Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2012 at 07:15:44 (UTC)
Reason
This was previously nominated by
User:Makeemlighterhere and was closed with no quorum. The diagram has evolved a bit and thought might give it another try. Issues raised by Jjron have been fixed if not improved.
Support as nominator ----ZooFari 07:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose. OK diagram and I like the cross-section approach. However, in the two general hear articles, there are a lot of similar diagrams and such (one has this image dropped down into references and is just way overloaded with same stuff). For the more particular articles on heart string and ventricle, the diagram is somewhat helpful as they lack a diagram. But I think for those articles, this drawing is overkill, labeling every part of the heart, rather than the few relevant to that smaller topic.
TCO (
Reviews needed) 06:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)reply
You say "in the two general hear articles, there are a lot of similar diagrams and such", but there aren't any other cross-sectional diagrams of hearts in either article. There are external labeling diagrams, but you don't get a perspective on the actual shape of the chambers. SpencerT♦C 06:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per previous nomination; I supported that as well. SpencerT♦C 06:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support, AGF it is accurate to the sources. upstateNYer 05:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support It is a beautiful diagram --
Guerillero |
My Talk 19:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support, although the highlight on the left common carotid artery should be curved to match the shape of the artery.
Kaldari (
talk) 07:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment One of the references (second) is a broken link which should be fixed. It is worth putting a webcite (
http://www.webcitation.org/) link in a comment next to references if something is liable to disappear (eg web links).
JJ Harrison (
talk) 23:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Fixed Updated sources and fixed gradient errors.
ZooFari (
talk) 05:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)reply
When I click through past the image page the backing of the left atrium disappears (visible on image page). Can someone check this? --
jjron (
talk) 15:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Fixed. I have also changed the gradient above the semilunar valve leading up into the pulmonary arteries to make it more "hole-like". You may compare between the versions and re-evaluate (if procedures here allow it).
ZooFari (
talk) 04:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment - updated refs are fine. Needs moving back to voting area...Nikthestoned 16:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Back to voting for a few more days.
Makeemlighter (
talk) 01:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Well, if you just want more support votes, you have another here. Quite nice.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 08:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak Support Though I think we have too many FP diagrams that aren't anything very special. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pteronura brasiliensis (
talk •
contribs) 16:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 17:58:16 (UTC)
Reason
A high resolution, very good quality, freely licensed photograph of
Kamal Abbas, arguably one of the most important figures of the Egyptian labor movement and a prominent labor rights activist during
Hosni Mubarak's reign.
Support Great photo, better than the un-cropped version. Like the grayscale too. -
Al Ameer son (
talk) 21:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per reflections on glasses and fact that the image would have higher EV if it were in colour.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment This has been rather widely canvassed on about fifteen user pages, eg
[1],
[2], ... ,
[3], ... ,
[4].
JJ Harrison (
talk) 01:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Per Crisco.
O.J. (
talk) 01:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose reduced EV in BW. Please do not canvas. --
99of9 (
talk) 05:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment The canvassing is worse than I thought. Only the supporters from the Commons nomination were approached (on Commons):
[5][6][7][8]. In
that vote there was also evidence of unusual vote stacking. --
99of9 (
talk) 06:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Alvesgaspar
Clegs (
talk) 09:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Would a FP delegate please close this candidate. There is no possible way to have a fair and balanced discussion about this picture and it's EV with canvasing to this degree. I am appalled. --
Guerillero |
My Talk 06:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Speedy close Guerillero makes an excellent point.
Clegs (
talk) 09:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Additional comment: I considered commenting that this should be left to run its course and canvassed votes discounted, but discounting every new user's vote on the suspicion that they may have been canvassed through unseen means, seemed the wrong thing to do, so it might be better to speedy close this without prejudice, not least because some people are now opposing because of the canvassing rather than giving consideration to the picture's merits. I do, therefore, recommend that this not be re-run in the near future as we may end up in the same situation again. I hope that those who canvassed will consider in earnest that FPC is not a popularity contest, but an objectivity-driven attempt to elect images of particularly high quality and encyclopaedic value. As we all try to uphold the highest standards in avoiding cultural bias (*looks around*), the possibility exists that this would have been promoted in the absence of canvassing.
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 13:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: I would support straight away, but we do really need to know where this digitisation came from.
J Milburn (
talk) 11:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support I would like to see JJ Harrison's concern fulfilled --
Guerillero |
My Talk 20:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: This nom's voting period expired three days ago; why is it still here? Are we suspending it until the source of the digitization is confirmed?
Clegs (
talk) 09:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Suspended pending clarification on digitization.
Makeemlighter (
talk) 01:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I've
asked the uploader where the image came from, but he's blocked/banned right now, so it might take a while.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 08:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
Tomer T (
talk) 21:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. Added Alt 1 with reduced noise levels.
O.J. (
talk) 03:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Sorry, I withheld from voting last time, but I guess if it's coming back I may as well comment. I do quite like the composition, but I find this all a bit murky to be honest; I understand that this in difficult lighting conditions and better lighting may be very difficult, but it honestly doesn't quite do it for me. Some of the other images linked on the image page, while possibly done using on-camera flash, show that better lighting may be possible, and would also bring up truer colours. Couple that with the limited extent of the image - we can't see the whole tombs, only the top third or so, Catherine is well and truly out of focus, and even the lower shoulders and 'bed' of poor old Henry are gone, and it doesn't quite make it for me. --
jjron (
talk) 05:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose also... There's a lot of
chromatic aberration (I believe that's the term!) going on throughout the image, such that at 100% much of the image is red and green. I guess this is a result of the high ISO used but is still not ideal. Additionally, I'd prefer an angle something like
this to show all of both of the tombs. Nikthestoned 16:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
The other angle is boring.
Tomer T (
talk) 20:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Perhaps seen as boring, but of far greater encyclopedic value, in my opinion. Nikthestoned 09:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support alt 1 I love the angel it adds to the photo. The tomb from above would be boring --
Guerillero |
My Talk 22:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Would like to see the whole sculpture, not just the bust with the rest cut off.
Clegs (
talk) 11:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Both the angle and the crop make the subject a bit difficult to take in. —Eustresstalk 18:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support -- Good quality. EV is good for the list, but I don't think there's enough for a POTD blurb... new article, perhaps?
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
Tomer T (
talk) 21:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Good quality and EV. ■ MMXX talk 23:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support edit 1 - the edit looks right to me.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 05:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. --
jjron (
talk) 05:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Pref to Edit 1. --
jjron (
talk) 10:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. I was going to suggest a more balanced crop (given the nut is slightly to the left of centre) but given the foliage I'd say it's about right as is. Nikthestoned 17:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC) — Prefer Edit 1. Nikthestoned 12:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Please don't oppose because of my reason. Fixing the color is a very simple thing to do --
Muhammad(talk) 08:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Well, I made a corresponding minimal edit a few days ago, and it got reverted on Commons with the reasoning that edits of existing QIs/VIs are nuh-uh, but Lycaon previously communicated that he wants edits to be uploaded over the top, so I've asked the reverter what he wants to happen. If anyone wants to express an opinion, feel free to do so on his Commons talk page.
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 10:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm very prepared to change to a support when the colour is fixed, but until then I stick by my oppose.
Aaadddaaammm (
talk) 11:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support alt 1 only, looks good.
Aaadddaaammm (
talk) 10:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Is that exclusively for ALT1?
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 12:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Clearly he means Edit 1 only. --
jjron (
talk) 14:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose edit 1 - I think you've taken it a bit too far, appears rather bleached now. Try somewhere in the middle.
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 12:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I agree with PLW, I prefer the original. ■ MMXX talk 22:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose original, Support Edit 1 The color correction has given it enough EV to convince me.
Clegs (
talk) 09:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 1. The cooler colours are more natural. I don't think it would strike anyone as bleached unless viewed next to the original, which may be more pleasing but is arguably of lower EV.
Must remember to sign comments! GodEmperorTalk 20:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Noticeable JPEG artifacts, especially along high-contrast edges (see the pitchfork for example). Also, the cloning out of the creases is a bit sloppy (see pitchfork holder's chin for example).
Kaldari (
talk) 09:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Kaldari.
Clegs (
talk) 11:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 23:55:37 (UTC)
Reason
High quality reproduction of (admittedly fairly simple) film poster for a very notable pornographic film. I prefer the one with a handjob, but
one without hands is available too.
Oppose --I think this is a nice image, but too light and washed out. And other than being tied to the most famous porn flick ever, there is nothing special about this image. –
JBarta (
talk) 07:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
To quote myself below "Our personal taste in the art style in something such as a movie poster or artwork should generally not be considered, but the quality of the reproduction. The reason being that the EV is derived from its representation of the subject of an article". This is the same reason that a quality reproduction of Campbell's Soup Cans (if it were freely licensed) could be a FP despite having a fairly simple subject matter.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 08:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
It's not quite the same; this image isn't a famous piece of artwork, it's an image that was used to accompany a famous piece of "art" work. The noted work is the film, not the poster.
J Milburn (
talk) 08:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Crisco, by your reasoning, every quality reproduction of any two dimensional work that has encyclopedic value is deserving of featured picture status. Why is this image any more deserving than other similar images? Regarding the image quality, looking at other versions of this image both here and on the web, I believe I'm accurate in making my criticisms about the colors and lightness. If you disagree, please tell me why. –
JBarta (
talk) 10:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
@J Milburn: Gotcha. I was considering the one which is essentially lines and squares, but I couldn't remember it's title.
@Jbarta: Would I support a faithful copy of the cover of The White Album? Probably not... probably. Would go great for April fool's day though. For this, I think it's complicated enough to deserve input. As for the colouring comments, I will upload an alt when I can get to a web cafe. This laptop doesn't have the proper software and my one that does died while I was at
RecentChangesCamp in Canberra.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 11:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. Subject matter has perfectly suitable EV. My monitor may not be configured correctly, but the black-and-white image at the top looks kind of jpeggy.
Spikebrennan (
talk) 15:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)reply
If you look at the
original scan/photo you'll see the photo of the woman is blown up
halftone. The image quality of the poster itself is is somewhat low (at least by modern standards) and the scan just picked that up. The image was subsequently edited to minimize the halftone effect (among other things). The current image is an improvement, but still suffers from being a mediocre quality poster. Actually, a case could be made that because of the smoothing of the halftone, the current image is not a faithful reproduction of the original poster. –
JBarta (
talk) 18:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support --Encyclopedic and interesting to the extreme. Very well done. –
JBarta (
talk) 10:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per nom Did you get your laptop going?
JJ Harrison (
talk) 10:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
No, not yet. I'm on the Toshiba, which is second rate despite being newer. Usually Mrs. Crisco uses it.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 11:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is an excellent drawing but it needs labelling of the components being shown. The value of a line drawing over a photo is that this kind of annotation is possible. Therefore to me this falls down on EV. - ZephyrisTalk 12:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I had considered that as well. The more I thought about it however, the more I thought labels would simply add unnecessary clutter to an otherwise clean & handsome line drawing. Do you really need labels to tell you things like WING, TAIL, SEAT & ENGINE? I think it's a drawing just meant to be looked over and taken in. Labels would be more useful in more detailed drawings of components or sections rather than the entire plane. At least that's my thought. –
JBarta (
talk) 12:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
The new usage of the image certainly improves the EV greatly. - ZephyrisTalk 20:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. Can I suggest this probably could do with better article usage to improve EV? At the moment it's buried a heck of a long way down in its single article, but more concerning is that it doesn't even have a caption (much less a good caption). Re the source, is that English version actually in English? And I've noted the reply above about labelling, but I'm rather concerned that apart from not having a caption, that this contains absolutely no information about it on the image page, other than the name of the plane. All that may be acceptable on Commons, but for the 'pedias, I reckon it should be better. --
jjron (
talk) 15:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per my comments above. OK, so I just looked this bad boy up on Russian Wikipedia and over there it has fantastic article usage -
have a look for yourself. Fully labelled in beautiful detail in its own section, with links directly off the image to related articles; great! I would definitely support that. Here though, it's simply been dumped down the arse-end of the related article, and that I can't support for a B&W line diagram. Sorry. Give me that Russian style EV and I'll happily change to support. --
jjron (
talk) 15:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support new usage, as long as it sticks. Unfortunately someone has
already halved the size and IMO reduced the EV. I was going to revert, but perhaps worth taking to the article talkpage? --
jjron (
talk) 13:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I'll ask on the talk page.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 08:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per jjron - the usage in that Russian Wikipedia article section is superb, the usage in the English one is... not. Nikthestoned 16:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: I've
added the schematics like in the Russian wikipedia. If it stays... well, that's up to MilHist. Opposing voters, feedback please.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 10:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Since Sp33dyphil asked for particular comment: As Nick-D's earlier comment hints, it's unlikely to be a straight scan, especially in SVG format, and it would be difficult to create a free derivative such as this and not have it look similar to a textbook version that is trying to do the same thing, with the same model of airplane. So with Altoing citing a different source
here than the one Sp33dyphil claims, and with Commons having happily promoted this to FP (plus long-term history of contributions from Altoing), in the absence of further evidence that this was a closer kind of reproduction than we're allowed, I consider the point solved. Let us know if anything new surfaces.
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 09:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Info -- A second try as I wasn't satisfied with the outcome of the first (
here) and believe that the picture deserves the distinction. Not for its cutness (which certainly helps) but mainly because of its ev.
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 19:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
The image has minimal EV though. It's only in one article and it
replaced an image that, in my opinion, better illustrated the concept of panning. There are some things I don't find attractive in this image in particular. The background does not have that horizontal crisp "panning feel" that is appealing in the former image of the article (and lead image) The low shutter speed has made the subject underexposed or less appealing contrast. Since the chicken moves up and down, I'm not sure if it is a good subject to use for illustrating panning. What's the rebuttal to the opinions in the previous nomination?
ZooFari (
talk) 03:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per all the reasons given in the mentioned previous nom (and above). I feel
theseareallbetter illustrations of panning. (and 2 are already FPs...) Nikthestoned 10:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose and recommend booting it out of the panning article. The previous picture was much better.
Clegs (
talk) 11:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)reply
OpposeThis picture already represents camera panning as a featured picture. That picture is IMO far better to represent the article. This nominated picture is alright (i guess...), but it doesn't really represent camera panning that well. I can take a picture like this by pointing my camera at my dog (while she is running) and taking a quick picture. Its just not a good representative picture, and i don't feel it is really the best picture Wikipedia has to offer on this subject.
Dusty777 (
talk) 21:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per above and my comments in the previous nom (which I think are still valid!).
File:2007 swifts creek lawnmower races05.jpg is IMO a far superior example of panning and shouldn't have been replaced by this in the article. --
Fir0002 04:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Pro . High quality, "WOW"-factor arises by the water droplets from the snout of the specimen in the middle.
Grand-Duc (
talk) 00:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Question What EV does this have over the other impala pictures? --
Muhammad(talk) 02:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)reply
This photograph depicts 3 different viewing angles of an impala, hence a high educational value. --
Grand-Duc (
talk) 00:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Drinking position also adds EV.
