My main reason is that is very pleasing to my eye and encyclopedic. Meets criteria: High quality (though it is jpeg, I see no artifacts, feel free to correct me, I'm not terribly experienced in image quality detection); useful to its article (
The Starry Night); high resolution (more than 1000px each side); in the public domain; I think it shows as one of Wikipedia's best work.
support - does the saturation match the original? I haven't seen it.
Debivort 05:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm inclined to think the original is more greenish-blue, like
this version. ~
trialsanderrors 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The colour balance of this image was discussed in this
previous nomination. I don't think anything definitive came of it back then.
Raven4x4x 06:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Even more problematic than the colors is the provenance ('Can no longer find web site"). If we feature well-known paintings we should stick to official reproductions done by the owner or a source known for accuracy and not something found somewhere on the internets. ~
trialsanderrors 06:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I still oppose the current version on the same grounds. There is no deadline to finding an authorative version of this picture. ~
trialsanderrors 07:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Withdraw I was unaware that there was a previous nomination of this image that failed. No more of a chance to get promoted now. --
WillMak050389 09:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't think you should withdraw the nomination. I think you should let it go, and since no consensus was reached on color ballance last time, I would suggest we not engage in an edit orgy but just vote on this version. I'd bet there is a reasonably good chance it passes.
Debivort 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Well, I guess if we keep long enough to get a proven proper color scan. I was withdrawing this edit of the picture until it could be proven at least. --
WillMak050389 04:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)reply
We need a proper scan of this great painting --
frothT 01:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Perhaps this could be a chance to have a go at figuring out what the proper colouring should be? The discussion last time didn't seem to get anywhere conclusive.
Raven4x4x 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Maybe
this photo could help. We could use the lady to establish the gray value. Maybe part of her scarf is an actual gray. That would seem to indicate a color balance closer to the cyan edit of the last nomination.
Debivort 07:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The
MoMA website doesn't help. They got four versions, all in different hues, although the biggest one comes somewhat close to the one we have here. ~
trialsanderrors 07:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)reply
All right - here's a shot at an objective color ballance. I took the image with the lady and the scarf, took 8 of the gray subpanels of her scarf and averaged them and then set the gray point of the image to that color. Then I matched the nominated image to the corrected image as best I could by eye. Seems pretty aesthetic, and it matches my recollection of the image.
Debivort 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)reply
We can't know that the light falling on the scarf is identical to the light on the painting - and do we know the scarf really is a true grey? In edit 1, the painting looks a bit too blue-green. I made an experiment, assuming the wall is white, and depending on where on the wall the white balance is checked, I can get thew painting from anything between reddish orange to dark blue. So, it is almost impossible to determine the correct color without having a true grey card (Kodak 18% type) directly in front of the painting. OTOH, I think edit 1 is the best so far, so I'll weak support that one. (PS: Why did you GNU licence the edit, when the original is PD? A simple color correction isn't reason enough for changing the PD status.) --
Janke |
Talk 08:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Hi Janke - I know what you mean about different pixels on the wall. I think the variability is just color noise in that image. - that's why I chose several regions of the scarf to average. You could try averaging a region of the wall. As for different light on her and the painting, yes it's abslolutely possible. But most walls are slightly creamy versions of white, and that I ended up with that color on the walls after correcting based on her scarf is suggestive that the correction is somewhat close. I GNU licensed it because I couldn't figure out a better license, mostly because I thought VVG had died within 70 years, checking that, it isn't the case - I'll go PD it.
Debivort 13:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support any version that gains concensus. -
Mgm|
(talk) 09:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support —
Digon3 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose The fog in the foreground is nice, but the mountains in the background are suffering from blown highlights and atmospheric haze. Perhaps some retouching could help?
Asiir 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Fcb981 has added an edited version --
Digon3 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Support Edit 1 I was origenaly going to abstain from voting on this because I had said "It has a shot to be featured" on the PPR and I felt compelled to offer some support here which would be unobjective. However, I think the shot illistrates fog exeptionaly well because it not only shows a, 'cut away' if you will, of the fog but also the fact that it can sit in valleys and has a very different look from above. I think the edit corrects all the complaints above and from a technical point of view the image is good. -
Fcb981 15:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I personally think there is too much noise all around in the image, especially on the mountains and on the fog. JHMM13 20:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose - It's not clear enough, in my opinion, especially in thumbnail form. Too much noise and haze. JoshHolloway 22:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Photograph of
Go board (old variant)High res variant w/ background
Reason
Looks really nice. That said, I am slightly concerned about its size (it's rather small) and there is some fuzzines at the end - perhaps somebody could help address those issuses with some editing? Please note that a different variant exists at commons (
commons:Image:Go board.jpg) however our variant was changed when the background was 'blacked', I think. While the black background is nice, the Commons version seems sharper.. let's decide on the best variant (or create it) and synchronize it with Commons.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |
talk 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Resolution is much too low.
Dan M 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Dimensions are about half of what they should be.
ShadowHalo 19:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose edit I don't understand why the board is (or appears to be) on the ground by people's feet, especially when there's someone kicking a soccer ball (football) around.
ShadowHalo 17:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Which is why this needs to be combined - high-res of the 2nd variant with masks of the first one (unfortunatly I don't have the needed skills).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |
talk 21:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Please read the rules! One dimension should be at least 1000 pixels, this pic is 578 by 344 pixels -
Adrian Pingstone 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Has a strong unsightly yellow color cast (I took this out in an edit at some point but this was reverted). Also, it's not really that interesting a picture. Note that the original image was almost completely unsaturated, and then the saturation was boosted (to an ungodly level), and a very imprecise mask was added to attempt to block the background. Any user with a real go board and stones and a decent camera should be able to take a much better (more interesting, higher resolution, better color) photograph with not much trouble. --
jacobolus(t) 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Low resolution and it looks like there are artifacts around the edges of the board and some of the pieces. Aside from that, I don't think it's the best picture of a Go board that could be taken.
Leebo86 03:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support —
Brewdog 15:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Very poor focus in upper third of image, thus it becomes "messy". FPs should be razor-sharp. Beauty alone does not an FP make. --
Janke |
Talk 16:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose The background flowers are very blurry and the weeds/green flora is very distracting in the foreground.--
BirdKr 13:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose -it is an eye catching picture, but the top part is too blurry -Nelro
Oppose - artificial lens flare and scrapbook look detracts from encyclopedic value.
Debivort 21:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Read the rules! FPC needs at least 1000 pixels in one direction, this one is 223 by 370 pixels -
Adrian Pingstone 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
That's not a rule, it's a suggestion. —
Cuiviénen 01:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
It has become a
de facto rule, unless the photo is antique/of historical importance. See section 2 of the FPC requirements. --
Janke |
Talk 08:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Image is too small. S.D.¿п? § 12:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral. I'm not good enough at judging pictures to make a decision on this one, but I have noticed some blurring here and there on places that is not the center of the image (so it may not be enough to kill this), and I'm not entirely sure about the brightness (seems pretty bright) and sharpness on the plant. JHMM13 20:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
weak oppose - nicely shows the plant, but the background is cluttered and the plant doesn't really stick out.. Maybe if the camera angle were lower or the light wasn't as direct on the plant.
