last nomination is archived at Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/September-2004 - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]]
    • Ah, I didn't realise it had been proposed before. Chameleon 09:01, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would like a more natural setting for an image to add significant value to the article Giant isopod. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:22, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, still to small. Darkone 16:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Buddhabrot

Buddhabrot rendering of the Mandelbrot set

Not your usual Mandelbrot set.

  • Self-nominated by Evercat 02:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support if rotated 90 degrees. -- Oarih 04:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mmm. In the Mandelbrot set article it wouldn't be right to rotate it... Evercat 13:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sure it would be. The assignment of x and y in that order is completely arbitrary, and given that it's named after its supposed likeness to the Buddha when rotated, I think it should be in that orientation. -- Oarih 15:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But then it would be at a different orientation from the other images of the set... Evercat 18:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
True, though I don't see the problem. I guess the thing is that I think the Mandlebrot article already has a picture which illustrates the conventional Mandlebrot set rendering reasonably well. If the point with the Buddhabrot is that it looks like the Buddha, then the picture should be oriented correctly so that people don't have to tilt their heads to check for themselves. Anyway, I'm but one person. Others may well disagree. -- Oarih 18:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, the Buddha thing is not the only point. :-) It also indicates areas of travel for points escaping the set... Evercat 18:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hiv gross.png

HIV replication

I got this out of the German Wikipedia, and did the translation myself. I think it adds a lot of the HIV article. →Raul654 21:33, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Enthusiastically support. -- Oarih 04:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I almost nominated this a couple of weeks ago when looking through the German featured pics, but I wasn't confident enough to translate. Then I found that Raul654 had already done an excellent job of bringing it over to the English wiki. -- Solipsist 08:36, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I think it could do with being in colour. Dunc|☺ 13:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Oresund Bridge

File:Oresund Bridge.jpg
The Oresund Bridge, connecting Scania and Zealand

A great image to illustrate the article about the Oresund Bridge, showing the full extent of the bridge and the artificial islet, missing only the tunnel (which is underwater, and hard to capture from the air! :). I think the composition is perfect, and illustrates the article completely. I can't judge the technicalities, and leave that up to you. Licenses GFDL and cc-by-sa-2.0.

  • Nominated by: ✏ Sverdrup 16:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Looks lovely in hires, but I find the detail is totally lost in the thumbnail. Which should we be voting on here? -- GWO
IMHO, only on the full image. The license is confusing though, needs clarification first. -- 130.89.169.11 19:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. we should be voting on hi-res. I'm confused on the licence. Is it GNU/CC or is the orig photographer reserving rights? Who is original photographer and how would i contact him? Cavebear42 17:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Clarifications via the swedish image description page; The description implies that the uploader took the picture. He asserts that he retains his copyright (which is correct), and that the picture uploaded is available for use under either GFDL or cc-by-sa-2.0 license. He also says that for other licenses and a higher resolution image, please contact the photographer. ✏ Sverdrup 01:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I've put in the links to the Swedish source - please correct if I have it wrong. -- Solipsist 08:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A bit murky on the horizon, but surprisingly clear if it was taken through the windows of an a plane. Rather a good illustration of this sort of bridge. The low angle sunlight really helps to define the bridge. -- Solipsist 08:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Odd color balance and visible JPEG artifacts. If you're the photographer, I think a corrected version would look great. Rhobite 21:47, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)


Tall grasses in the prairie

Tall grasses in a prairie preserve

Self-nomination. I originally took this picture back in 2001 as part of a class project along with 200 others. This one, I think, best captures the feeling of being surrounded by a field of grass taller than you are in the middle of nowhere - it just feels like the wall of grass is going to jump forth and swallow you. Used in the Prairie article. - RedWordSmith 18:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Maybe you had to be there... Denni☯ 21:59, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Looks a little washed out to me. I tried playing with the colors but just couldn't get a vibrent pic outta it. Cavebear42 22:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Cavebear42. Also, for somebody who is not used to high prairie grass (i.e. me), it is difficult to tell how high it really is, and appears as if the camera was placed low to the ground. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:26, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Colours are washed out and it's not in focus - Adrian Pingstone 15:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. washed. Darkone 16:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


UMass at dusk

File:Umass night.jpg
The University of Massachusetts Amherst at dusk
New crop/levels