ZooFari (
talk) 01:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I echo the concerns above - there are already four impala FPs - kind of hard to justify a fifth. I'd suggest a delist and replace of the current female FP (
File:Female impala.jpg) as this one is higher image quality and has the additional EV of the waterhole (grasslands already being shown in the male impala FP and the oxpecker FP) --
Fir0002 04:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment This is the species: petersi (Aepyceros melampus petersi = black-faced impala) from the north of Namibia. The other FP impala is the species melampus (Aepyceros melampus melampus) from the east of Afrika. --
Alchemist-hp (
talk) 10:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Different subspecies gives enough EV for me, though I agree we probably need to have a impala trim.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 04:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Again impalas? Imho bad composition, overall too dark and has nothing eyecatching.--
♫GoP♫TCN 09:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, again an impala, but incl. hooves! And I think you need to calibrate your monitor. The image isn't dark. It is perfect exposed. Take a look to his
histogram. --
Alchemist-hp (
talk) 22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
My monitor is perfectly fine.
File:Serengeti Impala3.jpg has better contrast and composition. Background is out of focus.--
♫GoP♫TCN 14:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Image is executed well technically, but lacks a certain bang. No argument about EV, it just doesn't grab me the way I expect an FP to do.
Clegs (
talk) 09:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Not a fan of the harshness and direction of the lighting. It creates annoying shadows that distract form the facial features. --
Dschwen 15:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Aepyceros melampus petersi female 8014.jpg --
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 21:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)reply
A close one, but if dissenters don't make their objections official, there's little a closer can or should do. Grand-Duc, please use "support" in future instead of "Pro". Thank you.
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 21:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 22:34:42 (UTC)
Reason
Very good illustration of the tower, pictured right after the restoration by Théodore Ballu carried out between 1854-58. It provides also an excellent illustration of the square surrounding it and its users.
Support. Agreed, amazingly crisp photo considering the age. You can really see just how slow the film was to expose though, judging by the motion blur of the people.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 16:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support --
Fir0002 04:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Sorry, the title's off because I don't know how to promote different resolutions than the basic ones.
Pteronurabrasiliensis 16:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak Support Heavy compression artifacts on its neck and back. Caption needs major improvement also.
Dusty777 (
talk) 20:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose It appears there is already an overabundance of Impala FPs - the Impala article has no less than four (the impression one gets is they are a relatively easy subject on a safari). This shot adds nothing new to the existing FPs --
Fir0002 04:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)reply
From what I saw, none were close up like this one.
Pteronurabrasiliensis 17:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)reply
But the whole body--
♫GoP♫TCN 14:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Fir0000000000002 ;-)
Clegs (
talk) 10:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Thanks for nominating this picture taken by me but I don't think it has the sufficient EV for FP. If we ever have something about imapala horns then perhaps we can nominate it. --
Muhammad(talk) 19:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment This photo had been in the article
canopy for 11 minutes before its nomination here. It's best to wait to see if it's stable in the article before nomination...
Aaadddaaammm (
talk) 08:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I would put this on hold for 5 days. That is often enough time to see if the article writers support or reject the image --
Guerillero |
My Talk 17:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Not counting edits related to the current FP candidate being added, the article has had 2 edits since the beginning of November. It's not an actively written article, so anything you put up will stay for an indefinite amount of time.
Clegs (
talk) 10:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I'd suggest just waiting until the image has been in for a week before nominating - that is what the rules proclaim.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 03:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I'm not really a fan of the image regardless of how secure it is in the article. It doesn't really show the canopy very well and is underexposed.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 09:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The image fails to show what the nominator stated in his intro, that it " illustrates how the treetops pack closely together to capitalise on sunlight". The different tree canopies are quite widely spaced. I know the effect he is alluding to, but this isn't it.
Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 18:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose' I'd want an illustration of canopy to be a little denser than this. This is almost half blue sky.
Clegs (
talk) 09:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 08:53:46 (UTC)
Reason
Easily one of Van Gogh's most recognizable works, this faithful reproduction from the Google Art Project is of high resolution and good quality. EV for both the painting and the artist is through the roof.
Support requires no questions or thought --
Guerillero |
My Talk 15:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. Resolution is a bit borderline though. Really would like to see some of the smaller bacteria as well. GodEmperorTalk 16:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Wow! 16.4 um/px at the original Google Art resolution... That is pretty impressive! - ZephyrisTalk 19:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Great quality; one of his most definitive works and thus strong EV. SpencerT♦C 01:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Outstanding quality reproduction of what I think is the greatest painting of all time.
Nick-D (
talk) 11:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. I notice this image has evidence of wear on the edges and is pretty dim. The rendition
here, however, shows the brush strokes much better and has been cleaned up on the edges. Is the image proposed here somehow preferred to the one I've linked to (perhaps for the sake of historicity?). I much better prefer to enhanced version I've linked to. —Eustresstalk 01:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Unable to open the link (dunno why), I can't know for sure. But since it comes from a wallpaper website, the file there may have been retouched before publication. As for a reason to use this one... it's pretty much guaranteed to be an accurate representation of the painting as it was at the time of digitization, and the resolution is much better.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 04:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Nope! 1280x800 and it has substantial parts cropped off. You cannot be serious. Sorry, but please keep in mind that we should choose encyclopedic value and authenticity over sexed-up flickerized saturation fests any time. --
Dschwen 14:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Fun fact - my computer used an additional 8.35 GB of ram when I opened this. The quality is amazing.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 21:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. As we discussed
previously (see Adam Cuerden's vote and my response), Google has cut off a miniscule sliver of the painting that is visible in its current frame (there's no way to know whether VG intended that sliver to be visible or not).
Chick Bowen 01:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Sorry, but when I can't view this image, I can't in good conscience vote for it. Wikipedia needs to be accessible for all, not just for geeks who know how to download a huge image.
Aaadddaaammm (
talk) 09:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Odd, on Firefox 10 on Windows 7 starter edition (and a pretty bad connection), I can still view it using the large image viewer tools. They aren't working for you?
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 09:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)reply
K, the 3rd time looking I found the tiny "Interactive large-image-viewer" link on the image page. Do we think that normal users will see this?
Aaadddaaammm (
talk) 09:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Although it's been discussed many times before, I agree that we should find a way to make it more intuitive. I asked at
WT:FPC if we can apply a fix only on the English Wikipedia or if it must be everywhere, but no reply yet. BTW, is this still an oppose?
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Not my favorite "starry night", but still beautiful and of course top notch quality. Soon we won't need attending museums anymore. -
Blieusong (
talk) 11:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support my favourite Van Gogh.
Pernoctator (
talk) 01:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Van Gogh - Starry Night - Google Art Project.jpg --
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 12:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Adding a small note to this: I raised the resolution to 30,000 pixels wide, and also uploaded the full gigapixel image as a set of four tile images, so any lovers of high resolution should feel free to have another look :-)
Dcoetzee 09:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 10:33:49 (UTC)
Reason
High EV (currently lede picture in band's article) and gives fairly equal prominence to each member. Not blatantly advertorial, although admittedly from an advertising campaign. Personally, I like the lighting and the posing is decent.
Support as co-nominator --
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 10:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as co-nominator —Eustresstalk 23:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Conditional supportIt would be better to identify the members. I found
this source, but matching appeared hard for me :)Brandmeistert 11:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I have a strange feeling that my 11-year-old students could do a better job at that than either of us. On it anyway.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 12:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
ID done, cap updated —Eustresstalk 23:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. As per my comments at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Girls' Generation I agree the band members need to be identified. I thought that was why the nomination of this was being delayed in the first place. Can we suspend until that happens? --
jjron (
talk) 13:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I've put requests in at two different places, and am liable to bring this to a lesson on Thursday (I wasn't kidding about my students knowing better than me about this). I've tentatively id'd two.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Surely there should be some pundits out there...
Brandmeistert 21:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Is it worth just asking two or three of the article regulars on their talkpages? A few have edited multiple times in the last couple of weeks, so are active and perhaps know the band well. A consensus of opinions would also be good. --
jjron (
talk) 14:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, Crisco jumped the gun. I was assuaging the ID and English-language issues for the file name on Commons -- both of which are now resolved. I've updated the image file name and the image caption. —Eustresstalk 23:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support now assuming correct IDs. --
jjron (
talk) 12:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Color needs to be fixed too. ■ MMXX talk 23:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
What colour issues do you see? On this web-cafe monitor and mine at home, the colours look okay.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 00:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Does anyone else feel its too red?
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I think this effect was made intentionally by the photographer, as the colours become gradually stronger the more your eyes move to the left.--
♫GoP♫TCN 18:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I think it was quite intentional too, and I don't find it too strong or a problem. Product photography has a bit more liberty when it comes to artistic expression. As has been argued before, it's this artistic expression of the 'product' that is actually part of the EV in my opinion.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 15:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per nominators. High-quality and very nice EV as the lead photo. Thanks to Eustress for fixing various word-related issues.
Fallingmasonry (
talk) 08:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support I like this photograph--
♫GoP♫TCN 18:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Fixed. Don't know how it ended up like that; perhaps Eutress' internet is like my satellite modem - compresses things of its own accord.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 00:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Thanks, not sure what happened on my end. —Eustresstalk 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. It's high quality and a good example of the kitschy Korean pop style.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 15:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support very sharp, no compression artifacts, and high EV --
Guerillero |
My Talk 17:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak support -- There's something I can't put my finger on that's bothering me when I look at the image. Very nice indeed, but something's nagging me... could it be lighting on the door?
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 01:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
The background? And FWIW the description on the image page needs to Englishfied for here. --
jjron (
talk) 14:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
That is part of it, yes. I don't know if these models are taken to outdoor shows though, so I wasn't going to press on that.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Ah, cloudy. That might be part of it (as I noted above, it is a little dark on the doors). Not sure whether to go full support or stay partial. I'll consider
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Cloudy? Those are pretty strong shadows for a cloudy day. (However, on that, perhaps it's the minor backlighting, with the sun being slightly to the rear of the car?) --
jjron (
talk) 12:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, I think so. However, I don't know how you could get that lighted edge like that unless the whole ceiling was all one big light. Which, you know, it technically couldn't be. Unless you tried very hard.
Pteronurabrasiliensis 15:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I think wires may have been crossed somewhere. As you said earlier this is outside, however it's clearly not cloudy (or not very cloudy) and is lit by the sun from behind; don't know what you're talking about re
ceilings and lights. My parenthetical statement above was directed at Crisco and his uncertain problem with the image. --
jjron (
talk) 09:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Decent illustration of the car but not featurable. The very unappealing background is in focus, and if the crop were not so tight and it had better composition, its significance as part of the Nürburgring complex might make it acceptable, but as it is it's just ugly metal. It's clearly possible to get images of these cars during races on the track (
commons:Category:Oldtimer Festival Nürburgring).
Julia\
talk 07:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support —
M 93 (
talk) 07:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Unattractive background is too much of a detraction; nothing places this at the Nürburgring. Not especially sharp or detailed for a car image. Backlighting creating frontal shadows is not ideal as per above discussion. The high number of new voters tipped me off that some somewhat suspicious
interwiki canvassing appears to have taken place. --
jjron (
talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Background are two historic roller blinds of garages in the old paddock at Nürburgring. --
Spurzem (
talk) 14:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
If only people used [[:File:Image.jpg]] ;) --
Muhammad(talk) 14:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per jjron.
Clegs (
talk) 15:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Background is indeed distracting. —Eustresstalk 18:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
support. It is a wonderful classic car in front of the historic paddock garages of Nürburgring. Therefore I took this photo. I wonder that the authentic background should be unappealing or distracting. --
Spurzem (
talk) 21:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Ich frage mich, wie sich die englischen Kritiker ein gutes Foto von einem MG vorstellen oder was ihnen an dem “abgeschmetterten” Bild nicht gefällt. Einer meinte “it could be much better”. But what should be much better? (Please excuse me that I can not say all this exactly in English.) --
Spurzem (
talk) 21:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Technical aspects: Blown highlights on the cake, heavily visible. Aesthetic aspects: Looks poor on a plain white background, a little context would be better. Encyclopedic aspects: I'd prefer something at least hinting at how it is consumed (those don't quite look like the mooncakes available here, but then Mrs. Crisco bought green ones...)
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
There is an
original background, but 5 out of 9 current food and drink FPs have similar neutral background and the cake is not something sophisticated to show how it's consumed :)
Brandmeistert 21:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose All Limited depth of field. Original per Crisco. PLW's edit has plate marks and the bottom left of the plate still visible. I'd be most happy with the original version over either of these edits.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 03:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Sorry, food FPC are very hard to pass. The food has to be literally perfect. Any slight imperfection in the food will give an oppose. Here, the background is a bit hazy at the edges, and there are minor blemishes on the mooncake: i.e the creases/cuts/whatever at the lower right of the mooncake--
Nanoman657 (
talk) 18:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support although the full res image was broken according to Firefox when I tried to view it. At 1400x1742, it looks great.
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 10:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment the full size was broken for me, too. This should be addressed before we promote it, probably.
Clegs (
talk) 10:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Viewing works fine in both the flash-based and javascript-based large image viewers, which satisfies me. The resolution and image quality are crazy cool.
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 12:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Viewing works for me too (Firefox on Windows XP)
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 01:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
Mamad TALK 00:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: Is it me or does the tilt seem off a little? SpencerT♦C 01:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's not you. At least I think I know what you are saying. Also, the angle is almost straight-on, but just not quite.
Pteronurabrasiliensis 02:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support; Proper resolution, agreeable angle, and extremely encyclopedic and historical notability. It's a scarce photo of this ancient place and its environment is ideal enough to make it a clear one. I don't know what "tilt" is in your mind! May you explain a little more? ●
MehranDebate● 10:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I know the meaning of "tilt" my friend, I meant why did you say that? Because I couldn't find it. ●
MehranDebate● 13:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I was thinking the diagonal upwards shooting of the photo and the fact that it is not quite straight on.
Pteronurabrasiliensis 14:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, you're right. But as I said above, this is a scarce photo of this area. ●
MehranDebate● 18:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Strongly Support Good quality, EV--
آرش (
talk) 19:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Purple fringing in parts of the right half of the image. In addition, the heavy shadows on the right side obscure the detail. SpencerT♦C 22:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support beautiful image
Ram!n (
talk) 00:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
This is the user's fourth edit; all 4 of user's edits have been within the past 3 days SpencerT♦C 03:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above + fishy supports from other users --
Muhammad(talk) 05:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm a little worry about this matter that the others think that there exists a canvassing because of attendance of some Iranian users. I don't know about the others, but I saw this page quite randomly, anyway you can ignore my vote if you feel it's a kind of
Canvass. Regards ●
MehranDebate● 08:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support exact frame, historical and ancient photo, beautiful symmetry-like picture, acceptable resolution, nice color and synchronous background, narrator of interior palace of Persepolis, essential and deserving for Wiki Pedia!