Debivort 22:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose image is washed out.
Circeus 00:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose For a picture like this in a clutered enviroment you almost have take a macro shot otherwise the background takes too much away from the subject. The angle is also uninteresting. -
Fcb981 06:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
A Green Passenger Express Steam Locomotive designed for the London and Southwestern railway and built in 1893
Reason
I though about nominating this picture as the light on it I think is quite well divided up and not too bright and it gives the full effect of what Steam trains were like before going into musuems and generally gives a well formatted and eye catching image.
Oppose Doesen't show subject well. -
Fcb981 06:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Wrong angle, and doesn't have much of encyclopedic value due to the better steam train image already found in the article. Michaelas10(Talk) 12:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose poor composition - needs cropping and the locomotive is distorted. Poor lighting, there is too much reflection on the tender and splasher and the smokebox detail is lost in shadow. I've moved the image out of the
Steam locomotive (please, this is not a train) article into the
London and South Western Railway where it is more appropriate.
Gwernol 12:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
"A photo I took of the Hancock Tower on a recent trip to Chicago in September 2006."
Reason
Great picture of an awesome building . . . maybe a little cropping on the bottom to take the lamp out, but other than that it looks gorgeous. I also feel the water tower in the foreground provides an appropriate contrast between classical and modern architecture, both of which are excellent examples.
please note this is not my picture, but I thought it deserved a shot --
Soakologist 03:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
WP:WIAFP example #2, chromatic abberation, tilted verticals etc. --
antilivedT |
C |
G 05:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Hmm, I fail to see where the subject has been "cut off", unless you're referring to the bottom, which really isn't entirely relevant. --
Soakologist 06:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose A very mundane shot. The building is still there (I hope ;-), so it would be easy to get a new shot, with different lighting and composition - i.e. a little "wow", which this shot lacks. --
Janke |
Talk 07:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose A beautiful building, but it feels like anyone could snap this photo from the sidewalk. I concur with previous editors -- there is simply too little "wow" here for an FP. --
Asiir 13:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, unfortunately, per all above. Living in the middle of Boston, MA, I know [and hate] how difficult it is to get a decent shot of a building like this. With a low POV, and buildings all around, it's a really difficult thing to do.
tiZom(2¢) 23:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Nomination Withdrawn --
Soakologist 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support - lovely composition, but I wonder if we could clean up the perspective distortion a bit. The walls seem to bulge outwards.
Stevage 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - The picture itself is beautifully taken at a good angle. The picture is high-resolution. The fact that the walls seem to bulge outwards give the picture a slight 3D effect, which is something that I consider very pleasing to the eye. Maybe a small caption could be added.
Wwicki 00:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral Focus is a little soft, there is to much of the tree/shrub on the right. bad focus on the left background isn't great but since it isn't the subject I cant complain that much. Other than that a good picture. -
Fcb981 02:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - This is the reason why we don't have enough FP. We're too picky and have a lot of time on our hand. --
Arad
Um, SHOULDN'T we be picky. We ARE trying to select the very finest pictures after all. I'd rather have 700 very good featured pictures than 1200 OK ones. -
Fcb981 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Of course we should be picky. But a featured picture isn't just about hw it looks. What is also important is if it actually adds to the article. Is it a significant addition? Why do you think this picture would label as "ok"? It gives an excellent overview of the architecture and is high-resolution. I personally don't think that the walls bulge outwards however, I don't think regular users who aren't experts or picky, will be when it comes to the minor,minor glitches of a high-resolution (I don't think this picture has glitches).
Wwicki 13:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support I checked the verticals and can't find any bulging walls that aren't the result of the architecture (note that circumference increases upwards, especially in the towers). The only thing I can't identify is an odd yellow dot to the right of the tower. Rest is well done and enc. I think the foliage in the foreground adds context. ~
trialsanderrors 05:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I think the yellow dot is a flag or something similar.--
Arad 05:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply
It might be a leaf from the tree in the foreground since it's not mirrored in the lake. Since the picture has already been photoshopped I'd support removing it. ~
trialsanderrors 17:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply
It does look like a leaf. I can't think of any possible yellow flag that could be associated with (the Counts of) Egeskov, so I wouldn't mind seeing it gone. Support btw.
ValentinianT /
C 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)reply
It's obviously a
UFO. See the focus --
frothT 05:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oh, that's from the spire, right? I was looking at the dot to the right of the right tower, roughly at the level of the topmost window under the roof. The UFO on top of the spire looks like a weathervane. ~
trialsanderrors 06:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The thing on the spire is indeed a brass weathervane.
ValentinianT /
C 10:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - Nice architecture; I'd like to do this as a jigsaw. Oh, and that's definitely just a leaf there.
Mrug2
Support per nom and others. This is a lovely pic, and gives a lot of information about the structure of the castle which you wouldn't get from a straight-on entrance view.
Mak(talk) 17:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Sharp, good color, pleasing composition, high enc. --
Janke |
Talk 09:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support very nicely done. I very much like the scene, the tree on the right is only a little prob. But all in all it is a very nice image, meets FP requirements. ~
Arjun 14:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support excellent picture.
Zarxos 16:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support The castle appears under perfect conditions and makes for an amazing photo. The only way it could improve would be to crop a bit of the water out to add balance. No doubt FP worthy. -
Nilington 08:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Good composition, technically great.
HighInBC(Need help?
Ask me) 15:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Great picture and meets all the criteria required for a Featured Picture.
Christophenstein 20:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. -
Mgm|
(talk) 09:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, I want to live in this picture.
grenグレン 00:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose has anyone opened up the original and this version in two different tabs and jumped back and forth to compare? The person in the pink shirt is still faintly visible in the bushes. The cloning of the steps on the left side of the building has some bad repeating patterns, and the bench has been completely removed with some fictional object. Also, the composition is a little unbalanced with the foreground foliage on the right side.-
Andrew c 03:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)reply
No part of the subject itself has been modified, people were removed, a branch and the people on the bench was replaced by a bench. I think the image page should make these edits very clear, but I don't think it damages the encyclopedic value.
HighInBC(Need help?
Ask me) 03:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose This certainly doesn't illustrate the observatory very well, does it? The rest of the picture is just generic grass, hills and trees, so, a "no go" from me... --
Janke |
Talk 17:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Dull composition, tilt to the left. --
Bridgecross 17:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
oppose it may illustrat the camp better than it illustrates the observatory, but there are technical problems like chromatic aberation in the trees, and motion blur.