Self-nom. The UMass Amherst campus taken at dusk. The campus library is to the right, and the Old Chapel spire to the left. 8/10 second exposure. I like the deep blue and the lamp reflections. If it's too dark I have RAW images with a lot of dynamic range to work with, I can also provide higher resolution, a different crop, or different curves. - Rhobite 01:07, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. UMASS is a nice campus, but the image does not show the campus very well. The image has maybe artistic value, but it is not informative -- Chris 73 Talk 01:09, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • If you're familiar with the campus, do you have a suggestion for a better location? Or is it just the underexposed buildings? I tried taking wide shots from the 23rd floor of the library but the angle was poor and the windows are pretty dirty. Rhobite 01:21, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • The location is good, and I think one of the best spots for a photo (unless you have an airplane), but the image is too dark. It is hard to recognize anything -- Chris 73 Talk 03:44, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The gradient in the sky is very clear and free from artifacts. It has a nice charm to it I think. Enochlau 14:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC
  • Comment. I would definitely start with providing a larger resolution image. It is hard to see much detail on this version, and also, why upload a low resolution image for starters, the image can be included in the appropriate article whether is gets featured or not. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 14:55, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm a little reluctant to release hi-res images under the GFDL, but since I took this one for Wikipedia I will do that when I get home tonight. Rhobite 15:20, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well if you are just aiming to get your pictures into articles as illustration that is fine (although of course we really prefer higher resolution images). But for a featured picture candidate you really need to give us something to work with. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:51, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose.--Thomas G Graf 17:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks for the input. I uploaded a high-res version of the original image, as well as a new edit with higher levels. I don't like the new one as much. Rhobite 23:01, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:27, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Surfing in Hawaii

Surfing in Hawaii
File:Surfing in Hawaii cropped.jpg
Surfing in Hawaii, alternative

It just JUMPS at you! An excellent example of how to create action shots, too bad it's not by a Wikipedian, but this picture deserves a nomination. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:26, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Comment. It appears the rotated version I uploaded is not showing properly, WP is incredibly slow at the moment so I can't really fix or verify it right now.
  • Support! -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:26, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose. Decent pic but I'm sure that there are surfing wikipedians that can easily show us a better pic. also, why am i having trouble buying that this is a marine taken or made during the course of the person's official duties?Cavebear42 17:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is not your average snapshot, if you can find one of this quality made by a Wikipedia by all means bring it on. Do you really feel that it makes any difference whether this guy is on duty or not? This is an image contest, not a job review! -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 19:35, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
The issue is whether the image really is in the public domain. It is not a work of the US government if it was taken off duty. Fredrik | talk 19:55, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, as the image is in the official U.S. Marine photo gallery, I believe it is. It also makes perfect sense for Marines to train at surfing, they do not spend all their time at shooting ranges. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:32, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Besides, have you not seen Apocalypse Now? :) -- GWO 08:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have but it's probably too long ago, refresh my memory please, how exactly does it relate to my comment? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:46, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Colonel Kilgore's helicopter cavalry choose Willard's landing spot simply because it has the best waves in Vietnam, and its wasted on the Vietnamese because Charlie Don't Surf. As the colonel says, in his platoon "you either surf, or fight" -- GWO
  • Support, nice colours, nice action shot. "I'm sure that there are surfing wikipedians that can easily show us a better pic", well they haven't yet, besides this picture should be judged on its own merits. Only quibble is that the JPEG compression really takes it toll on the fine detail of the white water. ed g2s • talk 13:27, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Pretty good image -- Chris 73 Talk 14:05, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I like it, except for that ugly sky. Maybe some clipping could improve this one a lot. See the alternative image. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Supoort. Look how clear the water looks under the board. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:28, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Fir0002 06:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose (weakly). The water is excellent and its a good action shot, so I am persuadable, but for me the problem is the surfer. He's fine in the thumbnail, but in the full view he looks less like a surfer dude and more like a heavy-set jock. The puffy cheeks, angry expression and hair cut are also a little offputting. I don't much mind the greyish sky in the original and think it is better to see the horizon. -- Solipsist 07:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose (weakly). Water good, but our surfer's features are totally in shadow. I appreciate that its tricky to do fill-in flash on guy that far away, but that means its not quite there for me. -- GWO 10:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Janderk 15:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, Not technically brilliant, but adequate and a good shot. Dunc|☺ 19:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Chinese phoenix

A sculptured Chinese Phoenix from a park south of Nanning city, Guangxi province.