Alborzagros (
talk) 10:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Poor framing, geometric distortion, poor image quality. I don't like the national canvassing either.
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 11:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above. Are the metal bars on the left side a permanent feature, or did there happen to be restoration work going on at the time the picture happened to be taken? I hasten to point out that we would love, love, love to have a featured-picture-quality picture of this monument, but this picture isn't it.
Spikebrennan (
talk) 14:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
the metal are bars on the left side is permanent!
Mamad TALK—Preceding
undated comment added 17:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC).reply
Comment:I don't want to persuade, but the top region is in restricted area and taking photo of there is not so easy, at least I didn't see a proper image of this place before, and that's why I said it's scarce! ●
MehranDebate● 18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. a little too tight of a crop and a bit out of whack. --
Dschwen 15:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The upward shooting angle means there's too much sky in the frame and not enough palace. In particular, we can't see the lower bits of the stuff further to the back. GodEmperorTalk 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Just doesn't grab me the way an FP should.
Clegs (
talk) 16:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Crop is way too tight. Can't compare the size or the structures relation to the surrounding area. That kills the pictures appeal.
Dusty777 (
talk) 17:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support High EV, nice and sharp, good illustration of probably the most famous battleship in the world.
Clegs (
talk) 09:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Surely not? What of the Bismarck, Hood or Yamato?
JJ Harrison (
talk) 22:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: The image caption says the ship is underway, yet I see no bow wave, no wake, etc. Rather, there seems to be a mooring or anchor line from the left bow. Does anyone else concur? Should we change the caption?
Clegs (
talk) 10:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Conditional Support Great picture, but the caption needs some improvement (E.G. Where is the ship going? Where did it come from? Whats it doing?). I agree with Clegs. There is no disturbance in the water in the area around the ship, so it doesn't appear to be moving.
Dusty777 (
talk) 16:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support the EV is high but I agree with Clegs --
Guerillero |
My Talk 17:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Underway, not making way;
underway should not be confused with
making way,
see this, also
this article explains that a vessel can be underway with no way on (i.e., not moving), this is the original caption provided by
NARA and I assume it is correct. however, the caption's date is probably wrong as suggested by someone
here, the ship was
modernised in 1930, but in the image she has cage masts instead of tripod masts, the ones you can see
here and
here. ■ MMXX talk 00:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Sturm also concers on the
file's talk page that the ship is anchored and not underway.
I understand the difference, however, she appears to have an anchor line or mooring line coming from her left bow. According to your link, she would then not be considered 'under way'.
Clegs (
talk) 10:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Sturm is right on that. I don't think there's any way to tell where the photo is taken unless we find a distinguishing feature that was only on the ship for a very short period of time, which we could then link with a place. Also, OOC, what do you people of adding back some of the sky and water that was cropped from the top and bottom? Right now it seems too narrow to me (I was the one who originally cropped it, but now I'm rethinking the crop)
Ed[talk][majestic titan] 03:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I like the crop the way it is. It's very aesthetically balanced.
Clegs (
talk) 10:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I too prefer this crop, it is better for the article and has better EV than
original image. ■ MMXX talk 22:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 10:34:43 (UTC)
Reason
Both are of high quality and very striking. The
previous nomination was... well, it needs to be read to be understood. Suffice it to say I think a set nomination would work better, although I prefer the true colour image if we must pick only one. This nomination was made after a comment by
Extra on my talk page.
Articles in which this image appears
Both together on
Messier 82. Individually on another 7 articles.
Support both as nominator --
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 10:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as sub-nominator really striking --Extra999 (
Contact me) 10:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support the alt, as that's the one that is the lead image, and has been for some time. However, nominating the images together was perhaps not the best idea- it was that which led to the clusterfuck last time.
J Milburn (
talk) 19:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Yeah, the old nom was a little FUBAR... I like both.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Call me ignorant, but in the grand scheme of things this is just another pretty NASA shot like many others we have seen on this page. I'd rather see something new and unique getting the FP badge here. --
Dschwen 15:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Pardon? But how else would one represent this galaxy? Would you oppose all bird pictures because "we have enough birds"?
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Really, you won't get across such space pics of such quality anywhere, as you seemed to take it. --Extra999 (
Contact me) 09:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
There is certainly an issue here, but the answer would be to encourage alternative kinds of images, not hold back the usual. If it was found, for comparison, that proportionally far fewer women were getting into universities, I'm sure plenty of people would support measures to support and encourage women who are applying; I doubt many would support turning down men who would otherwise have been offered a place.
J Milburn (
talk) 16:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Actually that is exactly what is happening on the job market, if certain quotas have to be met. --
Dschwen 23:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
But there is no limit to the no of FPs we can have --
Muhammad(talk) 16:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Quite; that's why I thought that university admissions was a more apt comparison than jobs.
J Milburn (
talk) 23:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Dschwen's opposition is poorly informed. Just because objects are in space does not mean they have EV for the same reason. The only FPs that have marginally overlapping EV with this image are the 10-odd galaxy pictures. However, none of these illustrates a starburst galaxy (except the obviously anomalous Antenna galaxies). M82's status as the prototype for this important galaxy class gives it strong and unique EV. As Crisco says, Dschwen is equating eagles and ostriches.
Fallingmasonry (
talk) 18:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support It should be made more prominent in the caption the bits of the spectrum that these images are from though.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 09:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Alt, Neutral on Original(why are they both labeled "Original"?) For the 1st image, I think the EV would be better if the IR and XRay images weren't composited, but presented as a pair.
Fallingmasonry (
talk) 18:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Changed Original (#2) to ALT
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:M82 HST ACS 2006-14-a-large web.jpg --
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 11:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 13:52:31 (UTC)
Reason
A striking view of Mount Everest and another of the other highest peaks in the world, Lhotse, giving a good idea of the topography around it for extra EV
Comment. Which direction are we facing? An indication in the caption (e.g., south face of Mount Everest) or something like that would be helpful.
Spikebrennan (
talk) 14:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
South of the mountains, facing north (so south face of Lhotse and Everest, south-east face of Nuptse)
[9]Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Also, the image on Commons is annotated.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. --
Spurzem (
talk) 11:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I prefer Edit 1. --
Spurzem (
talk) 12:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. High value picture. Looks like there is a slight CCW tilt to it (from the cloudline/horizon). --
Dschwen 15:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support One of the tilt corrected ones. Per nom.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 08:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC
Comment Can I ask all of you to specify whether you prefer the original original or the fixed version currently uploaded over the top? Commons is complaining again, and the fix may have to be uploaded separately...
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 13:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Probably better to upload separately. They both look okay to me.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak Support Needs an improved caption.
Dusty777 (
talk) 16:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
In-article or in nomination? If in-nomination, fixed. If in-article, soon to be fixed.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support In-nomination.
Dusty777 (
talk) 23:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support, though agree with Dschwen that it may be slightly tilted. --
jjron (
talk) 10:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Support consensus tilt-corrected version. --
jjron (
talk) 05:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Tilt adjusted version added.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 11:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Edit-1 The correction greatly improved the picture. Dschwen made a good call on that.
Dusty777 (
talk) 17:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Edit-1. Nice edit. —Eustresstalk 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support either edit Can't tell a difference between the edits, but they are both better than the original. Very good picture.
Clegs (
talk) 10:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support any edit EV in List of highest mountains.--
RedtigerxyzTalk 16:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support any edit. Wonderful picture with high EV. -
Darwinek (
talk) 12:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Buried pretty far down in the article. Makes me wonder if the EV is really exceptional.
Makeemlighter (
talk) 00:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I saw that, but I considered that usage pretty weak. Nobody else minds the EV, though, so forget I said anything.
Makeemlighter (
talk) 02:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support any edit prefer edit 2.
Jujutacular (
talk) 13:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Mount Everest as seen from Drukair2 PLW edit.jpg --
Julia\
talk 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Preferences (where stated) fell to edit 2 after its addition.
Julia\
talk 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I actually see two supports specifically for Edit 1, one preference for Edit 1, one support for Edit 2, and one preference for Edit 2.
Makeemlighter (
talk) 04:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 11:47:35 (UTC)
Reason
It's hard to imagine a more comprehensive and aesthetically pleasing depiction of this subject. It was promoted on Commons as early as 2007 and had
rather enthusiastic support.
Weak support. I like how the lighting brings out the painting, but the unnecessarily cropped of tip of the canvas bothers me a bit. Would have been even more awesome if the "tools" were shown as well. --
Dschwen 15:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I agree. This picture is only telling half the story. GodEmperorTalk 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Very nice.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 11:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Sorry to ruin the party, but the technicals are pretty poor (particularly blown highlights on the page).
JJ Harrison (
talk) 23:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The important details are all present in good quality, and without the play of shadow and highlight, you wouldn't get the nice correspondence between subject and depiction that is possible here (subject = the view through the window). Also, white paper is designed for high reflectiveness.
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 09:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose Technically a solid image, but for this to have full EV, I think that a set of the watercolor paint (
like this) needs to be included in the image. SpencerT♦C 02:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support: The natural light on the fresh paint makes the water-based nature of the medium conspicuous. I think the EV lies mainly there and a set of paints is superfluous to that and unnecessary. That could well enough be shown in a separate image, such as
this one.
Julia\
talk 15:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 05:50:44 (UTC)
Reason
Good quality with nice colours. Although minimalist, it has EV as it is representative of large swathes of Australia's Northern Territory. As far as I can tell, our nearest FP is over 1000 km away. Similarly we do not have any FP
Landscapes that are anything like this.
Support as nominator --
99of9 (
talk) 05:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's an alright picture. But, only the foreground is in focus, it has very heavy compression artifacts throughout the rest of the picture, and the sharpness needs adjustment. The caption could be improved also
Dusty777 (
talk) 16:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Please can you explain what you mean by very heavy artifacts, and where you see them? Had your download completed? I do not expect any compression artifacts, because both times it was saved from RAW at JPG-100%. Nor can I see any artifacts. Caption improved. I'll consider sharpening once I understand what you meant by "very heavy compression artifacts". --
99of9 (
talk) 00:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I can't see any artifacting either. --
jjron (
talk) 10:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
What he's seeing, (also the OOF mentioned below) is the result of heat waves.
Clegs (
talk) 16:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Actually, the compression artifacts i thought i saw, was due to the rocks in the foreground and the asphalt on the road giving the appearance of artifacts (if you look close enough, you should see what i mean).
Dusty777 (
talk) 16:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Not enough of the scene is in focus GodEmperorTalk 20:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Composition leaves much to be desired sadly. I love scenes like this, so I kinda wish this were executed better. Essentially, the image doesn't flow, or carry the eye well. My eye is first drawn to the barren and slightly washed-out horizon, which, in a setting like this, is very disconcerting: it can appear tilted due to the slightest screen distortion, and if the horizon appears tilted, it really taints the shot. As for the highway, it simply enters the frame at an arbitrary vertical point and slices the shot with no apparent deliberateness. The flow that does exist (which is inherent with any road picture) brings the eye to another arbitrary and poorly placed point at the far top-right. Overall, I don't feel like I'm in the setting as I should for an excellent highway photo; instead I'm certain at once that I'm looking at a screen. I'm happy to see it's a QI over at commons, though, as it's definitely interesting and covers a poorly illustrated area.
Juliancolton (
talk) 01:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Where's the road? I mean, I see it, but it's not prominent enough in a picture supposed to illustrate the road. Opposing on composition grounds. --Rschen7754 03:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose I actually like the composition as an Abstract image, but it doesn't help the EV - the subject appears to be the tire tracks in the foreground.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 22:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. I've read through the opposes, but still think that the picture could be an FP. It's bold and seems at first to convey almost surreal natural beauty, but then it's evident that humankind has left its heavy footprint (or tire tracks) on a road it's built across the plain. I'd actually like to see this on our Main Page.
dci |
TALK 04:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
Mais oui! (
talk) 10:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Poor image quality - small, noisy, highly compressed. But agree with nom that this would indeed be excellent if the image quality was up to scratch. FWIW, given the uploader's
edit history, I wonder that this isn't potentially a copyvio anyway. --
jjron (
talk) 12:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is extremely noisy, and it is quite small. It barely fits the size requirements. The underside of the helicopter is also pretty dark. On the positive side, the composition and scene are nice, but that's about it.--
Nanoman657 (
talk) 14:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I really love the composition and the colours, but the technical qualities really aren't up to scratch. If you see another image that catches your attention, feel free to come back and nominate that!
Aaadddaaammm (
talk) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Speedy close Only a photo of historical value, where a photo of better quality would be unobtainable, would ever get away with such a high amount of noise and low resolution. GodEmperorTalk 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment And also I would argue that this doesn't meet the minimum size requirements. Panoramas must be substantially larger than 1000px on the long edge to ensure sufficient detail can be seen. This is effectively a vertical panorama, so the same logic should apply. GodEmperorTalk 12:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Not promoted - image has
been deleted as apparent copyvio. --
jjron (
talk) 13:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - Striking portrayal of a deity, good EV.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 11:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Perhaps it needs brightening a little.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 23:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Is this an original crop (because the sides appear to be cut-off when it comes to feathers)?
Brandmeistert 13:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment well about the crop thingy the painting is like that.between can i support it's nomination since i was the one who uploaded it on commons.also i want to know whether the name can be changed to its proper title which is Shri Shanmukha Subramania Swami I actually uploaded this over an older version of the painting.
Pernoctator (
talk) 15:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The crop question was also raised on Commons, but the image is like that. As for the name, IMO the current name is descriptive as well as the common name
[10][11]. --
RedtigerxyzTalk 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Is there some rule that prefers the common name over the proper title?.i believe some of varma's paintings were untitled and different people have given different names to it.for example the lady givings alms painting is also known as mandodari.now how would you decide which name is common.
Pernoctator (
talk) 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
No. There is no rule. The policy only says "Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen", which the current title fulfils. --
RedtigerxyzTalk 16:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
so whats wrong with Shri Shanmukha Subramania Swami by Raja Ravi Varma.the term murugan is very regional.i think the pan indian term is kartikeya (which is also used by tamils).i had raied this issue on the article of the hindu deity whose painting this is.even western scholars mostly refer to him as kartikeya.some use skanda and kumara too.
Pernoctator (
talk) 16:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Nothing is wrong with "Shri Shanmukha Subramania Swami", but I just saying the current title is correct too.--
RedtigerxyzTalk 16:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
say yes or no.otherwise i won't go ahead.also i would like comments on
Murugan title being changed to kartikeya.i have raised the issue on the talk page.
Pernoctator (
talk) 16:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support easily one of varma's best.resolution is good.
Pernoctator (
talk) 01:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose - It seems that the image is half. ●
MehranDebate● 12:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
If you're trying to say what I think you are - that the image has been cropped, then that has already been explained (no, it has not been cropped, the original composition is just this way).