Debivort 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose this isn't an image of the observatory. It is illustrating the camp in general (shows the field, pond, and observatory framed with mountains and trees). It is adequately encyclopedic for the topic. The image also isn't terrible, but it isn't anything that special either. While it does help me understand the camp better, there isn't really enough going on. No wow factor, not the best of wikipedia IMO.-
Andrew c 01:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose -No "Wow" factor. The observatory is not really featured in the photo -Nelro
the evolution of the States of Australia since 1788 to the present
Reason
Interesting, clear and informative. This information is known by very few people (including Australians). The animation may be a little jerky for some people. What do you think?
Oppose - not especially good quality (artifacts around the borders, background changes colour halfway through) and actually not all that clear IMO - what's the little kinked arrow for next to ACT? What was the central, northern area called when it was annexed by the creation of Queensland (was it still administered as part of NSW)? --
YFB¿ 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose current version, Support the idea. This is instructive, but right now flawed in implementation. ~
trialsanderrors 10:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
On reading Yummifruitbat's comment, I must say I agree. I've posted a note at Chuq's talk page to ask him to change the file in that light, hopefully he does...
Wittylama 19:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I don't think the image illustrates the subject very well, for all its quality. The shape of the whole plant is unclear from this angle.
Mrug2 01:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose -The whole plant should be in the picture, not just the flower -Nelro
Oppose - Not outstanding picture
Tomer T 20:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. With the tons of excellent illustrations LoH has created so far, it is surprising not seeing more of her pics on FPC. --
Dschwen(
A) 19:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. It doesn't really show why the osmosis is happening. Maybe show little particles moving in or out of the cell to emphasize that it's osmosis going on? Right now it looks like water just flowing around for no reason --
frothT 20:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)reply
A good animation illustrating osmosis is still missing. But I would not cram that into this image. This pic shows hypotonic, hypertonic, and isotonic blood cells, and that's it. It is not explaining osmosis, just as it is not explaining how a red blood cell works. --
Dschwen(
A) 20:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't mean an animation, I'm just trying to say that while it explains what's going on, it doesn't even attempt to explain why. It seems like it shouldn't be too hard to add particulates "in motion" with little arrows --
frothT 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The only particles in motion are the water molecules, that is the point and is shown at the bottom (or has that been added since Froth's comment?). Possibly what you require is the definition of hypertonic vs hypotonic vs isotonic?
David D.(Talk) 17:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Clear and accurate.
TimVickers 01:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. I would prefer it if the hypotonic cells showed a little more bloating. Right now, the difference with the regular cells is hard to spot if you're not sure what to look for. Why are the arrows in two different colors? Isn't the arrow head enough to show the direction? -
Mgm|
(talk) 09:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support very illustrative --
Lycaon 08:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:Osmotic pressure on blood cells diagram.svg --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Reasons given above. Only negative about this picture is the water splashes showing up blurry should have been cloned out. --
Althepal 03:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - A fine action shot from MDF.
Debivort 03:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - Great shot, although would liked a bit higher shutter speed but at 700mm focal length (is that the 35mm focal length or multiplied by 1.3?) what more can you expect? --
antilivedT |
C |
G 04:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Would be an ok FP on commons but not here. It's not so much encyclopaedic as an interesting photo. Does not teach me about the subject. Also blurry on wings.
Wittylama 05:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't think that the blurred wings detract at all from the picture, and even though the DOF was small, Mdf did a fine job. Anyhow, here's something that the picture teaches you: These birds often stand up in water and flap their wings while preening and playing. I don't know if you want to change your vote or anything, but it is something to think about. ;-) --
Althepal 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Impressive focal length (not entirely sure how he got that particular length.. 700 doesn't correspond to any standard focal length except the 35-350mm f/5.6L with a 2x teleconverter.. it doesn't take into account non 35mm sensors for effective FLs) but the angle just isn't ideal. The wings look quite awkward. Would have preferred a more frontal view.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 08:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support lovely encyclopedic photo.
Mak(talk) 17:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose I appreciate the wings are out of focus because the bird is flapping them BUT for an FP I would want them in focus (it can be done!) -
Adrian Pingstone 12:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support to me opposing for the wings being out of focus just doesn't make sense. The image is mostly in focus, the wings really look fine to me. A gorgeous image and highly encyclopedic. ~
Arjun 14:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I know and I respect that, I wasn't making a reference to you :). ~
Arjun 00:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, the wings are just a bit *too* blurry. And considering that they're the essential part of this scene, that's a problem. Can you imagine printing and framing a picture like that? The sharpness of the rest is great though.
Stevage 00:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Of course they're blurry, that's common with moving things. -
Mgm|
(talk) 09:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Common in common photos, not so common in exceptional photos.. Technically this image is very good except in composition. If it were more front-on, the right hand wing would be less of an OOF blob and the blur would be easier to accept (IMHO anyway).
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 17:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. -
Mgm|
(talk) 09:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - Beautiful shot --
Sturgeonman 01:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - This amount of wing blur is exactly what you are aiming for in wildlife photography. Also 700mm is a very standard focal length as this is a 500mm with a 1.4 TC. Nice catch.
Wwcsig 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - I think it shows the bird's plumage exceptionally well. I don't see how the slight blur detracts from the photo or how it would be inappropriate given that it's showing the bird in action.
Basar 06:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Support - It looks slightly too tight for the wings, but otherwise it's fine.
typhoonchaser 16:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
— — Below is a candidate caption for use in
Close-packing article, added 16:33, 26 February 2007 (and revised 20:15, 26 February 2007) — —
Shown above is what the science of sphere packing calls a closest-packed arrangement. Specifically, this is the cannonball arrangement or cannonball stack. Per the
Kepler conjecture, no other arrangement of spheres can exceed its packing density of 74.048%. The cannonball stack shown above (which takes the form of a regular tetrahedron) has a face-centered cubic lattice. Note how the two balls facing the viewer in the second tier from the top contact the same ball in the tier below. This does not occur in hexagonal close-packing.
Reason
It’s a ray-traced CAD image that I think is attractive and informative
Support Throwing it out there and seeing if others like it too.
Greg L / (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
comment it doesn't seem to illustrate thermodynamic temperature as well as other images on that page. I would like to see it as an illustration of
close-packing though.
Debivort 08:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. Is it really many chemical elements that form close packed structures? The reflecting balls sure are eye-candy, but I'm not entirely convinced that this is the most clear illustration. And what about the two possible stacking orders? --
Dschwen 09:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment (answer) Many. Roughly 43 at room temperature. More at absolute zero. There isn't any consistency among sources though. For instance Wikipedia and
WebElements differ.
Greg L 17:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment (response) I agree. The
Close-packing article could benefit from a 3D illustration of close-packed spheres; not everyone can easily or quickly grasp the 2D illustration that's already there. But what's already there is pretty good so it will take some effort to add this without redundancy. I have a bit more studying to do on the subject before interjecting this into that article. I've got both my crystalograhy/mineral books out. One could also add it to the talk page and let someone more expert in the subject move it to the article (
as I had done with this picture of the sun). The first sentence of the newly added caption wouldn’t appear in the caption in its actual placement.