Wow, I saw this image and really liked it. The shot is taken from a kind of low angle, but it actually enhances the image in a way because it makes the phoenix look so proud. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 12:52, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 12:52, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Busy background, low angle and poor lighting means you can't really see the features -- GWO 13:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose. i dont mind the background but the angle makes to hard to see what the scupture is of.Cavebear42 17:52, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Cavebear. -Hapsiainen 19:52, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for same reasons as listed above. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:29, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Bat

Bat

Granted, it's a bit smaller than the others, but it looks good. AlbinoMonkey 11:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • good picture, but too small. I'd support the original.Dunc|☺ 21:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Now support, nice. Dunc|☺ 21:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Now I think it's a copyvio. I can't support a copyvio. Dunc|☺ 13:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • A bit smaller! Oppose. Can't see any detail, would support a much larger version. ed g2s • talk 18:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Uploaded larger version, Change vote to neutral, not as good as I though it'd be. ed g2s • talk 00:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm leaning towards support. Its a good image, but we could use a source link so that the PD status can be verified. There is a larger version here, but its a bit grainy. -- Solipsist 20:08, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, now that the larger version is uploaded -- Chris 73 Talk 01:06, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Impressive. -Hapsiainen 19:52, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very Cool! --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:29, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose until public domain status can be independently verified.--Eloquence*
  • Support if license is confirmed. Janderk 15:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • comment it appears that this is from http://www.batcon.org/ so is maybe copyvio see [1] claims it's copyrighted by them. We should probably be nice and ask permission Dunc|☺ 21:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Birthday cake

Birthday cake
  • Support. Self nom. --Fir0002 05:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too much blurry foreground (especially the yellow candle), also background is distracting. Sure it was delicious, though -- Chris 73 Talk 06:08, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose. agree, hard to look at Cavebear42 17:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It looks clumsy. -Hapsiainen 19:52, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:30, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Total internal reflection

Total internal reflection

A good illustration of that optic phenomena.

  • Support. Self nom.--Fir0002 21:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose (we should have only one of these two anyway) good concept but it came out messy; Dunc|☺ 21:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • We should _have_ both, but only feature one. I hope that's what you meant? — David Remahl 16:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose, looks washed out. should have used longer exposure (I think, I'm not a photographer). — David Remahl 16:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ok idea, but not visually appealing. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:31, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Prism splitting light

Prism splitting light

Light breaking into the visible spectrum. The photo doesn't look spectacular as a thumbnail, but as a full image it looks pretty good.

  • Support. Self nom. --Fir0002 21:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think light effects like this are a shoo-in for featured pics, but I'd like something a little more dramatic. This is a cool effect, but it looks kind of messy and washed-out in this shot. --Twinxor 21:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above; better examples at [2] Dunc|☺ 21:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:31, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)


A-Bomb Dome

Citizens of Hiroshima pass by the A-Bomb Dome on their way to a memorial ceremony on August 6, 2004

Self-nom. The vibrant colors of the dome, trees, mountains, and water more than compensate for the washed-out sky. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose, sorry the overexposed sky is simply too distracting to me. IMO it would be a better shot if you concentrated on the building because I feel that it would be striking to see the building as it is today. But the way the picture is at the moment, the overexposed sky simply over powers the building in my eye, distracting the viewer. PPGMD 02:00, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The vast amount of irrelevant image overpowers what is important here. Get closer. Denni☯ 21:44, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
  • Oppose (as Denni) -- William M. Connolley 22:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC).
  • oppose. but i'd like to see a pic of the building close up. Cavebear42 23:57, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I love shots like this, it just doesnt look together. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:32, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)


UIUC Bardeen Quad (warning: huge)

UIUC parnoama

Great panorama created by Dori. Used on University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Warning: huge image, but that's the point - do not scale down, please.--Eloquence* 03:27, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Very nice! Is there a high-res version available? ;-) — David Remahl 14:36, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Panoramas are hard to do effectively, and this one hits the mark. Too bad about the lawn construction at the hit of the photo, otherwise it would have been nearly perfect. PPGMD 02:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 20:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose (a) as a picture, its boring (b) its absurdly large to feature (c) its technically imperfect (1. red building mid-right; 4th window from right: ripples; 2. red building with grey roof & 5 windows 1/2-left: ripples along gutterline; 3. pinky building at R, main face, R window has got a shadow and join is faintly visible; 4. tape is "broken" in foreground by join).
  • oppose -- boring. Dunc|☺ 08:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Technically well constructed, but jeez, what dull subject matter. GWO 15:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Give me a panorama of the view from the summit of Mount Everest, not someone's college. It's well-done, but subject matter has some role in this decision. Barfooz
  • Oppose for the same reasons as above. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:33, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Thomas G Graf 18:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Lots of Common hazelnuts

Lots of Common hazelnuts

Lots and lots of nice hazelnuts.

