Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/January-2005
| Featured picture tools |
|---|
Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.
I am sad every time I visit the full list of images and no longer see this image there. The reasons for removing this image from FP given during the last vote by Janderk were somewhat misguided -- Berber and Tuareg suggest that there are indeed a fair number of fair-skinned blue- and green-eyed people who wear the turbans of the Blue People. As most of the concurring Oppose votes referred back to his comments, I am resubmitting the image here. +sj + 09:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. First vote here - +sj + 09:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Suspend nomination. The last vote finished on the 2nd December. Although the time between nominations is not explicitly defined, less than 1 month is far too short. ed g2s • talk 16:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Re-nom.3F was the last time we discussed setting a guideline for time between renominations. I would like to see a 1 month guideline explicitly recommended, just so we have something to refer to when someone suspends a renomination like ed g2s has done with this one. - Bevo 18:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- FWIW, I agree with Ed that one would expect at the very least about 2-3 months between re-nominations. James F. (talk) 08:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Agree. Enochlau 02:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Hello people, does this matter? Shoot it down again if you really hate it. JediMaster16 03:50, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Sure. Oppose. Doesn't strike me or make me go wow; also, the colour in the photo is somewhat bland and heavily subdued. Enochlau 12:06, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Suspend or otherwise Oppose, dull colors and not stunning. BrokenSegue 15:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
self-nom; seems on par with other photos in FP and is only photo of this years' olympic flame on WP! seems characteristic of most olympic flames as well. blurry on full view but I was getting bumped by the turk to the right of me and the nigerian to the left and the greek behind me was using my shoulder for support! :) looks great in thumb and flame at opening ceremony 2004.jpg intermediate sizes. Used in Olympic flame, 2004 Summer Olympics- Alterego 23:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Nominate and support - - Alterego 23:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Weak Support. As you said it looks great at a small view (about 800 pixels still looks good) but full image is a bit blurry. --Fir0002 04:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Enochlau 06:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not sure what is suposed to be in focus. Both the fireworks and the crowd are blury. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 14:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. No part of the photo is particularly well exposed / in focus. Not stunningly composed. ed g2s • talk 02:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'd like to support, because it is a good photo. The camera shake isn't so bad as to worry me too much, given this is a bit of a one-off event. It's more the composition that I find confusing. Also, I might prefer Image:Opening_Ceremony_Athens_2004_Fire_rings.jpg for a shot of the Olympic ceremony (though its got unclear Stock.xchng licensing) and Image:2002 Winter Olympics flame.jpg for the Olympic flame. - Solipsist 13:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Neutralitytalk 06:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
- NOT promoted, +2/-5 -- Bevo 16:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
Stunning photo of Christmas Island from space. Released by NASA, uploaded by Seth Ilys. Note the clouds over the southeastern part. Amazing. - grendel|khan 01:33, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - grendel|khan 01:33, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
- Support -- Chris 73 Talk 02:30, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support - I uploaded a png derived from the larger image to get rid of the artifacts and pixelation (of course, the file size is 10x larger, too...) --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 04:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose Neutralitytalk 17:09, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose Enochlau 03:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support - Bevo 17:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support Lovely well-focussed pic, a great asset to its article - Adrian Pingstone 11:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support and note: I just uploaded the larger original version. Janderk 14:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Promoted: +6 / -2 -- Solipsist 18:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 |
 |
 a Wikipedia:Featured picture |
 |
I have put in a couple of options again. I like the second one becauseof the little strands of web visible at its legs Third option I like because the head is clearly visible Last one I like because of the semi transparent nature of its legs.