Greg L 17:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
the caption says fcc but the image shows hcp. --
Dschwen 19:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Three-face + base (
tetrahedral) pyramidal cube packing is definetely FCC. HCP is an entirely different arrangement (starting at the third tier down). Notice how the two balls facing the viewer, in the second tier down, both touch the same ball in the third tier down. That doesn’t happen in HCP. I revised the alternative caption with this explanation.
Greg L 19:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry, my bad, you are right, I had it twisted up in my mind. --
Dschwen 21:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Visualizing 3D sphere packing is tough. Exercises like Featured picture candidates seems to be a good venue for fine-tuning captions. As now revised, confusion will hopefully be infrequent.
Greg L 22:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Opppose. Very good for a helper pic in the article, but not really FP material. There's just not enough content --
frothT 04:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment / Update I've added the illustration to the
Close-packing article. I think the illustration makes understanding 3D sphere packing much easier.
Greg L 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support absolutely. -
Fcb981 23:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Good scan, top enc. This is a "natural" for FP! --
Janke |
Talk 09:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Great image. -
Mgm|
(talk) 09:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Question Can we get more information on this specific map? Currently the image is used in the article only as a generic example of an old map and all we know about it is that it was created in Amsterdam in 1689 by someone called Van Schagen. With more information, this map could be useful in articles such as
history of cartography. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 18:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. There's no information about this map, violating criterion #8. Normally, I'm not such a stickler for this one, but we know nothing about the map. Was this significant in any way? Is it an example of a certain map style? Does the map show any particular misconception about the world that was common at its time? You say it's encyclopedic, but how? I don't think being old in and of itself counts. howcheng {
chat} 23:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: It does show the California island misconeption.
Rmhermen 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support It is extremely encyclopedic-- I see no validity in your argument.
Jellocube27 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
It's basically the same as KFP's question above. This is a very nice image, but more context would make it far more encyclopedic. For example, look at
Image:Carta Marina.jpeg -- we even have
an article about this specific map. What is so special about this world map in particular? Enquiring minds want to know! howcheng {
chat} 05:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support: Wow. This is a fascinating picture. They even seem to have the Western coastline of Australia down there - how did they do that?!
Ackatsis 01:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - James Cook was not the first European to see Australia. The Dutch came first. :)
ValentinianT /
C 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support: Great image. S.D.¿п? § 12:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, very amazingly clear!
typhoonchaser 15:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support -Superb picture -Nelro
Weak Support - Very good. My support is weak because it's not the best map of the time. Look at Middle East, specially Persia and Persian gulf. I've seen older map which are much more precise. --
Arad 23:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support —
Tobyw87 21:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. I like the image a lot, but it needs a much more informative caption. First of all, it should place the image in historical context, and second, it should explain, if at all possible, why the opposing seat is empty and who it is for.--
ragesoss 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: The picture is of great historical importance. This digital version's contrast is too flat and should be enhanced.
Greg L 16:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Very historical and important --
Joebengo 16:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, not even the best image to illustrate the surrender.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 15:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, this is an FP based on historical significance, irreplacability and it's a pretty good shot too! However the caption is wrong - this is not a peace brokerage, it's a surrender.
Wittylama 04:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support -Okay picture. Great historical signifigance -Nelro
Weak Support - Per above. --
Arad 23:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
This is an image of
rallying (
WRC) action on snow, and I think it succeeds in depicting that very well. It seems to meet the criteria and is quite eye-catching too. I was planning to nominate this after uploading, but was a bit unsure until now, when I noticed this is a
candidate on the German Wikipedia and currently has unanimous support.
Support —
Prolog 14:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Definite "wow factor", but barely of size.--
HereToHelp 15:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support and Comment This is a Flickr photo, so there might be a larger version if someone can contact the photographer (no idea how that works on Flickr). ~
trialsanderrors 18:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Finally a good car photo. Amazing. And I'll be very happy to see a larger version. Many thanks to the creator for the licence. --
Arad 20:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Whomever contacts him/her for a larger file please be sure to thank them for that.--
HereToHelp 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I have contacted and thanked the creator through FlickrMail. Thanks for the comments.
Prolog 22:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Support. I was blown away by this picture the first time that I saw it on someone's userpage. One of the most interesting racing pics that I have ever seen (that from a huge racing fan!).
RoyalbroilT :
C 04:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
support per nom and above.
Debivort 08:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support per the nomination. Wow. S.D.¿п? § 12:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Cool picture, but fake (or at least heavily altered). Observe the snow at the bottom left around the fender - some displays motion blur, whereas other is crystal clear. Driver shows impossible lean (his whole body is tilted such that his lower extremities would be somewhere on the gearshift; if properly harnessed, his head would be tilted, but not his whole body). In the upper right corner in the background snow there has been some heavy cloning (notice lack of smooth color gradation versus, say, the car itself).
Noraad 14:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. I have to disagree with your rationale for proving this is a "fake". Observe the snow at the bottom left around the fender - some displays motion blur, whereas other is crystal clear. - Easy to explain: The snow particles that have a trajectory straight towards the camera would not be blurred. I can't see any other definitive proof of editing, either. --
Janke |
Talk 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. I can reply more as a long time rally follower and less as an image expert, but I see absolutely nothing bizarre about this image. Pykälistö's shoulders and head are in the position those are supposed to be, when landing a high speed "yump" on two wheels on a road like that. Rally drivers are not glued to their seats and they have room to move around a bit and do tricks like
Scandinavian flicks,
opposite locks and
handbrake turns, as you can see for yourself from footage on YouTube. I see neither proof of altering nor can I think of any motive to do so. The action in the image is pretty common, even if capturing it well is not easy.
Prolog 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. I understand about camera and trajectory, et al. And I doubt there is any definitive proof of anything; but there are suspicious elements to the picture. Also note the wheel in the lower left of the picture. There seems to be something of a transparent fender - you can clearly see a motion-blurred wheel where you shouldn't be able to. Yes, I noticed that the fenders are damaged, understand that suspension or transaxle might be broken, etc., but viewing other pictures of Peugeot 206 rally cars says to me that something is not right with that wheel. I realize that this is only my opinion on the picture; perhaps someone should contact the creator of the image. --
Noraad 16:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I ran it through the bag of tricks I know to detect Photoshop tampering, but I don't find any strong evidence. The image might've been sharpeneed, but I don't see evidence for cloning. The fender is ripped into pieces, that's why you see the tire peeking through. ~
trialsanderrors 19:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Okay, I trust your expertise there. I like the picture, and have no problem with it being featured as such. I would like to see a larger version, which would make for a better image and allow for closer examination, but I will by no means stand in the way of it being featured --
Noraad 20:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Does't look tampered with. the snow that is crystal clear as opposed to the motion blurred snow is moving directly at the camera so that its position as percived by the lens doesn't change in the time of exposure and is a fairly common sight. -
Fcb981 00:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support If anyone thinks this photo is tampered with, I would encourage them to seek out some other top-level rallying images. You might be surprised how often surreal "effects" miraculously happen when vehicles are in such radical conditions. Still, this is a well framed and cropped example with good color and visual impact. -
Plasticbadge 22:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Alternative 1: 2003 versionAlternative 2: 2004 version. Stitching errors fixed.