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I read the above comments, but I still think that's not the original composition. All of the paintings which have been showed in the two above links have a similar dimensions and it seems that their dimensions are predefined (both horizontal and vertical). They are a little promotional websites, I will be support if I see a RS coverage which proves that this is the original size. ●
MehranDebate● 14:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - According to Redtigerxyz's references, if it really is its original size, it's proper to be featured with its quality and EV. Agreed with Harrison, I liked this
version which is brighter. ●
MehranDebate● 17:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support -- Wow, I would have thought it was a painting.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 11:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Note that a photochrom is essentially a manually colored photo, so it's not so dissimilar from a painting.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 06:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support As Crisco said, I would have thought it was a painting. Excellent quality!
Dusty777 (
talk) 16:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Very nice, def EV too. —Eustresstalk 17:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose has compression artifacts, especially visible in the sky.
Pinetalk 10:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Doubtful given file size. I see a bit of noise, but no artefacts.
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 17:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
There were some marks in the sky, not artifacts for sure. how is it now? ■ MMXX talk 00:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Maybe noise is the better word. Whatever it is, it still doesn't look quite right. I may be being too picky given the age of this photo. Perhaps what I'm seeing is in the original, so I'll change my vote to neutral.
Pinetalk 09:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 12:15:47 (UTC)
Reason
Compelling view of iconic skyscrapers. Also of good resolution, fair quality, and well-exposed, considering how tricky that highly reflective glass would probably be.
Wouldn't it be better to have a shot from the ground? It's difficult to separate the building from the rest of the background --
Muhammad(talk) 02:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
It might work for the towers, but shots from the ground would not be able to sufficiently include the rather unusual bases of the buildings, which is an essential part of the EV.
Julia\
talk 15:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
Balaji (
talk) 19:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid it's a bit low on the resolution, compression artifacts, unsharp, and fringing on the petals.
ZooFari (
talk) 19:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose essentially per ZooFari. Fair amount of noise on central subject, whatever the cause.
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 20:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above, and for an over zealous use of the shadow highlight too.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 21:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose quality is just not there. Noise, low res, artifacting. Suggest reshooting using a nicer camera, and then it might have a chance.
Clegs (
talk) 12:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support alt 1 - EV ●
MehranDebate● 09:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. Alt 1's colours are a bit unrealistic, and there is banding/posterization as well as blown highlights in the sky. If people prefer the high contrast look, I'm sure a better compromise can be found that doesn't have all of the above faults. I'll process the image from the originals and upload tonight maybe.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 17:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I've uploaded an improved version over the top of the original, with more contrast, a bit of a saturation boost (but not as much as the alt), and a bit more pixels. You might need to refresh things to see it.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 16:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose The sun is simply at the wrong angle.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 23:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
Pinetalk 11:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I really wish we could have that without the people walking behind it.
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 17:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Sorry, but the headlights are much too light. Furthermore people without heads are not attractive. --
Spurzem (
talk) 21:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I find this to a rather unflattering image of the car due to the perspective.
Saffron Blaze (
talk) 22:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose The chomped off people and stuff makes this a snapshot rather than a professional looking photo.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 08:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA)
Support as nominator --
Dusty777 (
talk) 01:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose because of wrong proportions of the continents, as already mentioned on Commons (though I can't find trace of it). Something wrong with mapping/stitching process. -
Blieusong (
talk) 07:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Blieusong, clarify this for me. You are opposing because of wrong proportions of the continents, yet you don't see this problem in the picture? (That doesn't make sense.) The
Featured Picture Criteria doesn't say anywhere that you can judge your vote just because of something someone else says about the picture. I don't see what the guys over at Commons are referring to. I have never gone to space so I wouldn't know how the continents are proportioned.
Dusty777 (
talk) 18:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I've never been to space (unlikely to ever happen) but I've already looked at globes and America doesn't look like this wherever I look at them from. I don't follow other judgements recklessly, my reference to Commons was only for information. I also just opened a google earth and tried to find a point of view which would mimick the candidate. I haven't been successful so far, but would be happy to see a proof of the contrary. Note that I assumed this is view simulating what one would see from space (which I guess is what most would do, and not take it as a result of specific projection). -
Blieusong (
talk)
Just realizing this is only a low orbit view (as mentioned) but with a very large field of view squeezed into small frame, hence that strange (to me) effect. -
Blieusong (
talk) 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment -- There is nothing wrong with mapping, as already explained in Commons (see here:
[13]). The cause for the apparent distortion is the small altitude of the camera, making the horizon closer and the field of view shorter. That is why I find this picture interesting and deserving the FP status. But not before an explanation is given both in the picture file and in the caption. --
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 10:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
It should be much more clear that this isn't a view of the planet but the result of some projection is a result of a close view of earth with a very large FOV. As it, it's very misleading. -
Blieusong (
talk) 19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Large FOV? To simulate the distance the Suomi NPP satellite is from earth, hold a ball that is 10 inches (25 centimeters) in diameter about 5/8ths (1 1/2 centimeters) from your face. That is how far Suomi NPP is away from the earth, and that should give a good example how large the FOV that the VIIRS instrument (the instrument that took the picture(s)) has (
Link for verification). According to NASA, the pictures that compose the main picture, were taken over 6 orbits of the satellite going around the earth. There is no "very large FOV" due to the fact that the whole picture wasn't taken at once, but is actually composed of many pictures.
Dusty777 (
talk) 23:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)reply
OpposeNeutralSupport Both Support Only original per Blieusong and Dusty 777. Took me a little to see what you were talking about, but you'r right, it does make it look like North America takes up over half the earth.
Clegs (
talk) 12:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)reply
:::Look this over again later, but for now the explanation is enough for me to change to Neutral.
Clegs (
talk) 12:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Now that I am actually educated on what's going on, both of them would make good FPs.Clegs (
talk) 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
After examining the alt closer, the white streaks bug me. I really need to stop doing this in bits and snatches in the middle of the night. Makes for very disjointed logic.
Clegs (
talk) 08:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your feedback, but could you please not use my comments as a reason to oppose this particular nomination? Don't want to confuse people since i am the nominator =D.
Dusty777 (
talk) 17:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Re: Perspective. This image is totally accurate in its representation of the size of North America, and you can test it at home:
Find a globe, shut one eye, and hold it about 6 inches from your face while looking at North America.
Open Google Earth, zoom in so the globe completely fills the window, spin it to find North America.
This is the view you would see of the Earth if you were ~7000km up and looking at the planet with the naked eye or a typical normal-zoom camera. - ZephyrisTalk 14:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Info The perspective is explained quite clearly on the description page (perhaps some of this information should be included in the caption?): This view results from a height of the satellite which is about 826 km above the surface of the Earth. Because of such a low orbit not whole hemisphere is visible, and horizon is in a distance of only about 3300 km while the radius of our planet is 6371 km. The diameter of horizon seen from such a height is about 125 deg.Fallingmasonry (
talk) 17:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. Image appears to meet all the FP criteria. —Eustresstalk 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. The notion that the proportions are wrong appear to have been dispelled. The closer view may be a tad Americentric, but I don't believe that disqualifies it from FP status. GodEmperorTalk 13:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - The view is explained well enough... the photographic analogy of a mercator projection.
Saffron Blaze (
talk) 10:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't see the EV. This image isn't even mentioned in the article.
Makeemlighter (
talk) 01:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment The entire article is about Blue Marbles and this is one of them and arguably the best.
Saffron Blaze (
talk) 02:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
It's mostly about the original Blue Marble. There are also mentions of images released in 2002 and 2005, but other than the caption, there's no mention of Blue Marble 2012. What does this particular Blue Marble add to the article? Maybe something, but I don't think it adds enough for FP.
Makeemlighter (
talk) 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The lead mentions it clearly and explains it in some detail later on. As to FP... this is the latest in the series. Article could use a gallery of each new image though.
Saffron Blaze (
talk) 18:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I added a new section in
Blue Marble to provide additional info about the picture, and to increase the EV.
Dusty777 (
talk) 01:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Change to Weak Oppose because the picture is at least mentioned in the article now. I still think it lacks exceptional EV, though.
Makeemlighter (
talk) 01:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose I think this particular perspective (from low orbit in combination with wide field of view) is confusing and is of lower EV than any more
distant view which represents the relative proportions of continents in a more accurate and comprehensible way (i.e. more similar to the usual projections used in mapping. --
ELEKHHT 21:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Can you explain in more detail as to why the picture being composed of pictures from a low orbit lessens the EV? Also, how is this picture confusing?
Dusty777 (
talk) 00:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
It lessens the EV because the chosen peculiar perspective provides a less good overall representation, while there is no significant gain in any detail added as result of the low orbit. With the example you give above, there is no point looking at a ball from 10cm/inch, if you can look at it from 1m/3ft, as it does not provide us a better view. That is confusing should be obvious from the comments above. With a normal field of view not all the planet would be visible, but something like
File:View of Earth from MESSENGER.jpg. The peculiar effect of the composed image is that viewers perceive it as if it was taken from a greater distance, and than are confused by the unexpected proportions of the landmass. Again, I see no advantage in an image which is unnecessary confusing. Hope now is clearer what I meant. --
ELEKHHT 00:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. Feeling less enthusiastic about this image as a picture of the Earth in itself than I was previously, due to reasons reiterated many times above, but I think it might have more value in an article such as
Satellite imagery, say, if the technique were fully described in the article. Failing to see why alt 1 has been added to this nomination as it is essentially a different picture. It has more EV as a picture of the earth, but not as a demonstration of the low-earth orbit mapping technique, the component pictures being take from over 15 times further away, thus giving the more familiar (but neither better or worse) perspective. GodEmperorTalk 21:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The nomination is by no way a "demonstration of the low-earth orbit mapping technique". It would be so if for instance the individual frames would be indicated, or a regular mesh/grid showing the peculiar distortion would be overlayed. Also is unclear what would be the purpose of the "technique", as it doesn't appear to be a good base for the production of useful maps. --
ELEKHHT 21:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I find the Alt much better as is taken from 12,000 km (as opposed to the original nom taken from 826 km), thus providing a much better overview. It is also interesting to compare it with the 1972 image
File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg showing a similar perspective (although taken from 29,000 km). Therefore if replaced in the article I would support. --
ELEKHHT 21:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
If you would prefer that version, please go ahead and give you're vote, and the closer will let us know which version gets promoted (If either). If your preference gets promoted, I will personally switch out the pictures. Does that sound good to you?
Dusty777 (
talk) 22:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Ok, conditional Support Alt-1 if placed in the article. --
ELEKHHT 22:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Any time you have to go to so much effort to explain the perspective, it's probably not worth featuring IMO. Preventing this kind of perspective issue is why we try to use long lenses on architectural subjects. I particularly dislike the white streaks on the alt, so strong oppose on that (I understand how they came to be there, but that does not make them good). --
99of9 (
talk) 23:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
3.5 opposes, 5 general supports, 1 support original, 1 support alt 1 (we generally assume placement of the winner, btw).
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 00:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
♫GoP♫TCN 16:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose The crop is extremely tight and cuts off a little at the bottom left. I presume it's because there's other stuff around, such as the lampposts and another building that just start to creep in at the top of the photo on both sides. And it looks very slanty. There isn't a straight vertical line anywhere. Lastly, it looks a bit blurry, but in all fairness that might very well be my failing eyes! Matthewedwards :
Chat 02:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Distracting elements at top, perspective issues, underexposure, low resolution, ... .
JJ Harrison (
talk) 08:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Matthewedwards. --
Nanoman657 (
talk) 14:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 20:28:32 (UTC)
Reason
A fairly high resolution image with good exposure displaying an area within an UNESCO World Heritage Site (of which the main point of such site is viewable in the background of the image).
Support as nominator --
Inops (
talk) 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Either by gratuitous use of an grad ND filter or post processing the sky has been left too dark to be realistic.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 00:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Off-centre, waterbody cut off on right side. A nice looking place, for sure, and we should be able to get a replacement picture worthy of being featured. Matthewedwards :
Chat 02:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per previous comments. —Eustresstalk 20:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 18:02:19 (UTC)
Reason
Fortunate lighting made this cluster of mushrooms an ideal subject for the species. Stem colouring, white hairs and 'scalloped' cap edges are all visible. This photo has high resolution and good EV.
Support as nominator --Stu Phillips 18:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. Had my eye on this one
for a little while; it's wonderfully composed, striking and an excellent aid to identification. It serves well as a lead image for a decent article. You can see why the species's called a clustered bonnet!
J Milburn (
talk) 18:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Seeing as I recommended the edit and suggested it be nominated FP.
Saffron Blaze (
talk) 01:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Per myself on commons: Aperture leaves the sharpness lacking a bit, but there is plenty of detail and it is a really nice picture.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 08:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Yes thanks to Saffron Blaze for recommending the edit and FP nomination, and J Milburn for adding to the article --
Stu Phillips (
talk) 20:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment This is a really nice photo but there's some blurring about a third of the way in from the right. Can this be fixed at all, if it's a stitching error? --
Stu Phillips (
talk) 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't think I can do anything about it unfortunately.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 23:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per large OOF section, which I find pretty distracting... Nikthestoned 16:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per comments above.
Pinetalk 05:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Quality issues aside, THIS is what a panorama should be. Beautiful, sweeping, majestic. –
JBarta (
talk) 00:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - Wonderful!--
Askalan (
talk) 17:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
Tomer T (
talk) 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose - image needs to be straightened... I'd also like to see more to the right, this image feels like it's arbitrarily cut-off. Nikthestoned 16:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose tilted, cut off, and generally feels like a snapshot.
Clegs (
talk) 11:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
Tomer T (
talk) 15:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose the picture seems dark to me and the Depth of Field seems strange --
Guerillero |
My Talk 16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Weird focus issues... and too dark...
gazhiley 22:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Question What are we looking at? The main hall? The attic? The cellar? Need some details. It is kind of an interesting picture, it's very unique.
Dusty777 (
talk) 03:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree with Dusty that context would help.
Pinetalk 05:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 16:24:57 (UTC)
Reason
Sadly, I can not find a Boy Scout painting by Rockwell that is PD and of a High Quality. I did find this gem. It looks good and is in the style of all early - Mid 1900s magazine covers.
Comment. It looks like the cover has been imperfectly scanned - the date and price are partly cutoff at the top which is unlikely to have been how it was made, and there's black borders on the sides and bottom that are unlikely to be part of the original cover. I do like it as a cover pic though. --
jjron (
talk) 10:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
That is what the google books scan looks like. I can't find another source to fix the scan --
Guerillero |
My Talk 17:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
But none of size. I wonder If there is a collection near me who has a copy and the equipment to make a scan. *goes off to look* --
Guerillero |
My Talk 16:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose, per jjron's comments regarding the scan. Would also need some slight restoration. I love the subject itself however.
Jujutacular (
talk) 13:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per scan issues. Nikthestoned 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Something odd happened with the legs - they aren't entirely visible.
Brandmeistert 05:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
They have sunk into the mud - you can see quite a lot of mud on the legs if you look at them carefully.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 06:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - Very nice. Laura will be (probably pretend) peeved that you still got bird FPs in Canberra but haven't had a basketball player nomination, LOL
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Indeed. Shame my pix all disappeared though (AKA laptop is fixed, but data is gone... s***)
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 02:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
That sucks, I usually protect a few of the best images and leave them on my card until I get home.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 22:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Good shot.