  • Support! I almost went and nominated this the moment I saw it in RC. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 00:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 22:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice shot! – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 00:08, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good one -- Chris 73 Talk 00:42, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tasty, and I don't even eat nuts. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:12, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Solipsist 17:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mmm...hazelnuts. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 22:01, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very tasty. Tra 12:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:33, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- you'd be nuts not too! (sorry...)-- PaulLomax 09:42, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)


Rodin's The Thinker in Kyoto

A copy of Auguste Rodin's The Thinker in front of the Kyoto National Museum in Kyoto, Japan

Self-nom. A picture which, I believe, excellently captures the statue and the beautiful facade behind it. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 21:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 00:08, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The overcast day makes the features of the statue less visible, which is also optically cut in half by the background building -- Chris 73 Talk 00:43, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC).
    • On the other hand, I find full sunlight tends to be a problem with most statues, the contrasts end up too strong and you loose the shading. A diffuse light and key light is often best (and pretty much impossible outside). -- Solipsist 17:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Chris. Gpowers 01:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Janderk 12:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are much better pics of the thinker out there (inc. the one on The Thinker)Cavebear42 16:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Nice though it is, that Thinker looks like its copyright status isn't right — the photographer would also have copyright and without source and attribution we don't know who that is. -- Solipsist 17:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 22:03, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cluttered -- William M. Connolley 22:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC).
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:34, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Baseball pitching motion

Baseball pitching motion sequence

Another photo, or series of photos, from User:Rdikeman. I understand that baseball is quite like cricket - I'm pretty sure I could figure out how to play it from this photo. I think it illustrates pitching a little better than it does baseball. -- Solipsist 19:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. -- Solipsist 19:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:46, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very informative -- Chris 73 Talk 23:32, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice series! – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 00:08, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Was thinking of nominating it myself reading the Baseball article yesterday, very illustrative. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:14, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Janderk 13:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Rick Dikeman has contributed many great sporting photos. GWO 14:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just looks so boring. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:35, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. As someone who couldn't care less about baseball, this series bores me too -- but this is an encyclopedia and the series is excellent at illustrating its subject matter. -- Oarih 08:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Williams F1

File:Williams f1.jpg
Ralf Schumacher driving a Williams F1 car in Indianapolis.
Ralf Schumacher driving a Williams F1 car in Indianapolis, horizontal/edited version.

And another excellent sports photograph from User:Rdikeman showing a Formula One car in action. Used to illustrate various Formula One relate pages, but I think it best represents the Formula One page. -- Solipsist 19:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. -- Solipsist 19:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support very much. I had intended to nominate it myself. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 21:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. How did you (User:Rdikeman) get such a good view?! Fantastic shot. But I think image:Webber usgp 2004.jpg is better :)--Fir0002 22:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Car very sharp, while background shows speed. Cool. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:44, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice but not special enough to be featured. Just a F1 car at a very unnatural angle. Janderk 13:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Added a rotated version. Unfortunately, a lot of the background had to be cropped. Support the first. — David Remahl 12:38, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support; more like this please! --Twinxor 21:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support the original one showing the car at an angle. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:36, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This one's "OK", but Fir0002 is right, image:Webber usgp 2004.jpg is much better. We want the best of the best. Why doesn't someone nominate that one? NickP 09:21, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well one reason would be that Jaguar is no longer racing in F1 (ironically Webber is moving into Ralf S's Williams car). Its a bit of a toss-up, the Jaguar has the advantage of being a little sharper, nicer colours and a less cluttered background. But to me, the Williams just looks like it is going faster and speed is a big part of illustrating Formula One. -- Solipsist 09:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


GB coxless pair

File:Rowing gb pair.jpg
GB coxless pair

I noticed we don't have many sports images. Here is a rather nice action shot of the currect GB coxless pair by User:Johnteslade, used to illustrate rowing. I suspect these two didn't win the Olympics this year, but as far as I can tell they are still world medalists in other competitions. -- Solipsist 19:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. -- Solipsist 19:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I dunno. An eighties feel to it. A good pic, but not quite up to par. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 00:08, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sun coming from the back shows the shadowed side of the rower and also blinds a bit with the reflections on the water. Not bad, but not quite feature material -- Chris 73 Talk 00:46, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Their heads are cut in half by the tree line. Gpowers 01:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, lighting is not up to par, and also it doesn't show as much action as a good rowing picture can. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:18, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Don't think the pic is special enough to be given featured status Enochlau 14:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Enochlau. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:37, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)