Reason
Oh no, not another nebula! I found this doing comparison surfing for the recent nomination, and noticed the picture in the
Helix Nebula article was of low resolution. I discovered the hubblesite.org versions and extracted those two from the full resolution tiff files. Both versions are centered, cropped and downsampled to a manageable file size. No other edits were made. I'm indifferent between the two versions here, so I'm posting them both for your consideration. On the Nebula itself, hubblesite calls it "one of the largest and most detailed celestial images ever made". Both versions are composites of a nine-image Hubble panorama and ground-based images. The Helix Nebula is only 650 light years away, which accounts for the high level of detail. This is the visible light version of the nebula, the infrared version is currently up for FPC at
Commons, but in my opinion this one is far superior. ~
trialsanderrors 20:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
SupportJoshHolloway 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Support Alternative 2 - Yes, definitely number 2. The encyclopedic quality is very high, the image dimensions are high, and the image quality is high - you can see the white dwarf in the middle clearly. I'm going to put this on my user page, I like it so much!
Mrug2 23:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - What's up with the 1px horizontal lines in the red on the left-hand side? One that initially caught my eye can be found between approx [450px,2175px] and [825px,2175px] (about 2/3 down the image vertically). I wouldn't ordinarily be this picky, but it really jumped out at me...
tiZom(2¢) 04:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak neutral :) per Tomtheman and general graininess where there should be absolutely none (the black of space) --
frothT 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The line looks like a stitching error. Those are fairly complicated panoramas from my understanding. The original tiff is quite a bit bigger, so I think I can fix it without loss of information. On the background noise, I just checked the
last featured nebula and it's there too. The consensus seems to be not to retouch astronomical images unless necessary and accept some flaws that stem from the complexity of creating them. ~
trialsanderrors 06:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support 2. This has been one of my favorite Hubble images for years. —
BRIAN0918 • 2007-02-27 15:23Z
Support 2. Great "eye in the sky"! --
Janke |
Talk 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support both - As said above, this was also my favorite Hubble photo for years. I like both of them. The second one is new for me and I think it's sort of better and the colors looks better too. --
Arad 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support 2 - And please make it stop lookin' at me...
tiZom(2¢) 18:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support 2, against 1 - Picture 1 is slightly grainy around the central white dwarf. Picture 2 is nice, but I'm supersaturated with HST images of big things. Zoomed in images are more intriguing. --
zandperl 03:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
A clear, sharp picture that illustrates very well the subject. (Lillium Michiganese) The foreground flowers are in focus, but the background is not, so it is not to distracting from the flower. There is both a horizontal and a vertical version.
I'm afraid not... The highlights are all blown out, and the composition is kinda "messy", with none of the flowers completely within the image. So, Oppose, sorry. --
Janke |
Talk 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose -The background is destracting. No "Wow" factor -Nelro
Support Vertical versionTomer T 20:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Vertical version -More clearer image.
Josh215 20:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Biodegradable starch-polyester utensils photographed using photoelasticity.Edit 1: Sides cropped.
Reason
A picture of kitchen utensils made of biodegradable plastic. The image was created using photoelasticity to produce the variety of colors based on stress distributions. Probably one of the best illustrations of the phenomenon (or at least,
Google didn't produce anything close). The picture is also currently a candidate for featured picture status at the Commons.
Conditional Support - please crop away the partial utensils at left and right edges - there's even a black stripe on the very left edge... This could also illustrate
polarization. --
Janke |
Talk 19:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I've cropped the left and right sides some for edit 1.
ShadowHalo 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral While the quality is good, they don't look any different from normal plastic utensils and as from the commons FPC, what is the "polarisation" (?) of the plastic doing there? I know it's used to show the distribution of stress but what is the point in here? --
antilivedT |
C |
G 05:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The reason I nominated this image is because I thought it illustrated
photoelasticity much better than any single object probably could because of the various shapes used. I thought it was interesting to see how stress was distributed through the curve of the spoons or the rod-like parts on the forks, but much less on the flat blades of the knives. I also thought the image was "eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article". My interest in the image is not in how it illustrates the utensils themselves (so I suppose this page's title may have been misleading), but rather how it uses the utensils to illustrate stress distributions as shown with photoelasticity.
ShadowHalo 01:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Agree with Antilived, I don't see the relevance of this picture. If the objective is to show the stress, a single piece would be better. If the objective is to depict biodegradable utensils, why the special lighting? Aesthetically, I don't like it. -
Alvesgaspar 09:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, I'm more confused after having seen the image than before. Though an interesting picture, it is not encycloaedic.
Wittylama 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
confused about what before and after?
Debivort 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
support cropped version nicely shows the results of the technique. The article on the other hand doesn't explain the technique very clearly.
Debivort 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support (cropped version). I actually found the image more illustrative than the explanation in the article. Also works very well in
biodegradable plastic. And has the wow factor. ~
trialsanderrors 09:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose Only one fork is shown fully and all the other partial knives, forks and spoons detract from the image. I find it a confusing mess of weirdly lit plastic things. Wow factor is none and it is displeasing to the eye. I really can't imagine this on the main page as the best of wiki. -
Fcb981 18:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Maybe 1 fork, 1 knife, and 1 spoon, taking up most of the frame, and not cut off?--
HereToHelp 19:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Support — WOW! I likes it. Just how big is that bird, though? 'WiiWillieWiki→(Talk)(Contrib) 14:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: 23 cm long (5.11 inches), weighing just 8.5 g (0.29 oz). --
Pharaoh Hound(talk) 14:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment the unnatural lighting from a flash is really obvious. we need an edit (I'll fool around a bit myself) at least killing the reflection in the eye and the blown highlights on the beak etc. depending on how that goes this may get my support but I think it may very difficult to get the lighting looking good. -
Fcb981 15:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - It all seems to be one hue; I don't think that can be helped though, and is it possible that the light in the bird's eyes is from the sun? Besides the lighting probs, It's quite clear and encyclopedic.
Mrug2 15:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Razor sharp focus. I'm willing to overlook the blown highlights on the beak and eye, but if someone can produce a satisfactory edit, so much the better.--
HereToHelp 19:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Slightly Less Than Total Support Razor sharp focus EXCEPT at the end of the beak.
jlkramer(talk)
Support Great detail, encyclopedia value, aesthetically pleasing.
Leebo86 04:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support -Lovely Picture -Nelro
Oppose, I'm sorry, but the picture isn't unusual enough
Tomer T 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support immpresive detail, especialy considering the relatively slow exposure and long focal length --
Benjamint444 11:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Very nice, good subject, good focus (besides the beak which is an issue that can't always be avoided in nature photography. and good framing of the subject.