- Support first image. Self Nom. --Fir0002 04:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support any of them. Fredrik | talk 05:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I would support any of the daytime ones. The night one loses some of the detail of the spider. Enochlau 06:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support either the second or third [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 19:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support any daytime picture, slight preference for the Third Option - Head shot. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:49, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Support the third. The fourth could go on the Spider web article for sure though. Matthewcieplak 08:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support Third. --ZayZayEM 00:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support 3rd - possibly in place of Image:Redback frontal view.jpg - Solipsist 11:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Promoted 3rd: Supports #1:4 #2:4 #3:7 #4:1 Direct opposes 0 -- Solipsist 18:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service image of berries. I found it visually appealing. Illustrates the berry article. --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 04:43, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 04:43, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Tasty. Support. Fredrik | talk 05:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Poor focus, especially on the left hand side. Enochlau 06:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Mind the resolution. If you want it to look perfectly sharp at the pixel level, just size it down to 25%; it will still be large enough at that size. Fredrik | talk 23:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Indeed so. It looks much better now (with the auto-resizing). Change to support. Enochlau 15:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Mind the resolution. If you want it to look perfectly sharp at the pixel level, just size it down to 25%; it will still be large enough at that size. Fredrik | talk 23:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Yum -- Chris 73 Talk 00:47, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. A good image when zoomed out. Just out of interest, why didn't you upload a resized versions, as the full image looks pretty bad. --Fir0002 23:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Sorry! just looked at it now and it was a resized version. --Fir0002 23:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support - Solipsist 11:16, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support - I used the GIMP to resize it, but it might have compressed further (creating more artifacts)... Image:Alaska Wild Berries Resized.jpg ugen64 04:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Promoted: +7 / - 0 - Solipsist 19:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
.jpg?lang=en)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.
- Support. Better than the London one. ed g2s • talk 03:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. In my opinion, this is one of the top five images on Wikipedia. On a side note: the difference between South Korea an North Korea is striking. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 06:49, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. The Nile is pretty striking, as is the rest of it. Matthewcieplak 08:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very famous image, and rightly so. grendel|khan 09:20, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
- Support Enochlau 10:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Awesome! Check out Japan! It'd be interesting to find out how it was done - multiple images of course would be necessary to have the whole world at night, but also how did they eliminate the clouds and pick out the lights so well. --Fir0002 23:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Plenty to enjoy in this pic. You'd think there would be some variation in the colour of city lighting, but I guess it has been processed out. -- Solipsist 11:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -Lommer | talk 08:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Super duper support. Is that line running through Russia the Trans-Siberian Railroad? ugen64 03:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 08:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support TachyonP 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Retained as a featured picture: +10 / - 0 - Solipsist 19:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.
- Oppose. Lovely image, shame about the clouds. ed g2s • talk 03:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sadly, though. It'd be a really nice image if it weren't so darn blurry over more than half of it. grendel|khan 09:18, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
- Support. Keep it. You're still able to make out many interesting features from it. Enochlau 10:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose Sadly tooo blury [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 12:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose--ZayZayEM 00:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- it is striking how much this resembles fractured glass. --Elijah 05:50, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
- Support - Though not perfect its interesting. I also don't like the blurred elements and scan lines, but it is still more real and direct than the Earthlights composite. - Solipsist 11:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -Lommer | talk 08:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Neutralitytalk 06:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice Dmn / Դմն 00:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. James F. (talk) 08:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose Much too blurry to give me any pleasure - Adrian Pingstone 11:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Not retained as a featured picture: +5 / -7 - Solipsist 20:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.
- Oppose. Too artificial and grainy. ed g2s • talk 03:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, nothing spectacular. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 06:47, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Matthewcieplak 08:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Enochlau 10:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. --Fir0002 23:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. It looks a bit dated, but it is still a good composition. -- Solipsist 11:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Janderk 17:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - the lighting is poor, and I just don't understand the relevance of the fuzzy globe background; also seems to imply that one would handle that plant at that age in that way; I don't think it's done that way (say, as you would transplant tomato plants) - Bevo 17:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Not retained as a featured picture: +2 / -6 - Solipsist 20:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
This image was previously a featured picture and was renominated as it never went through the featured picture candidates process.