Clegs (
talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I can't decide which one I prefer, but I'm inclined towards
File:Elseyornis melanops - Wonga.jpg, which has better contrast, shows more of the habitat and both legs are clean, although the angle from behind is not as good. --
ELEKHHT 21:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
From that image, one can't see the feature whence the species gets it's name. Frankly, for most people looking at the article, a more complete view of the legs isn't at all important for identification. A complete view of the plumage has more encyclopaedic value.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 22:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support upon further consideration, given the significance given to front plumage. --
ELEKHHT 23:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak support wonderful colors. I think there might be a slight OOF issue here which is why I'm not voting full support.
Pinetalk 05:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Question I'm a bit intrigued, how do you get such beautiful DOF at an aperture of f/6.3? More relevant to the nomination, I think the photo should be cropped a bit - if you look at how it's used in the
Black-fronted Dotterel article, the space surrounding it looks a bit too much.
126.109.231.71 (
talk) 01:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
It's a 700mm lens. --
99of9 (
talk) 02:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Firstly, the shot was taken lying prone, so the background is about 100 meters behind the bird. This will result in a really blurred background with any telephoto lens and practical aperture. Second is per 99of9, though it is a 500mm lens with a
teleconverter rather than a 700mm lens. The entrance pupil at 700mm f6.3 is about 111mm. Compare with say 50mm at f1.2, which gives a 42mm entrance pupil. The result is a fairly shallow depth of field.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 06:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 23:13:49 (UTC)
Reason
This species is quite common in mainland wetlands, but has a tendency to cause a little excitement when found in Tasmania. It is usually found clinging to reeds, and is often partially obscured, making photography more challenging.
Weak oppose -- The reed looks too bright.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Blown out highlights on the left of the reed the warbler is standing on and maybe on the tail of the bird/nearby reed where the contrast between bird and reed is lost a bit. GodEmperorTalk 00:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: I wasn't there when the pic was taken, so I can't be sure, but to me, the color temp seems a bit too cool.
Clegs (
talk) 09:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose agree with comments above.
Pinetalk 06:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Captures bird nicely. Perhaps it could be cropped a little to centre the subject.
TehGrauniad (
talk) 18:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak support --
Askalan (
talk) 23:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 23:10:39 (UTC)
Reason
This species is seemingly a bit more common on the mainland than in Tasmania. This image would complete our featured picture collection for the Grebes usually found in Australia.
Support - Significantly better than the other images on the page. Additionally, I find the reflection quite aesthetically pleasing. Nikthestoned 16:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment The histogram seems very biased to the bright end, I would suggest a bit of a gamma tweak... - ZephyrisTalk 22:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The exposure is correct. The histogram needs to be looked at in context - most of the image in pixel area is the reflection of bright, sunlit trees and grass on the water.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 22:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I keep wanting to support this, in terms of effort and quality, but just can't. I find the distortions too disturbing - this is really much too close to the surrounding buildings to take in a 180° panorama (the buildings at image left are on the same straight road as those on image right, yet we're looking face-on at both of them).
Old City Hall (Toronto) is very uncomfortably warped, and the Square itself gets a really weird shape (spend a bit of time reconciling it with
this 'straight' image of the Square for example; in fact I spent quite some time trying to work out what I was actually looking at using several other articles/images and Google Maps and street view before I really felt sure what was in this and where it had been taken from). I'm also not entirely convinced about the colours. Maybe if you want people spending ages trying to figure out what this place really looks like this is a good prompter, but the distortions kills the EV for me. Something a bit less ambitious in terms of angle of view would IMO come up more pleasant and informative. --
jjron (
talk) 12:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support As per my commons statement and the fact it takes quite a bit more than a wide angle persepctive to disturb me.
Saffron Blaze (
talk) 13:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per SaffronBlaze.
Clegs (
talk) 09:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support I like the wide angle perspective. Color and clarity are good.
Pinetalk 06:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Distortions aren't distracting, at least not when viewed in the larger format. Illustrates the subject in a great way.
126.109.231.71 (
talk) 02:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
You need to sign in to vote. Anonymous votes are generally disregarded.
O.J. (
talk) 15:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose - See Jjron.
Askalan (
talk) 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Nathan Phillips square - Toronto.jpg --
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 09:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Firstly, the image isn't straight and has a scan-border which should be cropped. Secondly, there's a fair bit of artifacting going on around throughout, particularly noticeable around the red writing at the bottom. Nikthestoned 10:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose tilt and artifacting.
Clegs (
talk) 11:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Needs to be perspective corrected, cropped, and the restoration could be a little better. Suffers from excessive jpg compression and it's really not a very high quality photo/scan all the way around. The *only* thing going for it is high resolution, but that doesn't make up for its flaws. –
JBarta (
talk) 00:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 00:10:33 (UTC)
Reason
At a
recent delist nomination, this image was suggested as a replacement. I agree that the image is of high quality, so it would be nice to have as a FP. If the delist nominator, P. S. Burton, feels as if s/he should be conominator for this image, s/he should feel free to add her/himself.
Support. The picture is high-quality, and seems to convey a moody, if not downright gloomy, atmosphere that fits the circumstance surrounding the end of this chap's life.
dci |
TALK 04:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - I can't comment on the accuracy of colour / tone (as per the concerns in the
delist nom) however this seems to be a very high quality repro of a notable work. Nikthestoned 10:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per my comments on D&R nom.
Clegs (
talk) 11:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support (no need to co-nominate) –P. S. Burton (
talk) 20:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Question -- It's loaded with prominent white specks. First, are those actually visible if you stand in front of the painting or are they brought out by the camera? Second, wouldn't we want to carefully clean up a few of those spots before making it a featured picture? –
JBarta (
talk) 00:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I've never seen the original, so I can't comment either way on if it has it. The other Google Art images don't have random white specks, that I've seen.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 03:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I have spent many a happy hour staring at this one at the Frick. I agree that the white specks are too prominent. I think this is caused by the lighting used to make this photograph--what we're seeing is the yellowish bits caused by worn paint, overexposed and thus appearing brighter than they should.
Chick Bowen 00:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose -- While it's a beautiful painting, my suspicions are confirmed by Chick Bowen. Wear marks are one thing and I wouldn't wish to go too far trying to eliminate them, But quite a few of those bright white spots can and should (IMO) be touched up first. –
JBarta (
talk) 05:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Hans Holbein, the Younger - Sir Thomas More - Google Art Project.jpg --
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 09:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Given the length of the PotD queue, I see no harm in promoting this now. Previous iteration has been PotD twice, so maybe this one will be skipped. Nonetheless, please do nominate a cleaned version for D&R in due course.
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 09:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
Tomer T (
talk) 15:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the nomination. --
99of9 (
talk) 12:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose unfortunately. I think we could do with some more 'whole plant' images along with our many predominantly flower-only plant FPs, and this is nicely composed and shot. Sadly the main bush at the left, and particularly the flower spikes, are just too soft focus and lacking in detail. And to add a non-criteria value judgement, I must say that this loses some points with me for being an
environmental weed in the location in which it was photographed (sort of like how some people are rather anti photos of animals taken in zoos and the like). Remove this objection since I've now updated the article to reflect this point and added the EV for it; perhaps someone should have done it beforehand. --
jjron (
talk) 11:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
For those following on from this review: When evaluating sharpness, please take into account that my images are not downsampled. Viewing full-res is at 10 MPx, well beyond our requirements, so naturally I could have downsampled to make it appear more sharp (but there is
good reason not to do so). --
99of9 (
talk) 12:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Which is why I made the point about the lack of detail on the flowers; it's not just about sharpness. Whether or not you upload full-res is your prerogative, but downsampling isn't going to add any more detail. --
jjron (
talk) 12:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support I think the technical aspects are good enough.
Clegs (
talk) 12:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Strikes me as just a snapshot - the lighting, background and too-wide framing just don't make for a good photo. And I guess the bar is always pretty high with flowers and plants as they are pretty static subjects where you are more or less completely in control... --
Fir0002 12:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose this has focus issues.
Pinetalk 06:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. I don't think it's snapshotty. Moving slightly to the right may have given us a view of three different plants instead of two but not sure what other compositional effects that would have had.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak support. I think people are being a little harsh; photographs which provide a little environment can be useful as well as the macros. This'd make a great postcard.
J Milburn (
talk) 21:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support This shot was deliberately chosen to capture the whole plant, with reasonable margins, and some environmental context. While I agree it is not perfectly sharp at full resolution (kit lens), the resolution is well above FP standards. IMO there is plenty of detail in the flowers, although in a full-plant shot we should not expect to see everything (just as, say, in a picture of a camel, you would not expect to see detail in its eyes). I would not vote to feature on Commons, because it doesn't have "wow". So it was good to see the nomination here where the emphasis is much more heavily on EV. --
99of9 (
talk) 01:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose I would have preferred a deeper DOF in the background to make the plant stand out more and less environmental context. It's a great photo though. Definitely meets quality picture guidelines on Wikimedia commons.
126.109.231.71 (
talk) 02:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Question Do you mean a shallower DepthOF (to blur the background)? If so, that's usually right, but I wanted to ensure that the entire front clump was in focus (which even as it is, some above have claimed is not the case). --
99of9 (
talk) 02:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Not enough support, and outweighed by opposition (2.5 3 O vs 4.5 S).
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 17:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
If you're omitting someone's !vote, please specify whose and why (and also why you are counting the IP contrary to all historical practice). Thanks, --
jjron (
talk) 04:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Agree. I count 4.5 to 2; you have to omit the IPs vote. Still probably fails due to no quorum (needs 5 supports, right?).
Clegs (
talk) 11:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I see no reason to exclude mine, Fir's, or Pine's votes, which makes for 3 straight opposes (excluding the IP's). --
jjron (
talk) 12:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 19:40:19 (UTC)
Original version
Edit showing different hypsometric shading, larger movement arrows, a key, and Sans Serif font (to meet
WP:WPMAPS/Conventions)
Edit 2 lighter hypsometry, original arrows (See comment of 11:38, 11 February 2012).
Reason
FPCR#1: not totally applicable to this SVG, but colour-balance wise I think the neutral, fairly subtle green and supporting colours are suitably clear. #2: SVG, reasonably clear, most important detail readable at thumbnailing size. #3: I hope really informative. Also fairly aesthetically pleasing (more of a "not unpleasing"). #4: yes. #5: Good encyclopedic value, I would hope, in supporting text in primarily those articles below (and a few others which are weaker). The image has only been in place on Battle of the Bulge for two days, but it replaced a very similar raster version, and I sought views at
WT:MILHIST (broadly positive, with a few tweaks suggest which have been made). I think this is about whether it will continue to be used in the article, and the two things I mention make me more confident that it will be. #6: US military source for the vast majority of the map (only the inset map is not; I do not think it needs verification). #7: captions, well, used in a variety of ways in the articles, with flexible legend-boxes and the like. #8: N/A.
Edit 3 Merger of Edits 1 and 2, with Edit 1's hypsometry and Edit 2's arrows
Edit 4 Same as edit 3, but with opaque hysometry (as opposed to Edit 2 which used lighter shading)
Support as nominator --Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 19:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Questions/comments I think it's mostly a good map, except for a few points. The file page does need sources for your lines, arrows and other squiggly things, otherwise how do we know it's true? The key needs to explain what the Roman Numerals mean. Some lines have more X's than others, while in other places there's stuff like LXXIV. What does all that mean? You've also got some of the blue and red lines dashed but others are solid, with no explanation in the key. What I do absolutely like is that the text is readable at thumbnail level so the reader can look at the map in conjunction with the article without having to navigate to the file page or actually download the file. :) Matthewedwards :
Chat 03:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The American Military map is the source - I've made this clearer on the file page. I should be able to do something about the ROman numerals, only verifiability might be a problem. It's actually that the solid lines (with no arrowheads) are distinct from the dashed movements. Explaining these (they aren't on the original key) would also be difficult to reference, if referencing was important. Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 11:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Added about the Roman numerals/army organisation. Also had a go at XXXX/XXXXX: please indicate if you want some sort of verification for that, or other clarity.
Also, the key should be incorporated into the file rather than in the caption or file page. And some of the lines don't have arrowheads on them. Matthewedwards :
Chat 03:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I requested the advice of Jarry1250, who informed me that he had previously been told to move out the legend to the file description page for another similar map. I tracked this down, it was by request of EyeSerene (
here). I concur with the internationalisation approach – do you have a guideline or policy that conflicts? Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 11:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
And the Allied line for 18 December near Luxembourg's south border needs colouring in. It's black after the X's. Matthewedwards :
Chat 04:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
There's no guideline that conflicts, but consider a classroom teacher who distributes a printed version of the file to his students. Or an author who wants to use the map in a textbook or history book. A paper version will be incomplete without the key. The reason on Jarry's talk page seems false. Why is translating a key any different, or more difficult, than translating the rest of the words on the map such as place names and "Fifteenth Army"? Also look at our other Featured maps, especially the more recent ones that were drawn by Wikipedians - they all include the key in the file. For verification, just include cite the book like any other reference. Matthewedwards :
Chat 20:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
We do have files like
File:Painted Turtle Distribution alternate.svg which therefore suggests it is down to preference, and mine is for allowing the file to be used without translation to 90% or so of its educational value. There are still words, admittedly, but they are few; preferably they would be none. There is no book, that's the problem. I know what the lines show etc. because I checked and was told on MILHIST. The main map source is the base map itself, which (unhelpfully) doesn't mention these particular meanings. Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 21:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I've uploaded an alternative version of the map. Mostly the changes are to make it fall inline with
WP:WPMAPS's standards, but other stuff is just common map practice. I've changed the hypsometric tints so that white no longer indicates low-lying land (white is usually reserved for the highest mountain peaks); Font face is changed to a sans-serif one; the movement arrows are bigger and the division lines are now dashed so there is more difference between the two; the international border lines are shaded grey and river colours changed slightly, both per WPMAPS; added a key. Matthewedwards :
Chat 01:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Well, as I say I think the legend thing is a bad move, but I accept that's a matter of taste. I think the topographical colourings make the whole thing a lots less clear, but that is what WPMAPS suggests. The arrows part I'm struggling with, though: they seem to have lost out a lot, because some are bigger than others - their thickness depends on their width, which seems wrong. The short attacks weren't necessarily the smallest, and it's not clear where a single attack branches off as in the original. Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 10:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment My first impression is that this is too busy and hard to make sense of with so many lines everywhere. Some suggestions which may help:
Keep the colour for the altitude, but ditch the darker borders where the height changes.
Use solid lines, perhaps semi-transparent to indicate troop movements.
Use a different colour for front lines. It is too easily confused with country borders at the moment.
You could use shading of the troop movement lines to indicate progression with respect to time.
A key in the image in the context box top left would be nice.
Put the country names in the context box where they are easier to pick out.