Cat-five -
talk 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support —
Readro 18:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Not great quality, but is fair enough for a 101 year old picture, and is interesting. It isn't going to happen again either. I think... ·
AOTalk 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support The subject is extremely interesting, and it is a great historic representation of the effects of the earthquake. The age of the image explains its poorer quality.
RoyalbroilT :
C 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I support either version, although I prefer trialsanderrors' version. The image demonstrated the destructiveness of the earthquake, so it should represent the 1906 SF earthquake article IMHO.
RoyalbroilT :
C 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I support the alternate version too, but I like Edit 1 more. One of these three should be featured in any case.
RoyalbroilT :
C 14:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Quality ok, but the substance of the image is stunning. Could use some retouching on the upper left corner to remove the white cast there.
Asiir 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Fixed.
Readro 01:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support any. Eyecatching. --Tewy 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Edit Rarity, age and importance for
the day. --
antilivedT |
C |
G 05:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Would like to support a better scan of this - it looks a bit like it has been scanned from a printed source. Also, the shadows are inky - no details. --
Janke |
Talk 07:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Here is a different version from the Stanford website:
agassiz.jpg. Stanford asks for permission for its images, but this would be {{
PD-Old}}, no? ~
trialsanderrors 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
PD-old requires that the copyright holder to have been dead for 70+ years. Fortunately, this was published before 1923 making it PD-US. Even more fortunately, it was taken by the USGS, making it PD-USGov-USGS. howcheng {
chat} 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Conditional support If an agreement can be made over it illustrating an article. Currently disputed whether this or
Image:Agassiz in the Concrete.jpg should be in the Agassiz article.
Circeus 00:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
OpposeSupport Edit 1 or Alternative This is eye-catching alright and good for Commons, but the very fact that the building is unrecognizable (and the pedestal is not visible) makes this image less enc than most other contemporary versions (see e.g.
cdlib.org), so I agree it shouldn't be used in the
1906 San Francisco earthquake article. ~
trialsanderrors 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm derived from a San Francisco family, and know from family lore that this image is quite iconic of the earthquake. Not that I can cite that...
Debivort 01:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
The image or the subject? There are any number of versions of the subject in the online libraries, from a variety of angles. This one is a pretty poor one, and I also believe it gets most of its visual attraction from digital enhancement. ~
trialsanderrors 02:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Good distinction to draw. The subject is iconic. I'm not sure the building is more recognizable in the alt version (it is missing a roof line for example), but seeing the pedestal helps.
Debivort 08:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I edited the alternative, both have their advantages, so I'm indifferent between the two now. ~
trialsanderrors 09:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I found the current version on the USGS website and created a restored version from the largest available copy. If anyone else wants to attempt their own restoration efforts, the orginal is in the edit history. My comment about lack of enc stands. ~
trialsanderrors 03:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Conditional support for the picture with the alternative perspective if it's cleaned up since it better portrays the effect of the earthquake than the original: viewers can picture that statue falling off the pedestal; the original seems like an accident.--
BirdKr 13:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 1 -Serious "Wow" factor -Nelro
Support edit 1. —
Dgiestc 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 1 - I'm changing my vote to support the first edit. I did not know that there was a better version out there, and I would rather the better image was used.
Readro 01:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong support for the alternate version. I really like the additional context provided by the zoology building and the statue's old platform next to the other statue. I Oppose the original or its edit.
Basar 07:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Concert hall "Finlandia" in
Helsinki, designed by the "father of modernism"
Alvar Aalto in 1971. The walls are carrara marble. In my opinion very nice angle of this piece of modern architecture, looks very good to me.
Support great composition - shows of Alto's rhythmic facade nicely - particularly like the reflections from the (nearly unseen) glazing. --
Mcginnly |
Natter 16:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment It is a little difficult for me to look at and understand because of the lack of context. Although I understand the picture may have meaning architecturally, I still think that this picture might be considered to be "cutoff" in the FP criteria since it only shows part of a wall. The flag in the bottom is also unfortunate.
Basar 17:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Captures the spirit of the architecture. This building is huge, and can be shown "uncut" only in a picture shot from the bay side - unfortunately, those pics tend to be rather dull - there's not even a full image on the official site, as far as I saw... --
Janke |
Talk 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose no context.. the only idea of scale I get is from the size of the lights underneath the overhang. It's also not a plan, elevation or section so its not exactly useful for architectural study. Regardless, the image could be sharper. --
drumguy8800CT 23:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - Great composition -
Alvesgaspar 01:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. The composition is pretty good, but I agree with drumguy8800 that the pic is basically too artsy to be encyclopedically useful. --
Dschwen 09:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry chaps, I never interrupt on FIC but there's two people now who are objecting for this pictures lack of encyclopedic quality because its too arty - presumably a elevation would be considered encyclopedic? Well architecture is a fine art - what you suggest is like illustrating a painting by number break down of the mona lisa - an assmebly drawing does not show how the light hits a building's forms and masses or how the rhythym of a facade diminishes with perspective - these are things the architect has in mind. The lack of scale is a criticism often laid at the door of modern architecture - so it's inclusion in this image, makes that point and is therefore encylopedic on that basis alone. Some thoughts anyway. --
Mcginnly |
Natter 00:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Are you sure that's a product of the picture and not the building itself? I'm trying to find other pictures of the building to see if there is a way it would be more clear and more encyclopedic...
grenグレン 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
trialsanderrors answered that better than I could --
Dschwen 19:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose This picture sits uncomfortably between the poles of representing the building and representing the architectural style, and for both poles there are better pictures.
This one captures the full facade and puts the building in context, while
this one does much better at capturing the international style of the building. Now we just have to collect the money to send Diliff to Helsinki... ~
trialsanderrors 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose per trialsand errors. The two linked images in his/her comments are much more informative than the nomination.
Debivort 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose -Nelro
Oppose not an impressive picture
Tomer T 10:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Question: Isn't this original research? I don't see how it passes criterion #5 (accuracy). howcheng {
chat} 05:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The problem is more that the accompanying text will probably have to be removed from the articles, rendering the images contextless. ~
trialsanderrors 06:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It's actually #6, and it just says it should be supported by facts/refs, which it is with the ratings behind them and so I see no problem with it. --
antilivedT |
C |
G 07:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It just might be hard to justify their usage in the articles if the whole context consists of OR and has to be removed. ~
trialsanderrors 08:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Question Are there any copyright issues with using images that were harvested from the Hotornot website?
Spebudmak 07:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Depends on how recognizable they are. ~
trialsanderrors 08:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose And completely unrelated to the context discussion I find the image rather unattractive, starting with the drop shadows. This strikes me more like a nomination for "Neat Research Idea". ~
trialsanderrors 08:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment The creator is cited incorrectly. It was actually created by a guy on flickr, not a wikipedian.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 10:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Interesting concept, may however be
WP:OR, but I oppose mainly because of the low quality of the full-size image - very fuzzy! --
Janke |
Talk 18:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Averages of faces are always fuzzy. There's no way around it I think.