- Support. ed g2s • talk 03:02, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 06:48, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Support Matthewcieplak 08:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support--ZayZayEM 00:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support - Solipsist 11:13, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Enochlau 00:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -Lommer | talk 08:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. ugen64 03:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 08:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support, but Comment - this image doesn't actually illustrate any articles - it's identical to Image:Mars_Valles_Marineris.jpeg, which appears on Mars and Valles Marineris. One of them should be deleted and links redirected to the other one. Worldtraveller 19:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Retained as a featured picture: +11 / - 0 -- Solipsist 23:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
This image was created by User:Evercat, the same person as the currently featured image Image:Buddhabrot.jpg. However, I consider this one to be considerably more beautiful. It looks like a great work of religious art. It is used on the page Buddhabrot and clarifies why some people feel Buddhabrot images to have a religious feeling. - 221.249.13.34 06:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - 221.249.13.34 06:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. What ever will we do about the proliferation of brilliant images of things which are already featured? Matthewcieplak 08:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Enochlau 10:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'd say keep the current one for the time being. Enochlau 04:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- As you say, Image:Buddhabrot.jpg is already featured. I don't think we should have 2, perhaps the other one should be delisted? Evercat 12:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support this shows the Buddha likeness much better. Delist the other one. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:45, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Support --Thomas G Graf 19:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support, new one looks sharper. ed g2s • talk 22:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support --ZayZayEM 00:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support and delist previous FP Buddhabrot. -- Solipsist 11:12, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support new one and delisting BrokenSegue 19:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support new and delisting the old one. Janderk 17:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support new and delisting the old one. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support new and delisting the old one.. (had to be different from the others ^_^) ugen64 03:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support new, support delisting of old one. James F. (talk) 08:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- New image promoted: +12 / - 0 and 1 anon — previous image demoted +7 / -1 -- Solipsist 21:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
From NASA. If only we had physical maps like this for all of the countries. Used on Geography of France. - grendel|khan 09:17, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - grendel|khan 09:17, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
- Comment. I have uploaded the full version to the commons.
- Oppose. The drop shadow ruins it (it's uneven aswell). ed g2s • talk 22:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Isn't France deliberately cut out from surrounding countries, and that is what is craeting the shadow?--ZayZayEM 00:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Shadow isn't too obtrusive. --Elijah 05:53, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
- Neutral. I think the detail in the data is excellent and I like the fact that it is France that is the subject. So this should have a place in featured pictures, but I am also uncomfortably with the floating territory/drop shadow treatment (for example its not clear that the Channel Islands aren't in France). Unfortunately I couldn't find an original source image which could be used for an alternative boundary highlight (such as desaturating and tinting the neighbouring countries). -- Solipsist 11:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Neutralitytalk 00:15, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Enochlau 03:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Janderk 17:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I actually like the drop shadow... ugen64 03:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose; would be support if, indeed, like Solipsist suggested, we could use the original with the other countries faded. James F. (talk) 08:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Rescue me! Boring image - where is the excitement? JediMaster16 03:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support (JediMaster, how exciting do you expect a topographic map of France to be?) Shows the topography of France clearly, it's informative and pleasing to look at - Adrian Pingstone 11:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Have to say I agree with JediMaster16: it's clearly an illustrative image, but hardly gripping or exciting. Featured pictures should surely make you think 'wow' when you see them, and I can't see how anyone could find this a particularly thrilling image. Worldtraveller 19:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- NOT promoted, +6/-6 -- Bevo 16:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I was browsing Saturn V (via the front page bit about part of it being a "natural" satellite) and came across this wonderful image which shows all the launches of all the rockets, and it's simply a very nice image. Image was made by Reubenbarton with PD NASA images. --Golbez 17:43, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. --Golbez 17:43, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Sigh, hopefully no one saw the page juggling I did. Messed up a bit, should be fixed now. :/ --Golbez 17:54, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --Elijah 05:51, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