I suggest you take a look at a few of the existing similar FPs too.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 05:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Removed the altitude borders – makes a big difference, I think. I've also changed the colour of the front lines to purple (couldn't think of another). Added a description on the key, albeit a short one. I disagree with moving the country labels to the smaller map, I can't help but think the viewer will be flicking between the two to establish which bits of the big map are which bits of the little map - I don't think the country labels are particularly intrusive on the main image. Would you like me to pursue the other things (as I say, the altitude lines make a big difference)? I so, they need further consideration.
Can I upload the new version straight over the last? Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 11:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Going to upload it, hope that's OK. Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 1. Looks very nice.
Clegs (
talk) 09:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support either edit2 (at the time of posting) I'd like to hear arguments for or against either version. The shading is clearer now. The sans-serif fonts are more readable. Edit1's arrow styles are clearer, but there seems to be lost information vs the other version.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 11:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
If I may possibly drag the conversation to down here, I've merged parts of the edited version into the original (now labelled edit two). There were quite rightly questions of what the numerals meant, etc. which aren't answered in the current key/legend, but I don't think it does too much harm. I've made some other small tweaks - faded the background to considerably improve the contrast (I'm not sure the WPMAPS was built with that in mind); made Luxembourg the city, because to the reader it otherwise looks like a place with no label; removed "0m" because the original map didn't say that the lowest shading was 0-200, merely less than 200; I've also reintroduced the original arrows, enlarging them (and putting them into the new colour scheme) - this should make them easier to follow (the concern) whilst addressing two issues: firstly, that the small-to-large design gave a sense of importance to longer arrows, and did not describe branches very well; I've also realigned 200m and 400m to match each other. I wonder if those commenters above could re-evaluate their position on both. I know it's getting messy, but I wanted to avoid another edit, or editing the edit (the latter for obvious reasons). Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 11:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 2 (see below) I think Edit 2 is a big improvement on both. I didn't consider that people might associate the width of my arrows with the size of the attack. The hypsometry looks good, but they don't match the colours used in the key now (for +200m and -200m) so that needs addressing. I would have just reduced the opacity to 65-70% though, rather than changing the colours, but it's not that important.
Lastly, You should upload "Edit 2" as a new file though and leave the original for comparison for those that haven't seen it yet. Uploading minor edits over each other like changing title case and fixing typos is fine, but this is a major edit. Matthewedwards :
Chat 15:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Fixed the key. I'll remember to keep the original next time, for the time being I've posted a prominent link (I don't believe anyone supported the original). Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 15:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 1 The edit2 looks less slick.
Saffron Blaze (
talk) 18:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Mia culpa... 1st edit looks good. 2nd edit looks less "smooth" and colours washed out some.
Saffron Blaze (
talk) 21:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, the colours are washed out and the arrows are less aesthetically pleasing. In my opinion, it was worth it: contrast (i.e. readability) has been improved, and accuracy kept by reversion to the old (though enlarged) arrow style. The value of this image is primarily its educational value, rather than "striking" (etc.) or other aesthetic adjectives more associated with photography, so in my opinion edit2's prioritisation is correct (see also my note about the size of the attack/arrow problem in edit1, above). Do you oppose edit2 or mere prefer edit1? Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 21:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't have throught aesthetics and EV are mutually exclusive concepts. Perhaps I am missing the point and as such will go neutral on all.
Saffron Blaze (
talk) 11:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Clegs, Saffron blaze, and other commenters: would you be prepared to support a merged version of edit 1 and edit 2 that used 2's arrow style (reasons given above, I think this is very important) with edit1's topographical colour scheme? Grandiose(
me,
talk,
contribs) 13:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The reason I like edit 1 best is the arrow styling; it is much cleaner than the others.
Clegs (
talk) 07:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Further explanation: with the thicker arrows, it is difficult to keep some of the north attacks straight; they seem to merge and divide because lines are overlapping, but that is not what happened in the battle.
Clegs (
talk) 08:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The issue with the arrows, which I did not consider when I used them, is that the tails are all different widths and the arrow heads different sizes. It gives the impression that some attacks were larger than others when in fact they just covered a greater distance. It's misleading at best even though stylistically they might look better. The arrows in Edits 2-4, while looking a bit more basic, give the information in a neutral fashion' As noted below, there are still minor errors in Edits 1 and 2. Matthewedwards :
Chat 14:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I added two further edits. Edit 3 features Edit 1's shading and Edit 2's arrows. Edit 4 is the same, but the shading is at 75% opacity. Both feature a couple of arrows with fewer nodes and slightly smoother paths, and the fixing of a couple of previously missed Serif-fonted texts. I've stricken my Support of Edit 2 above, and now support either Edit 3 or 4 (apologies to the closing editor!). Matthewedwards :
Chat 06:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Probably worth re-nominating once a final edit it made. Perhaps take it to the Map Workshop or PPR to fine tune it.
Makeemlighter (
talk) 21:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
Tomer T (
talk) 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak Support Church façade is well captured (angle, lighting). The plant hanging in on the left is a bit annoying though. --
ELEKHHT 21:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose The rear side is out.
Brandmeistert 11:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose I can't help but feel a more front on angle with a wider lens would have been better.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 23:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 23:52:47 (UTC)
Reason
One of the world masterpieces, although not currently in Google Art. The resolution nonetheless allows to inspect every crack. I've edited the image on arbitrary sight and any further corrections are welcome.
Comment - The board showing through at the bottom is distracting. Could we either crop the picture more tightly or clone out the board at the bottom?
Kaldari (
talk) 06:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose till the bottom border is fixed.
Clegs (
talk) 10:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
It's still there--I'm talking about the same thing as Kaldari--you can see the easel in the background at the bottom of the picture.
Clegs (
talk) 10:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I couldn't crop it out because the border isn't straight. Maybe someone knows how.
Brandmeistert 12:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. Now that the distracting stuff at the bottom is gone, this is definitely FP material. Thanks!
Clegs (
talk) 11:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Dama z gronostajem.jpg --
Makeemlighter (
talk) 23:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak Support It seems quite soft and under-detailed. One can't see the brush strokes or cracking present like some of the works below. I guess that is because of the relatively large size of this painting, for the most part.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 07:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment/very weak oppose. I agree with JJ: this looks soft to me. I think it's either slightly out of focus or has been digitally blurred.
Chick Bowen 00:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Image quality issues noted above. Considering this is one of the most famous paintings in American history (and is something like six or seven feet tall if I recall), this is the best digital version that can be had? –
JBarta (
talk) 00:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Very nice reproduction.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 07:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. High quality scan.
Clegs (
talk) 08:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I think it's a bit greenish.
Brandmeistert 13:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose Very impressive picture, but there is quite a few dust spots visible. Some of these need to get removed before I can support.
Dusty777 (
talk) 16:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. Good reproduction, though poor article. Note I'd suggest having also been
Prime Minister of the Netherlands was at least worth a mention in terms of EV, though I guess the portrait dates from his time as GG. --
jjron (
talk) 05:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
O.J. (
talk) 13:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support original version. The tilt in the tower is bit like an optical illusion. I have verified with original shot which includes a concrete pillar providing a good source of reference for tilt. --Jovian Eyestorm 05:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support I'm sceptical of the edit, because it appears to be a local warping, rather than a real lens correction.
JJ Harrison (
talk)
Your vote seems a bit confused JJ. You're skeptical of the edit but support it, and forgot to sign. ;-)
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I fixed it, thanks, you semantics nazi :P.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 23:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support either. Not really seeing any significant tilt, the difference between the original and edit is quite minute.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support original. After comparing the two again, I can't see any real benefit from the edit. There are no obvious vertical lines on the tower to use as a plumb and the edit is ever so slightly less sharp as a result of the warping. Nit-picking and creating unnecessary duplicates just confuses things.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 09:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Suppport edit 1. Been in and out of this place many times, and it's an excellent representation. Finally, an FP that I have some personal connection to!
Clegs (
talk) 12:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Which version do you support or is it either? --Jovian Eyestorm 12:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Edit 1 is good, the tower is a little better in it.
Clegs (
talk) 08:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support edit 1 I remember my jaw dropping when I first approached Dulles --
Guerillero |
My Talk 23:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support original Edit looks distorted, I prefer the original. ■ MMXX talk 00:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support edit 1, the shadow in the air above the terminal is a little less distracting.
Daniel Case (
talk) 19:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Shadow in the air? I dont understand. --Jovian Eyestorm 00:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I believe Daniel is referring to the darker-blue-noise visible between the building and the sky. Nikthestoned 11:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
There is no difference between the original and edit in that area of the image... I'm still as confused as before. :)
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 18:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. I don't understand how lens distortion only could affect the tower. IMO edit 1 looks distorted and due to the corrections made, the tower looks softer than in the original.
O.J. (
talk) 20:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Edit1 is not a lens correction edit. As JJ Harrison mentioned, it is local warping that has been applied. --Jovian Eyestorm 00:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Because after initial investigation, it seemed that there was no consistent lens distortion, but rather, a single bulge on the lens that caused distortion in that part of the image. On the basis of that information, it was correct to assume that, given that I couldn't put the lens in a 3D scanner to learn more about its exact shape, a minimally invasive edit would be the best option, in this case a very minor warping (or "swirl", as it somewhat childishly gets called in the program). However, I have since looked at a number of other photographs of this particular scene and conclude that the workmanship on the buildings and signs is just shoddy - hardly any of the verticals agree. So think what you will, I personally wouldn't trust anything taken of this scene without a horizon indicator (camera feature) after what I've seen.
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 00:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Occam's razor might be appropriate here. Perhaps there really is a single 'bulge' in the lens' optics right where the tower is, but more than likely, any perceived tilt of the tower with respect to the scene is your mind playing tricks on you. In any case, in the absence of horizontal/vertical cues and no obvious tilt, it doesn't seem like there is any justification for making guesstimations.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 07:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I think I wrote that my final conclusion was that the verticals in reality don't match up, i.e. stuff is actually leaning in reality. But feel free to read selectively as seems to be a habit of yours. Also, feel free to actually verify any perceived or supposed verticals with a graphics application, and check out alternate images of this same scene, before going on an unsubstantiated rant about how eyes are playing tricks. Cheers.
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 11:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
You did conclude that, but your original thinking was flawed and that was what I was talking about. You went in gung-ho trying to fix it without any explanation of what the problem was or how you believed the edit resolved it. Also, I don't feel I need to 'verify any perceived or supposed verticals with a graphics application' because as I already said, I don't believe there are any valid vertical lines in the image to use.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 18:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Yeah, right. Of course, it's a lot easier to dismiss my point with accusations of rants than to actually acknowledge and respond to it. Par for this course.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 22:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support original, there is some noise visible in the sky but I'd say this is about right for a night shot. Nikthestoned 11:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Either I don't think it matters too much.
Dusty777 (
talk) 00:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Washington Dulles International Airport at Dusk.jpg --
Makeemlighter (
talk) 16:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Consensus for original (4-3, etc.).
Makeemlighter (
talk) 16:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I moved it to
File:Ursus arctos - Norway.jpg, rather than what you suggested. Firstly, "Bear" doesn't identify the species, secondly, Latin binomials are recommended for species images on commons, mostly to make it easier to find in other languages. Common names can sometimes be ambiguous. For example, different national authorities both had a "Wood Duck" in Australia, and the United States at one point. Many authorities are trying to push "Maned Duck" on the Australians, but most of us use "Australian Wood Duck" now.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 23:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose The fence makes the environment obviously unnatural. The image quality is inexplicably poor, given the expensive equipment used. Shooting through a fence usually results in a loss of contrast rather than sharpness in my experience. It hasn't been in an article for a week either, but one is close.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 23:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment does the bear look like a statue to anyone else? --
Guerillero |
My Talk 02:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
More like a painting...--
♫GoP♫TCN 15:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Nothing is in focus except the claws, very noisy. Could be reshot easily seeing the animal is in a zoo.
Clegs (
talk) 12:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. Definitely has a lot of wow factor, which I think makes up for the fence and it being slightly slightly out of focus (which you wouldn't notice unless you zoom it up all the way anyway).
126.109.231.71 (
talk) 02:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Did you view it in full size? The bad quality easily trumps the so-called "wow factor". Regards.--
♫GoP♫TCN 09:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 23:59:09 (UTC)
Reason
Good depiction of the windfarm, striking a good balance between detail and overview with 10 of the 30 turbines visible. Compelling view making the reader whant to know more.
Support as nominator --
ELEKHHT 23:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Conditional Support edit I'd like to see a noise reduction.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 07:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment (photographer) This was rejected at Commons
Commons:Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_December_2010 as "blurry". It has also been described here as "noisy". Although the camera used (a later Fuji Finepix) was eventually discarded because of its noise problems, amongst other reasons, the "blur" here is atmospheric rather than a camera artefact. At the time (and I have a whole roll of the wind farm) one of the attractive aspects of the scene was the progressive increase in haze with each receding row of turbines. It would be wrong to process this away entirely.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 10:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support, love it, very atmospheric. The windfarm is something that's generated a lot of discussion locally and further afield. Also, I'm thrilled to see something from Barrow- All previous Cumbria FPs have been of the Lake District.
J Milburn (
talk) 20:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Orginal, Oppose Edit The original looks great, not enough noise to be distracting; the edit's colors look funny and unnatural.
Clegs (
talk) 08:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak support original only. Have been waiting for a NR on this per JJ, but not for the other significant changes that came with it. So in the meantime I'll sit on a weak support and reconsider if a straight NR is attempted. --
jjron (
talk) 09:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 07:06:40 (UTC)
Reason
Consider this my attempt to deal with sporting systemic bias at FPC. :) The image has been stable in the article for close to two weeks now. It makes a good illustration for Women's Basketball in my view.
Weak support Very nice, but I'm not too keen with the position of the player on the right-hand side (viewer's right).
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 07:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Added square crop.
Support crop, weak support original.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: is it just me, or does the picture seem to have a slight blue tint? WB correction should fix it.
Clegs (
talk) 12:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I think you were right.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 23:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support edit. Keep up the good work with trying for WP press passes. Keep us updated, too. I'd love to see if I could get anything using them here in the states.
Clegs (
talk) 08:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose The messy composition makes it look too snap-shotty.
Aaadddaaammm (
talk) 08:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Regretful weak oppose because of the player directly behind the main subject. --
99of9 (
talk) 01:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 07:13:25 (UTC)
Reason
High quality panorama of the Australian House of Representatives. I jumped into the "no public access" area to take this panorama. I rested the camera on the bench there (each exposure was 2.5 seconds) and carefully rotated the camera around a guess at the nodal point of the lens to avoid stitching errors. In the sense of including all of the chairs, this is the only "complete" panorama on commons, and it is certainly the highest quality image.
Support Great quality and solid EV. A version with all the MPs there would have been much better, but if you'd tried to take that from the public galleries you would have been kicked out.