Junes 19:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It might be more interesting to find a high-quality published composite of multiple faces. The
album cover of Pleased to Meet You by
James is a composite of the band members' faces. I know it's copyrighted, but that's the first example I can come up with. ~
trialsanderrors 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Very interesting original research. Get it published somewhere and I will support it as a FP. —
Dgiestc 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose I like the idea. But there are many problems to be solved above. And also the faces looks pretty much the same. They are mostly "Not" for me. --
Arad 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: Since it was created with a freeware tool using very basic data assembly, I wouldn't consider it a violation of
WP:NOR, unless significant original conclusions were being advanced at the same time. I do agree that it's not a particularly stunning image.--
Eloquence* 00:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Even if you solved the above issues, I think the phrase "hot or not" (in the picture) is inappropriate, especially for the main page. Perhaps if you had a more scientific title, or even better, no title at all.
Basar 06:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Why is it inappropriate? The images were taken from the
Hot or Not website.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 16:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I think that would make it appropriate if the image were only used to enhance the hot or not article, but since it is being used in general articles like
physical attractiveness, I feel that a more than less slang phrase from a popular website would be less appropriate than something like "female physical attractiveness". I think letting the caption do the describing would be best though.
Basar 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, ignoring for the time being the sourcing, OR, and copyright issues cited by others, I personally dislike the design of the image. The typography is poor, and the drop shadow and bevel effects are cliche. I do not consider this the best wikipedia has to offer by any means.-
Andrew c 03:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral, will support if the drop shadows and title are removed. Willing to cast lone dissenting vote if necessary -- I like it. But I may still need to yield to OR concerns, if that's what the consensus says.
Spebudmak 10:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
And what about privacy issues? I'd hate to be one of the people in this image and find myself on the Wikipedia Main Page one day -- especially if I was one of the low-rated ones. At least on Hotornot.com your photo is one among a zillion.
Spebudmak 10:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
These people don't actually exist. They are morphs from many different people on hot or not.--
antilivedT |
C |
G 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral - I'm not sure about the accuracy of this, but if it is true (and there should be sources that justify what the picture says) - I support.
Tomer T 14:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I guess by now we all know what contre-jour is ;-). But unfortunately illustrating an article significantly is a prerequisite for a FP nominee. --
Dschwen 22:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Artifacts. -
Fcb981 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. Grain, overexposed. Pretty shot, but not really FP material. --Tewy 04:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
oppose over exposed.
Debivort 20:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. These could be any kind of trees in any forest. howcheng {
chat} 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This one is already featured, and more enc due to the cut pieces reviealing the interior of the fruit. --
Dschwen 12:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I just reverted your edit to
Lemon (rv picture replacement. The old one is more appropriate for this section, and the new one is redundant.). Sorry, but the pic showing the fruit on the tree is better in the Cultivation section. And yours is redundant compared to the pic above. Sorry, the picture really is not bad, pretty good actually. Its just that there already is an even better one. --
Dschwen 12:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Sorry, the other lemon photo is better. howcheng {
chat} 03:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. It's not a bad picture, but the existing feature picture is just better. -
Mgm|
(talk) 09:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Too small (600 px), also less enc than the existing FP. --
Janke |
Talk 13:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Too small (read the rules!) -
Adrian Pingstone 15:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - This isn't really a panorama of the resort, it's a panorama of a carpark, some cars, a few random people and a couple of trees. A very small part of the resort is visible, but not sharp and not prominent, in the middle. Reasonable stitching but otherwise just a snapshot - no encyclopaedic value, and it certainly doesn't give "a great deal of information about Mountain High". Try again on a clear day and from a viewpoint where you can actually get the resort in the frame, without distractions. --
YFB¿ 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Note that the east resort is on the left and west resort is middle-right. Also mountain high is usually foggy, and is rarely clear.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Mtf612 (
talk •
contribs).
I'm sorry, but this picture has almost no chance of becoming featured. The parts of the resort that are visible are indistinct and uninformative, and are not nearly prominent enough in the image as a whole, as evidenced by the fact that you felt it necessary to point them out. Even if Mountain High is "usually foggy" (it's not today, for example:
[2]) there is no way that a photo largely consisting of cloud will be a suitable featured picture of the subject. If it's really not possible to get a good photo of the resort from a high vantage point, I suggest trying a shot from somewhere below the cloudline, where you can look up at the resort and make it a more prominent feature of the photo. Try to illustrate a specific part of the resort clearly if it's not possible to get a good shot of the wider area. --
YFB¿ 01:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment you should probably give it a more descriptive name.
grenグレン 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - a foggy ski resort car park? I don't get it. I like panoramas, but we need a bit more than this. What's the focus of the image? Are the cars and kids intentional?
Stevage 02:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - maybe if you cropped the car and such, but really it begs for a different shot from the same roll.
Brianski 10:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment The kid in the photo i liked, as t is symbollic to me of the awe one sees in such a majestic mountain. However, the car was not on purpose and i agree it ruins the image. I agree i need to go to a better location, i simply went here because i wanted the east resort in the image. Hopefully next time it will be a clear day.
Oppose - Not really special, in my opinion.
Tomer T 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Fog obscures most of the sky and a bit of the mountain, and there are distracting details such as people, cars and litter.
Mrug2 22:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Two F-22 Raptors over Ohio Utah. Their first official deployement.Alternative, but not historicalEdit 1 - contrast boost, colour correction,
noise reductionAlternative Edit 1 - contrast boost, NR
Reason
It's historical (the first official deployement of F-22) and very good quality for such a hard to catch image.
CommentCould we have the historical year in the picture description?Basar 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC) I found it in the metadata.
Basar 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose original, weak support neutral Edit 1 - I've uploaded an edit which fixes the poor contrast, green colour cast and fairly heavy noise. I'm not 100% convinced about the enc of a head-on shot like this, though. I prefer the alternative as an illustration but the image quality isn't that great. --
YFB¿ 02:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support Neutral Alternative Edit 1 - Better after a spot of noise reduction and a minor contrast boost, but there's not a great 'wow' factor and I'm a bit puzzled by the port vertical stabiliser, which looks sort of like it's been manipulated badly in Photoshop (rear edge, just in front of the rudder). --
YFB¿ 03:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I fail to see how this is historical. Are we going to see pictures of the first Toyota Camry being sold in Washington state soon? Also, call me old fashioned, but that deployment over Ohio didn't really involve any military action, did it? Wasn't it a mere testdrive? --
Dschwen 12:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Come on. How can you compare Toyota Camry to F-22 Raptor, the best fighter plain in the world. It's technology is the best available. It's something you don't see everyday. --
Arad 04:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Make it a
Prius then ;-). Anywho, my point was more on historical... ...and the deployment being just a testdrive (not that I would rather want to see them in an actual fight). All in all it is a decent pic (but please don't call it historical). Just like all those military promo shots, I don't think it is of terribly high enc value (if it were, it probably wouldn't be declassified). --
Dschwen 08:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose all Run-of-the-mill aircraft photos. Just because this is the Testarossa of fighter jets doesn't mean we have to elevate any middling photo of it to FP. ~
trialsanderrors 22:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose all per trailsanderrors. Plus, I don't know if anyone has noticed, but the caption here says the planes are over Ohio. Whereas in the
article it says this was taken over Utah. Furthermore, the picture summary just says the planes are en route to Utah and gives no info on location whatsoever.