- Support. Nice composition.--Eloquence* 11:19, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Interesting. Enochlau 00:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice, but a composition of 17 pictures of the same object, no matter how inspiring doesn't seem featured picture worthy to me. -Lommer | talk 08:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Lommer, boring, also bad compression. ed g2s • talk 03:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Chris 73 Talk 09:00, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose Janderk 17:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. James F. (talk) 08:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. This awesomely illustrates parts of America's space program. JediMaster16 03:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Marcika 00:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support Excellent assemblage of pics, illustrates the article nicely but, above all, it's imaginative - Adrian Pingstone 10:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Its a good idea, and I guess its illustrative, but the different tones of the pictures and the close cropping of each one - it just doesn't looks so good. --Fir0002 23:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. They all look so much alike to me, that I don't see the significant value to seeing them all in the same image. - Bevo 03:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. It shows some evolution of the design. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Not promoted: +9 / -6 — Solipsist 17:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
Not all portraits are striking, but this one is. This is a portrait of Thomas More, made by Hans Holbein the Younger in 1527 (oil-on-panel, 29 ½ by 23 ¾ inches). High-resolution image. Neutralitytalk 17:13, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. Neutralitytalk 17:13, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Support we need more art in our gallery. BrokenSegue 19:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support - Renaissance art is seldom my cup of tea, but I remember Holbein's Thomas More being a painting which stopped me in my tracks whilst wandering through the Frick Collection. -- Solipsist 22:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support---it's a striking portrait---but shouldn't it be in JPG format? What's with the huge 2MB PNG? grendel|khan 22:09, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
- Support. Agree with above comment, perhaps jpeg is more appropriate. Enochlau 00:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -Lommer | talk 08:46, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Chris 73 Talk 01:46, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support Janderk 17:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support - I've uploaded the same picture in JPEG format (it's from http://www.english.upenn.edu/~schreyer/ - the exact same image). See Image:ThomasMore.jpg ugen64 03:45, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Especially good to see a high-quality source image (PNG form). James F. (talk) 08:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Promoted as Featured Picture : +11 / - 0 — Solipsist 17:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
High-quality X-ray, clearly illustrates the topic polydactyly. Also makes me think, "you have six fingers on your right hand; someone was looking for you..." grendel|khan 22:33, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. grendel|khan 22:33, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
- Comment. Does the patient need to have given permission for the use of an x-ray of his hand even if the doctor owns the image? Enochlau 00:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think the law says that they must be asked if their face or another identifying feature is shown. I have a dentist fried who only asks his patience for permission to use photos if their whole face is shown (when he gives presentations) not just their teeth. BrokenSegue
- Would anyone mind if I photoshopped out the LRP in the top left of the picture? I find it distracting and unnecessary. →Raul654 02:49, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't trust enough in my photoshop skills to do that; if you can make it look convincing, then by all means, go ahead. (If you do one, could you please also do the three other images on polydactyly?) grendel|khan 06:51, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
- This image looks very srange to me (besides the polydactyly obviously!)(though, I am definitely not a doctor familliar with the latest x-ray quality so....). Has this image been digitally altered? Why is the skin so clearly visible? I can even see folds in the skin near the thumb and details of the fingernail! Bizarre and reminiscint of images produced using backscatter X-ray imaging. Can you say something about the device used to produce the image? --Deglr6328 05:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I believe the X-ray machine used to do this uses an electronic sensor instead of film to capture the image; the pictures come back from the radiology department on CD in DICOM format without ever having been on film. The only digital alteration I performed was an auto-levels adjustment to brighten it up a bit. I don't think these are backscattering X-rays or anything funky like that, but I can't be absolutely certain. Drgnu23 would know. grendel|khan 06:51, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