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)
  • Support - exceptional photo JoJan 19:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great photo. Really good. --Fir0002 12:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Josh Lee 02:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I like how the dark background makes the subject stand out more clearly where appropriate, but is still detailed in the areas around the monument. PMcM 21:35, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Air Force One" and "Mount Rushmore" may have mystical patriotic significance to some, but to me they mean bugger all and that just leaves a very ordianry picture. Oska 23:58, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hard to get moment. Great timing. Roscoe x 07:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • If it is not a "photoshopped" composite. Do we have a pointer to the original? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • It's a guberment photo from their website, I don't believe that they are allowed to release composites unless they are labeled. PPGMD
        • Which website? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:04, 5 Nov 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)
  • Oppose (don't much like as a pic; agree with MarkA) -- William M. Connolley 17:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC).
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:38, 05 Nov 2004 (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)
  • Oppose. Image quality is not good enough for to be featured. Janderk 13:06, 29 Oct 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)
  • Support. Strong preference for the first, because wing shape is paramount to proper species identification, and the second image, while apparently more pleasing to some, is less informative because of distortion. Ailatan 21:18, 10/28/2004 (UTC)
  • Support either one, I suppose. I added mutual links so users can flip back! And forth! --Twinxor 21:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Sorry, its not beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant. The butterfly is not sharp. The background should be black. -- NickP 15:56, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment. With regards to your comment, I disagree. I think it is extremely beautiful, and the comments above I think verify this. Also in regards to the sharpness - take a look at Pollinator's comments. I know this is an area to voice your opinions but I think your comment was unjustified. --Fir0002 06:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I still stand by my comments. There already is a much better photo in featured pictures, a moth, Image:Emperor Gum Moth.jpg, by yourself, in fact! How about Image:Bald.eagle.closeup.arp-sh.750pix.jpg as an example of a sharp photo. The second photo here, is not fully in focus. Featured pictures is getting crowded. I don't think we need more than one Lepidoptera.

        When judging photographs for artistic merit it is important to distinguish between a photo of a beautiful object (that one took) and a beautiful photograph. In these photos, the background is a distraction that takes one eye away from the subject. A butterfly is a form with color. That is what the photo should maximize. Be honest with yourself: Are these the best butterfly photos ever taken, or even amongst those on this site?

        P.S. You also might try using a film camera and having the negatives or slides scanned. You'll be amazed how much more color you'd get out of this subject matter. — NickP 01:35, Nov 6, 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)
  • Weak support. This photo shows nicely, a lot about what chocolate is about. As such it is a great photo for its purpose. Visually, it is a nice strong image. It is perfect for the Chocolate article, but should it be featured? I ask others. NickP 09:02, Nov 6, 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. When you promote an image, please perform the following:

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)
  • Support, ohyeah -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:09, 2004 Nov 2 (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.


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)
  • Oppose. Great picture. But the image size and license are unacceptable. Janderk 13:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, licence reasons. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:09, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because of license restrityions - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 18:13, 4 Nov 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)
  • Support. Striking colours. Tra 12:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Robert Hooke's Flea

Drawing of a flea from Robert Hooke's Micrographia of 1664.
Original drawing of the processed image above

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)
  • Oppose. Would support the original Image:HookeFlea01.jpg without hesitation. The shadows and feature on the original are much clearer, whereas the "fudged" version looks like a negative, and reminds me of a squashed dried bug found in an old book. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:53, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support the BW image HookeFlea01.jpg - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Bw HookeFlea01 — Pdefer | !! 03:35, 2004 Nov 5 (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)
  • Oppose. Nice shot but it looks like a bored zoo lion to me. Janderk 13:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tra 12:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He looks stuffed. Denni☯ 21:49, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
  • Comment. He does not look stuffed! He does not look bored! He is not yawning! He is not breathing fire! He is a lion roaring, in a natural-looking environment. Chameleon 12:26, 6 Nov 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)
  • Oppose. A bit boring. Tra 12:04, 30 Oct 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)
  • I can do that for you always looking for a reason to drink. PPGMD 23:36, 28 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)
  • Support. I like the theme, it's a simple but effective picture. PPGMD 23:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Janderk 13:15, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support; awesome. Twinxor 21:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


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)
  • Support delisting; there are far better U.S. Navy photographs. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:47, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. --Thomas G Graf 10:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. -- Chmouel 07:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Calendars

Template:OctoberCalendar

Template:NovemberCalendar

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=7182827"