Nick-D (
talk) 07:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Yeah, no photography is allowed whilst the House of Representatives is in session. I did collect the appropriate contact details to get special permission, but it was a moot point - parliament was not sitting at any time during my visit.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 07:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak support per Senate one. Doesn't seem as crisp as the Senate one, particularly in some areas, and I assume it's the combination of the shooting angle and stitching that has slightly distorted the chamber (as well as partly cutting off the flag, etc). And I'm still trying to work out why the writing on the clocks and the signs below them looks to have been blurred out. (Mind you, if I wasn't comparing it side-by-side with the one above I may well full support). --
jjron (
talk) 09:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. Way to be sneaky.
Clegs (
talk) 08:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Regretful weak oppose has issues with blur, and seems to have some blown highlights.
Pinetalk 10:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support This is sharp when evaluated at criteria-resolution. Good EV, good composition, nice colours. (negative: A tiny bit of chromatic aberration visible on the lights, even at criteria-resolution.) --
99of9 (
talk) 01:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support I really don't think we are going to get anything much better. It does have some minor blur, and some blown highlights, but I don't think these outweigh the encyclopedic value.
Dusty777 (
talk) 17:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Australian House of Representatives - Parliament of Australia.jpg --
Makeemlighter (
talk) 13:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 07:19:33 (UTC)
Reason
Largely per the Australian House of Representatives image below. I jumped into the "no public access" section again and used similar shooting techniques. I used a different angle because the Senate Chamber is smaller, with fewer rows of seats. Again, it is the only "complete" shot of this chamber with all seating, and certainly the highest quality image on commons.
Support Great quality and solid EV. A version with all the senators there would have been much better, but if you'd tried to take that from the public galleries you would have been kicked out.
Nick-D (
talk) 07:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Yeah, no photography is allowed whilst the Senate is in session. I did collect the appropriate contact details to get special permission, but it was a moot point - parliament was not sitting at any time during my visit.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 07:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per above. Darn, I wanted to see these buildings too...
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 08:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. Good, and not that easy to get. Actually prefer this angle to the Reps one. Unfortunately they don't allow photography while parliament is sitting as JJ says (I've asked before). How did you get into the 'no access' area? They normally police that pretty tightly even when the chamber's empty (I'm just trying to place whether this is from floor level or the bottom of the gallery). Also looks to be a tiny stitching error where the carpet joins the wood almost at front centre. --
jjron (
talk) 08:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
This was the bottom of the gallery. I actually did walk around to the right hand side gallery thing, but the door was locked. I just moved the rope cordons out of the way when no one was looking, and then generally attempted to look like I was doing a job. :)
JJ Harrison (
talk) 08:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Ah, thought that was probably the case; the galleries do go pretty low. Can you see that possible stitching issue? --
jjron (
talk) 09:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I can actually. I'll clone it out tomorrow.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 09:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Cool. It's very insignificant, but may as well make it perfect. --
jjron (
talk) 10:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I tried a few, Couldn't do it without chomping chairs off or having that bench in the foreground. The bench would probably cause stitching errors, and I used it to allow for long exposures (2.5 seconds) at low ISOs. They don't let tripods etc in.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 22:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I was thinking of something like
this, but I understand they restrict non-official photos. My concern is that due to the use of wide-angle and eye level perspective, the chamber looks more elongated than it is. In fact the plan is a square, and the space also has a considerable height, so the volume is closer to a
cube which IMO is part of its distinct atmosphere. Nevertheless, it is a very good quality image. --
ELEKHHT 23:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support very nice perspective. --
Alchemist-hp (
talk) 23:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment/Neutral Oppose -- I'm not really liking what appears to be rather drastic perspective. Lessens EV and steps slightly into "artistic" in my opinion. Beautiful image though. And the colors are awesome. –
JBarta (
talk) 23:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
After seeing the image
mentioned above I can see that not only is the perspective issue noticeable, but the result significantly misrepresents the room. Therefore I'm changing my "comment" to an "oppose". –
JBarta (
talk) 23:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Perhaps that is a better perspective, but I think it is a screenshot from a television camera in the roof. I hardly think the AFP would allow a ladder in to the room either, especially if politicians were sitting.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 07:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
While your image is prettier and more striking, I think
this image is a whole lot more encyclopedic. Regardless of your difficulty in getting the shot, the shot you did get rather severely misrepresents the room. And for me that fails it as one of Wikipedia's best. –
JBarta (
talk) 08:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. Great quality and EV.
O.J. (
talk) 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. Ditto.
Clegs (
talk) 08:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Has good EV. Cool picture.
Dusty777 (
talk) 17:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Regretful weak oppose due to washed out whites in the upper sides of the image.
Pinetalk 10:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose The link from Elekh has better colours and better perspective. --
99of9 (
talk) 01:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Australian Senate - Parliament of Australia.jpg --
Makeemlighter (
talk) 14:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
Tomer T (
talk) 16:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose The human finger greatly debases the image. Having it on a plastic slide would've been a better choice.--
Nanoman657 (
talk) 17:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
At least the finger adds scale. --
Dschwen 19:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
OpposeWeak oppose. I don't feel as strongly anti-finger as Nanoman, but I am afraid that I don't see this as optimal. A great illustration for the article, but I don't think it's FP-quality. Lots of little dots of overexposure, focus isn't perfect- there must be a better way to photograph this subject. However, I'm interested to see what some of our prolific photographers think.
J Milburn (
talk) 20:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment' What makes you say the focus isn't perfect?
126.109.231.71 (
talk) 15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
It's probably the apeture, not the focus.
J Milburn (
talk) 21:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
What do you mean by that, exactly? The aperture controls how much is in focus. The subject at hand (pun?) is perfectly in focus, as far as I can see. The DOF in the background looks nice too.
126.109.231.71 (
talk) 01:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm hardly an expert, I'm having trouble pinpointing the issue in the correct terminology. The individual plants do not seem completely sharp.
J Milburn (
talk) 12:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak Support I like the finger, it demonstrates what the plant looks like to the human eye. Weak because the image quality isn't great - the aperture is too small.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 22:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose per J Milburn. --
Alchemist-hp (
talk) 23:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose pretty much per J Milburn.
Aaadddaaammm (
talk) 08:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per J Milburn. The lighting is just too harsh. GodEmperorTalk 23:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. Looks great, I think the fingers are better than a plastic slide because they provide a much more immediate understanding of just how small they are. I disagree with the complaints of lighting, etc - no big issues as far as I can see. Seems perfectly focused on the matter at hand too.
126.109.231.71 (
talk) 15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
You are not signed in.
Tomer T (
talk) 16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't see that listed as a requirement to vote?
126.109.231.71 (
talk) 01:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Third paragraph at the top of this page "anonymous votes are generally disregarded".
Aaadddaaammm (
talk) 07:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per J Milburn. The blown out highlights are painful. For a common subject like this on it is also fairly easy to create a better version of this image. - ZephyrisTalk 17:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above. Great photo and addition but not FP quality.
grenグレン 04:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 06:01:31 (UTC)
Reason
Compelling image of the glacier, with high EV in the article illustrating the overall retreat compared to a similar
shot from 2001. The visitors of the national park visible in the image provide scale, while not distracting from the main subject.
Support as nominator --
ELEKHHT 06:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Not sure which way to vote here. I believe that this derives most of its EV from its pairing with the 2001 picture, so I would prefer a set. However, the 2001 picture is nowhere near large enough for FP, so that would put me against it. As a stand alone picture, I'm not convinced of the EV beyond the images already in the article.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 06:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - A beautiful landscape!--
Askalan (
talk) 17:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. A sense of scale and angle is missing IMO. At first glance, I thought we were looking downwards into a valley but after looking closer, I can see it was taken from the valley floor. Otherwise, very encyclopaedic, particularly with the 2001 photo as mentioned already.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 07:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. Unfortunate cloud shadow part way up, and tending towards the small size for such an expansive scene, but on the balance it's pretty good. --
jjron (
talk) 04:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support particularly because of the comparison to the 2001 image in the article.
Pinetalk 10:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Detailed and recent. The image has plenty of EV independent of the 2001 photo, since it is the only picture from ground level of the glacier in its current state.
Fallingmasonry (
talk) 03:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Franz josef Glacier LC0250.jpg --
Makeemlighter (
talk) 11:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support A cleaned up version would be better, but this is a wonderful photograph. One of a kind that is rich in cultural information that enriches an encyclopedia. Beyond all words!
MathewTownsend (
talk) 00:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support assuming a cleaned up version is made available. It shouldn't take too much work, just a bit of clone brush.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 08:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
What is he regurgitating? Water?
Brandmeistert 14:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
According to
his article, he spouted all sorts of stuff. In this case it looks like water:
"The mainstay of Ali's act was "water spouting." After swallowing large amounts of water, 60 to 100 glasses at a time, he spouted the water in a continuous stream for a sustained period of time, sometimes approaching one minute."
"Ali's most famous stunt, and the highlight of his act, was drinking copious amounts of water followed by kerosene, and then acting by turns as a human flamethrower and fire extinguisher as he expelled the two liquids onto a theatrical prop."
MathewTownsend (
talk) 15:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Edit added with more restoration.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 09:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support edit, nice clean-up job. Only thing I'd also like done is the moustache on the gent in the middle. Nikthestoned 11:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I'll try and get that done tomorrow (my time), as I don't have the software anymore.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 13:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Edit Decent job on restoration!--
Nanoman657 (
talk) 16:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Could you strike the oppose vote above to make determining consensus easier? Thanks.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 00:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now. Needs a better caption. E.G. Where is he? What is he regurgitating? Who are the people there with him?Dusty777 (
talk) 17:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The
LOC information only says that he was performing at the Egyptian Legation on 27 March 1926. This data has been added to the caption above by myself and MathewTownsend. No further information is available although I think he just heard
The Aristocrats for the first time</joke>
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 07:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Also, he's regurgitating either kerosene or water, both of which were his specialties. Probably water. We're not sure (and the source doesn't say) so I didn't put it in the caption.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 12:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support; never played it or heard of it, but this looks like a solid illustration. Some may be critical of the cream tiles on the white background, but other backgrounds would have created problems with other parts of the image, or been distracting.
J Milburn (
talk) 21:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support; really a lovely photograph.
126.109.231.71 (
talk) 01:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
You need to sign in to vote. Anonymous votes are generally disregarded.
O.J. (
talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
'Generally disregard' it if it pleases you.
126.109.231.71 (
talk) 03:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
OK, so in practical terms "always disregarded" if you'd prefer. Opinions may be considered (which is the 'generally bit'), but in terms of "!vote counting" they're not included. Not an argument; just the way it's done. --
jjron (
talk) 07:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose - image is overexposed... Nikthestoned 09:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
No it's not. When you take a picture of a bright yellow object with a bunch of small light cream objects on a white background, the histogram will necessarily be to the right. But if you were to actually look at the bananas and tiles, you will see there's not even blown highlighting. The exposure is perfect.
Clegs (
talk) 10:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I didn't just look at the histogram but also checked out some of the colour values and found many of the reds to be at or very close to 255; the green as well, for that matter. Nikthestoned 11:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
That's just ridiculous. If the exposure looks great to the naked eye (which it does), what does it matter if some of the reds are or are not close to 255?? The exposure is without a doubt perfect.
126.109.231.71 (
talk) 03:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
It seemed overly light, so I checked the various histograms; I don't really feel that's ridiculous. Nikthestoned 09:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. Well done technically, and a very fun subject.
Clegs (
talk) 10:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
SupportOppose Needs a better caption. It's not informative enough.Dusty777 (
talk) 17:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Why? It's very informative as it appears in the article. The caption sufficiently explains what we're seeing.
126.109.231.71 (
talk) 03:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Either way, caption expanded on here.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 07:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Thanks Crisco. IP, if this picture is going to appear on the main page of Wikipedia, it needs an informative caption, so that whoever sees the picture, can get a slight knowledge of what they are looking at, without having to read through the whole article.
Dusty777 (
talk) 16:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Except the captions for the main page are generally written by HowCheng from the article. The captions here are just for voters.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 02:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Yeah, caption issue on this page is oversold sometimes. It's more the caption, or rather description (and in fact the whole summary section), on the image page that we should be worried about, as that stays with image wherever it's put and that's what should be providing the full EV for wherever the image goes. The in-article captions can and do change without warning, but the image should link into the article content, which of course can also change before the image ever makes it to the mainpage. I do note the image page here is less informative than this caption. --
jjron (
talk) 02:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Phew. Well I sort of made that long-winded point then. --
jjron (
talk) 13:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment/leaning weak oppose I think it would make more sense to have the letters in crossword form to show how the game is actually played.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 02:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. It's purpose is to illustrate the game supplies, and it does this perfectly well (although it would be nicer if the 'D' wasn't in the bag shadow). In response to Calliopejen, I would point out that the beginning of the game does involve having your letters spread willy-nilly in front of you :P
Fallingmasonry (
talk) 03:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. Photographing white on white is hard and this does it well. I don't think the bag is over-exposed but is very brightly lit. The items have been arranged with care to show the logo and the tiles in and out of the bag. --
Colin°
Talk 21:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per Colin.
Clegs (
talk) 09:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment The only issue for me is the "Microsoft". Seeing the manufacturer's name stamped on it is not an issue when it's a photo of an X-Box or a Nintendo gun controller, but on a mouse that is made by many different companies it is. Matthewedwards :
Chat 06:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Admittedly it would be nice to have something like that, but it seems most manufacturers put their names in big letters on the product. Just looking at my workstation here, the laptop has both Acer and AspireONE on it (with a Microsoft sticker), the mouse has Tecgo on it, and the external harddrive has Trekstor in 4-centimetre (1.6 in) tall letters.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 07:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support The Microsoft name on the products doesn't bother me. Almost every manufacturer has its name on its products.--
Nanoman657 (
talk) 17:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment - Not a comment on photo quality, but this is a poor lead image for optical mouse, as it shows nothing of how an optical mouse operates. Without the caption, one would not be able to tell it was an optical mouse. Compare this image to
File:Mouse mechanism diagram.svg -
hahnchen 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Looks like nobody has made a diagram for an optical mouse yet. Of the images in the article, personally I think this is the best. As for the lede image being a diagram, I think what they have in Mouse (computing) is better: the diagram is not put in the lede, but in a section on how it works.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 01:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. Does anyone else think this is upside down? --
jjron (
talk) 14:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
For EV, I prefer it like this as it emphasizes the buttons.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 07:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Meh; it makes the writing upside down, and very few people use a mouse this way up, so IMO it detracts from EV. --
jjron (
talk) 07:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
USB optical mouse without logo
12 (ignore the watermark on the picture).
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 22:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support good quality image for its article, although not particularly interesting aesthetically.
Pinetalk 10:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support I have no issue with the M$ logo on the mouse. --
Guerillero |
My Talk 18:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose I see a mouse, yes. But an optical??? This image need to show us (also) the bottom side of the mouse. --
Alchemist-hp (
talk) 09:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose I don't see the EV.