- Support, absolutely! -- Chris 73 Talk 01:46, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support ugen64 03:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Neutralitytalk 02:22, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Fyngyrz 07:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Promoted as Featured Picture: +7 / - 0 — Solipsist 17:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
Beautiful, striking, and much more impressive than a little blotch on the sun. - grendel|khan 23:29, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - grendel|khan 23:29, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
- Support Denni☯ 23:35, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
- Support -- Chris 73 Talk 01:46, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Considered nominating a TRACE image myself. Much Supported--Deglr6328 02:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Wow! Support. →Raul654 12:44, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. That is an example of a striking image indeed. Mgm|(talk) 16:08, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Support the Sun! Neutralitytalk 23:47, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support ugen64 03:39, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 08:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. What are those white dots on the right hand side? Are they meant to be there? Enochlau 02:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. This looks awesome. JediMaster16 03:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Magnificent display of the immense energy of a sun/star. --Fir0002 22:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Clicked on the enlargement, and Wow. PaulHammond 13:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Incredible... -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Promoted as Featured Picture: +14 / - 0 — Solipsist 17:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A self nomination of a photo I took from the summit of Volcán Santamaria in Guatemela, looking down on eruptions at Santiaguito, a new volcano growing on the side of the old one. This is possibly the only place in the world where you can look down on an erupting volcano. - Worldtraveller 11:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Self-nominate and support. - Worldtraveller 11:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The stuff in the foreground is distracting, blocks much of the erupting volcano, and isn't visually pleasing. Also, since the photo isn't of sufficient detail, I can't imagine how it would add significantly to an article about volcanos. Enochlau 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. An excellent picture, but not particularly striking enough. JediMaster16 03:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC):
- Support Nice focus and enjoyable to look at. Good enough for me as a Featured pic - Adrian Pingstone 11:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. The volcano looks pretty good, but the rest of the image is pretty ordinary. --Fir0002 22:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Bevo 23:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, distracting foreground and sky seems to be overlit. Too white. Mgm|(talk) 10:04, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, its on a par with Image:Mahameru-volcano.jpeg, but if I were to go with another volcano image, I would have to choose Pu'u O'o. -- Solipsist 20:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, nice shot, but not quite feature-worthy - Jpo 00:30, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Not promoted +3/-6 BrokenSegue 03:05, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
View of the Black Sea near Sochi is a colour photograph by Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii, taken in 1915. The image is featured in the articles Sochi, Black Sea, and Argonauts.
Public domain from the Library of Congress website.
See http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/prokc.21643 for more information and the raw image.
- Nominated and supported on 30 Dec 2004 by User:Ghirlandajo
- Support. Not the most gripping subject and we already have some quite good sunsets. However Prokudin-Gorskii seems to have been a pioneer in perfecting the techniques for early colour photography. James Clerk Maxwell may have got the first colour photo in 1861, but it took Prokudin-Gorskii to get the result looking realistic. My only question would be is this the best example to choose (it quite possibly is). I find the Library of Congress torturous to navigate, but I also came across an excellent discussion of Prokudin-Gorskii's portraits of Tolstoy at http://www.utoronto.ca/tolstoy/colorportrait.htm -- Solipsist 11:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- good early color work. --Elijah 19:28, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
- Oppose. Just because it's good for its time or it is a pioneeering work doesn't mean that we should ignore the fact that it isn't all that clear and the fact that the horizon isn't that horizontal. Enochlau 02:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. So good-looking it's.... amazing. JediMaster16 03:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC):
- Support I say it's stunning. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose How can you have a Featured Pic with an obviously sloping horizon? - Adrian Pingstone 10:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Enochlau. --Fir0002 22:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. ugen64 23:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Bevo 22:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Neutralitytalk 05:10, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Beautiful, but it has the horizen problem and seeing a body of water doesn't necessarily help us understand what makes the Black Sea special. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Not promoted: +8 / -4 almost a consensus, but not a clear one. -- Solipsist 11:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)