Dusty777 (
talk) 17:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose It is a good picture but I agree with comments that it is the wrong way round (I want to twist my hand round to hold it) and that it doesn't illustrate an optical mouse (though it is fine for a wireless mouse). --
Colin°
Talk 21:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)reply
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (
NASA)
Support as nominator --
Dusty777 (
talk) 17:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Image seems a bit faint, and caption is too wordy. —Eustresstalk 23:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Can you elaborate a little on how the picture is "faint"?
Dusty777 (
talk) 01:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm thinking he means the contrast should be higher. I kind of agree with him, if that's the case.
Clegs (
talk) 10:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I uploaded an alternate version with increased contrast (I can't guarantee that it is the BEST edit, as I lack the proper programs.) Problem fixed?
Dusty777 (
talk) 18:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, that took care of the contrast issue.
Clegs (
talk) 11:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose I don't see how this has particularly strong EV compared to the many other Space Shuttle photos, and this one has some blown highlights and a little blur at full size.
Pinetalk 10:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per the blown highlights and blur.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 09:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 09:27:45 (UTC)
Reason
I had enough time setting up for this to achieve optimal quality. The details compare favourably to our
only featured adult cicada. The only three images of this species on Commons were uploaded this year, and I think this is the best.
Support as nominator --
99of9 (
talk) 09:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Very well executed.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 09:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. Good image. Sharp enough when viewed at a reasonable size. --
jjron (
talk) 11:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Question. Just had a quick read through the article and note that it says "Adult floury bakers always perch facing downwards". OK, so in this image the cicada is clearly not facing downwards - is this an aberration, not an adult, or has the photo been flipped? Just wondering how this impacts EV. --
jjron (
talk) 12:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Or has somebody make a fake edit?
Clegs (
talk) 12:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Good spot. I don't have a good answer to this except to say it just was. In fact, after getting a few good shots, I read the wiki article, and went back to the cicada to turn it face downward, but it very deliberately spun back around. There's definitely no photo manipulation (you can tell from the direction the "offshoot" bumps on the stem are pointing). It's clearly also an adult. So... ? --
99of9 (
talk) 12:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I thought the same thing about the stem; it clearly looked to be facing the right way. Now it's hard to tell if that sentence in the article is actually referenced, as the nearest ref is at the end of the para, and unfortunately it's to a book so we can't check it easily. Hmmm, could be an error perhaps... --
jjron (
talk) 12:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
So,
this page confirms the downwards facing thing, but it does just look to be more like a personal blog site than anything scientific; so keep looking. --
jjron (
talk) 12:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The other question I guess is how certain are you of the species ID? --
jjron (
talk) 12:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Take a look at the
Flickr pics. Some face up, some face down. The ID also seems consistent with these and the brisbane-insect pics. Maybe it's not-very-adult because it has so much "flour"? (If someone wants to redo the ID,
back view is the same individual.) --
99of9 (
talk) 13:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
How was it ID'd in the first place? Do you think it is worth talking to an entomologist?
JJ Harrison (
talk) 12:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
This is a very common species in Sydney. I was taught the common name of this and about six others as a kid. They all look very different.
This UQ site is confirmation in my books: the wing venation matches, as does the overall appearance. The most related genus is out of range in Sydney, has quite a different appearance, and is supposed to sit upside-down too. Note they say "normally sit upside-down" (my emphasis). --
99of9 (
talk) 12:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I've edited the article to reflect the "normally" used by this source. --
99of9 (
talk) 00:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Good shot. Support, unless jjron's concern proves to be true.
Clegs (
talk) 12:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Nice - but as per Clegs, my support is conditional on the downwards facing thing not being an absolute characteristic --
Fir0002 12:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm not entirely convinced we've got solid refs either way. The source 99of9 has used says "Representatives of both genera share the unusual habit of sitting upside down on trees" at the top of the page, then "Adults normally sit upside down..." further down the page, which is a bit vague and semi-contradictory. Would like to get a solid ref that confirmed the 'not always' bit, or conversely an expert confirmation of the species (in which case we'd have the proof of the pudding ...). Don't guess anyone's got access to Moulds, M. S. (1990). Australian Cicadas. New South Wales University Press, Kensington as referenced by the above site, to see what that source actually says? On the other hand, don't want to hold this up indefinitely, although there's other conditional votes. --
jjron (
talk) 13:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm not convinced either. It is entirely plausible that the specimen was a one-off mutant, as it seems no second specimen could be found to confirm the observation. Any claim that we could make about it would amount to
original research unless backed up with a good source.
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 01:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Let me point you to some specific photos to show that it's not a one off mutant:
[14][15] (yes, that is OR, but hopefully convincing to stop talking about mutants). Regarding encyclopedic material, please note that my edit to the page was not OR, it was sourced "normally sit upside-down". I don't think this source is self-contradictory, because it is note-worthy that other cicadas don'tnormally sit upside-down, so indeed "these genera share an unusual habit of sitting upside-down" (even if only much of the time). --
99of9 (
talk) 01:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Since you lot are so suspicious, I've now got Moulds sitting in front of me. The photographs (plate 5-1 and plate 15-4a) obviously show that this is the correct species. In the species description (pp 119-120), the behaviour section reads "Adults tend to be solitary. Like other Abricta species they normally sit on limbs facing downwards. Their flight is rapid and agile." On the genus description (p 118) it says "Unlike most other cicadas, adults always face downwards when at rest." So it seems that Moulds himself was the source of the contradiction. --
99of9 (
talk) 02:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose, regretful. The bird isn't entirely in focus, I wish it were better.
Brandmeistert 02:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Brandmeister. I think the heavy DOF is a bit distracting too, it's not really readable (as grass, etc), it's just a porridgy blur.
126.109.231.71 (
talk) 06:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
IPs must log in to have their vote counted. Thanks.
Clegs (
talk) 11:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support The tail being OOF isn't a huge issue for me; I love the colors. The bokeh, rather than being a "porridgy blur" is very well done and what makes the picture.
Oppose per the IP - DOF is so narrow as to be distracting.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 23:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose - When the bird is named for its tail, it should be in focus.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 09:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2012 at 11:47:25 (UTC)
Reason
Beyond the chambers, this room is probably the most important internal feature of parliament house. Central is the tapestry, an enlarged version of Arthur Boyd's painting. Important features in the tapestry are the
Sulfur-crested Cockatoo and
Halley's Comet (annotated on commons).
This page may help to flesh out some EV (captions, image page, articles...). --
jjron (
talk) 14:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Was having a hard time figuring out how to reference the size of the room and tapestry, then I saw the piano in the lower right hand corner. Wow. That's a really big room.
Clegs (
talk) 10:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Question The reflections from the floor make it difficult for me to figure out what's happening at the doors. Is that a table in front of the doors? Maybe a more explanatory caption would help.
Pinetalk 10:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Parliament_House,_Canberra#Layout may help. Behind the doors is, IIRC, and to paraphrase, 'the Members' Hall, an area restricted to security-classified occupants of the building, and linking onto the Ministerial Wing, housing the office suites of the Prime Minister and government Ministers'. Therefore it's largely an extra minor security measure I'd think; the public can wander around the Great Hall, but that is a pretty clear indication that it's a no-go zone beyond there. --
jjron (
talk) 12:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
OK, can you address this in the caption? Noting the scale in the caption would help also, per Elekhh's comment below.
Pinetalk 08:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak support nice quality but agree that the scale is a bit confusing. The scale becomes more apparent when
filled with people. It could be improved if the caption would indicate the dimensions of the room (the tapestry in the back is 20x9m) and that the view is from the upper level. --
ELEKHHT 21:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak support: Admittedly a huge room and a good shot. However, I agree with Elekhh that the scale is easier to see from a higher angle.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 08:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
On second thought, the piano should be good enough.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 09:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak Support Per above comments.
Dusty777 (
talk) 17:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I expanded article captions, but I can't find any dimensions of the room itself. The tapestry and piano give a sense of scale though.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 05:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Great Hall - Parliament of Australia.jpg --
Makeemlighter (
talk) 15:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
Paolo Costa 15:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Pretty cool. Its more impressive then other pictures in the article.
Dusty777 (
talk) 23:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose nice pic of the flower, but what about the rest of the plant?
Pinetalk 09:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Sorry I did not understand your question. You wanted the whole plant to be shown? Because the subject here was the flower... Or is it because you see the rest of the plant in the background and don't like it? --
Paolo Costa 02:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
More the first. I like the image. I believe that there's been some disagreement here on FPC about how much of a plant needs to be shown for the EV to be adequate. After reading
JJ Harrison's comment below, I'll change my vote to weak support.
Pinetalk 10:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak Support It is a good shot of the flower - something important for identification I'm told. I haven't thought of a way to take whole plant shots and pass FPC, however if possible one should take both a detail shot and a wide shot of any particular specimen. Weak because it is a little noisy and soft.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 12:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per JJH.
Clegs (
talk) 09:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
Bineet Ojha (
talk) |BINEET| 19:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment We typically require pictures to be at least 1000px in the larger dimension. This one is a bit small. See
WP:WIAFP for our criteria.
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 20:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment - Also, for contemporary figures, it's generally better to have colour images.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 06:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Small, seems a hair fuzzy even at this small size, no reason for B&W.
Clegs (
talk) 10:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Really nice photo, but too small, and I'd prefer to see it in colour.
J Milburn (
talk) 17:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Interesting and a great example of a Harcourt portrait. That said, there's zero "wow" to this and the lighting is a bit distracting.
126.109.231.71 (
talk) 06:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
IPs must log in to have their votes counted. Thanks.
Clegs (
talk) 11:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 17:26:17 (UTC)
Reason
A very arty example of the oldschool banknotes, with inscriptions in several languages, notable designer. The bleed-through of the original scans has been largely fixed.
Support as nominator --
Brandmeistert 17:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Question doesn't this image violate the Bank's stated rule about a digital reproduction being no greater than 72 dpi?
Pinetalk 09:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
There is no such a requirement in
NBB's terms of use. They just say that the dimensions must be either smaller than two thirds or greater than one and a half times those of the original note. I've corrected the license's text.
Brandmeistert 13:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The license says for one type of allowable exception that the signatures must not be reproduced, but this image has them. For the other type of exception, "the reproduction must be in black and white or monochromatic". I don't see how this can meet either exception.
Pinetalk 09:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Regarding signatures, here case a of the terms applies, I think, not b. Both images are essentially monochromatic - generally, there are tones of blue and pink.
Brandmeistert 16:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry but I'm not still convinced that this meets the terms of the license.
Pinetalk 06:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support I'd like to see some of the obvious marks in the white section cloned out.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 10:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support after I cloned out the marks on the white section. I tried uploading it as a separate file, but for some reason it didn't work.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - looks wonderful and there's no reason why this picture should have a deeper DOF, it looks great as it is - it's not as if the background is distracting.
126.109.231.71 (
talk) 06:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
IPs must log in to have their votes counted. Thanks.
Clegs (
talk) 11:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Question Why that facial expression for the lead image of the article? The other images may be smaller but the expressions look more normal for a portrait photo. I need more explanation of how this photo with this expression has strong EV.
Pinetalk 09:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support nice to see a great picture of such a great jazz artist --
Guerillero |
My Talk 02:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Pine put forth a good question. My perception of Sammy Davis Jr is far removed from the sullen looking man in this photo.
Saffron Blaze (
talk) 18:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - As his biography shows, he was a complex man; his life was complicated. He had ups but he also had huge downs. It's an expressive portrait.
MathewTownsend (
talk) 14:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Sammy Davis Jnr Allan Warren.jpg --
Makeemlighter (
talk) 00:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose A full face picture would fit the subject better. Kind of out of focus also.
Dusty777 (
talk) 00:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Conditional Weak Support if the white balance is fixed - it is too blue. It isn't out of focus at all, the depth of field is just shallow (which isn't a good thing in this case).
JJ Harrison (
talk) 10:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Dusty. Feels like a snapshot.
Clegs (
talk) 09:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak support good EV and size but agree that a full face photo would be better.
Pinetalk 09:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Since there's no source cited, presumably you've redated it to c. 1514 based on the subject's estimated age, but there's no reason to suspect that the curators at the Kunsthistorisches Museum picked c. 1520 at random.
Yomanganitalk 10:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)reply
RE:Comment Well, the site I got it from , which I trust totally, gave his estimated age as 10 or 12, which would give the years 1513 and 1515, so the picture should be dated to
c. 1514. Also, in 1520, he would have been 17 years old. And he did leave Spain before he was 13, he was, at most, 12 years old when this picture was painted, he was most probably in Spain.
Alexcoldcasefan (
talk) 16:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The Kunsthistorisches Museum also gives his age as ten to twelve, but puts a c. 1520 date on the painting
[16]. There is no further information on the date attribution on their site, but since it is also attributed to a southern German anonymous artist, presumably they believe that it was completed at a later date. I don't think you can assign the painting a new date purely on the basis of the estimated age of the sitter. (I removed the "in Spain" from the caption as it is conjecture and isn't really necessary.)
Yomanganitalk 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I agree with Yomangani; the date should be taken from reliable sources. Most likely this is a copy of another painting, so it wouldn't necessarily be up-to-date at the time it was painted.
Chick Bowen 17:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support good quality image, good EV.
Pinetalk 09:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Question What happened to the margin on the right? There's a margin of uniform paint on every side except the right - it gives the impression of being cut off. What's the story there?
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (
talk) 09:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Answer There is no story. That's just how the picture is. It's not cut off, check both sources on the info page. Even the Kunsthistorisches Museum has this version.
Alexcoldcasefan (
talk) 17:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support well captured. --
TehGrauniad (
talk) 13:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Anonym Kaiser Ferdinand I.jpg --
Makeemlighter (
talk) 23:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Its kind of impressive. Personally, I would prefer a video about half as long (close to 20 minutes is quite a while, especially if some people are not as particularly interested as others.)
Dusty777 (
talk) 17:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
And resolution could be higher at that length. Sadly, a shorter clip would have less EV as it would not show the whole film. As the article is about the film, the entirety easily has the highest EV.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support I wonder if it couldn't slot into
Cardiopulmonary bypass and/or something on animal experimentation. I vote having watched the first 15 mins, still watching the rest.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 10:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Very interesting, especially the revival of severed dog's head. I agree, however, that the footage deserves a higher resolution.
Brandmeistert 23:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Agreed entirely. Once the software supports it, we could look for a 200 mb file or something similar. Until then...
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 01:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2012 at 00:28:57 (UTC)
Reason
While the image quality can be made better, I think this image is historically significant because it captured a moment in time during the height of the Vietnamese refugee crisis during the 1970s and 1980s. This image succinctly illustrates the plight of the boat people at the time, showing the cramped condition of the boat and showing men, women, and children at the moment they are rescued after being at sea for days.
Support as nominator --
DHN (
talk) 00:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose -- Striking but blurry.
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 11:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Regretful oppose good EV but I agree with
Crisco 1492 about the image quality.
Pinetalk 09:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak Support -- I think we can ignore the slight problems with image quality due to historical significance. Could do with a better name than Vietnamese Boat People waiting rescue though.
Zibart (
talk) 21:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)reply