Uberlemur 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Yeah, looks like I made an error. Thanks for telling that. --
Arad 04:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
THat doesn't look like Utah to me. I'd say Ohio might be closer to it. ~
trialsanderrors 06:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Alternative Edit 1 -
Nelro 15:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Original — Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska: The Aurora Borealis, or Northern Lights, shines above Bear LakeEdited version — Picture of the year at CommonsEdit 2 by
trialsanderrors — Rotated, cropped, color corrected, noise reduced, downsampled.Edit 3 by
AzaToth — Cropped, color corrected, noise reduced, downsampled.
Reason
Commons Picture of the Year 2006, somehow not an FP on the Wikipedia
Support - I thought it's already featured. --
Arad 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - I suspect this discussion is going to be long, interesting and unpredictable...
Alvesgaspar 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Oversaturated low quality shot. Quite a surprise this came out as POTY. --
Dschwen 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, the original version is actually of decent quality, concering the circumstances it was made. So my initial oppose was due to the POTY surprise. I'll stay Neutral for now. --
Dschwen 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
CommentAlvesgaspar was right. The discussion is going to heat up. --
Arad 21:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Oversaturated, very grainy, severe and highly irritating (to me) distortion. I share Dschwen's surprise at it being POTY. --
Pharaoh Hound(talk) 21:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - There's something really weird about it, which I can't quite put my finger on.
Mrug2 00:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Maybe because an Aurora is wierd? :-). --
Arad 00:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Shouldn't we also include the original in the nomination? ~
trialsanderrors 04:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Probably so; I've been hanging around for a while, but it's my first nom and I couldn't figure out how to add more than one image in the template. —
Goodmanjaz 04:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
You can just add images after creating the nomination. ~
trialsanderrors 04:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose POTY edit and Edit 3 I was trying to find out what the motivation for the color correction was, but can't find any other than it seems to make it look prettier. The main problem is that it turned the aurora turquoise and the snow blue, killing any enc the original had. I haven't made up my mind yet about the original. ~
trialsanderrors 05:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose original, weak support my edit. I fixed the problems that bugged me with the original without overdoing the color correction like in the POTY edit. I agree with Alvesgaspar that this is among the best impressions of an aurora borealis (compare
Flickr), so with a number of edits the technical problems should be solvable. Happy to ditch this though if someone finds a better picture of an aurora. ~
trialsanderrors 17:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not a photograph expert, but as I'm grouw up in such conditions, I personally can assert that the snow may look like that. →
AzaToth 18:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not sure what this means but when comparing to the original I'm not buying that a turquoise aurora reflects purple in the snow. When I'm trying to recreate the edit I have to move the blue color balance slider all the way over to the right, something that doesn't instill any confidence in me that this was done to replicate the original natural colors. ~
trialsanderrors 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support color corrected edit. I'd rather see the snow blue than a sickly yellow-green. As for the "true" color, that's impossible to tell. In low light, the human eye loses color vision, and cameras and films behave differently than in normal lighting conditions. However, the edit matches the majority of aurora pics I've seen. As for being grainy, that's pretty unavoidable - I'm sure this wasn't shot at 50 ISO speed... ;-) --
Janke |
Talk 08:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The problem is that the snow is supposed to reflect the light of the aurora, which it does in the original but not in the edit. ~
trialsanderrors 08:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral - Aesthetically it is overdone and somehow kitschy. Also, the deformation is annoying and the photographic quality is not great even considering the difficult conditions of the shot. But I won't oppose the promotion: it is still the best available
Aurora borealis image and the Commons POTY 2006. However I'm not surprised with the promotion, anyone has noticed the voters' comments (the quantity and the quality) in the four best pics? It is not by chance that I have tried (with no success)to select the POTY 2006 by a "consensual type" of election rather than by a "blind voting"-
Alvesgaspar 13:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose All The original two per above. Edit 2 (trialsanderrors) looks unsaturated and lacking in contrast. -
Fcb981 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support POTY - Not my favorite but we should defer to the judgment of hundreds of other Wikipedians from a broader audience. —dgiestc 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose It seems that the camera hasn't been still during exposure, as the stars are stretched. →
AzaToth 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Neutral changing because of invalid reasoning from my side. →
AzaToth 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The exposure length is 25 seconds. The stars moved. If they used an automatic steering device, the ground would be blurred. —dgiestc 20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 3Tomer T 16:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Very nasty colors before photoshopping and since the main appeal of image is the beautiful colors it's not a very good image --
frothT 23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support I think the end product is a beautiful picture at any resolution.
Werothegreat 20:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 02:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The Tawny Owl (Strix aluco), is a medium-sized earless owl. It is 37-34 centimeters in length and has a wingspan of 81-96 centimeters.Edit 1 Noise removed - By:
Arad
Reason
This image, used in it's mainbox, adds a lot to the article in my opinion.
Weak support. It's a great shot, but there's some noise. --Tewy 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support edit 1. Great shot. --Tewy 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 1 - I removed the noise Tewy talked about. --
Arad 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 1 - That's a cute animal.
WiiWillieWiki
Support Edit 1 --
Miskwito 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 1 -its so cute -Nelro —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
65.94.131.153 (
talk)
Support Edit 1 - Great.
Mrug2 00:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 1 Looks good without the noise.
Hello32020 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 1 Per above..--
HereToHelp 15:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 1Tomer T 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 1 Cool bird. --
Mad Max 06:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. I see no noise in the original and the edit introduces slight blurring. I prefer the original, but I support promotion of either image. -
Mgm|
(talk) 09:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support, the way the rail cuts through the photo bothers me... but, it really is a great shot.
grenグレン 07:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:Tawny wiki edit1.jpg --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 11:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
support a familiar, illustrative sight, as I am a
Marylander.
Debivort 22:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment -wouldn't it be better if we could see the eintire stall -Nelro —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
65.94.134.65 (
talk)
Weak Support I agree with Nelro, it does not depict its subject very well. Still, it is a good picture and is encyclopedic enough to suit its purpose.
Jellocube27 22:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Composition, Artifacts. -
Fcb981 00:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Composition is wrong for a crab picture, and wrong for a seafood market picture. —dgiestc 20:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Composition, jagged edges.
Lycaon 08:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose for not being soft shell... but.... I think the illustration of a crab should be clearer... this is hard to tell where one crab ends and the other crabs.
grenグレン 13:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support -- very illustrative of how crabs are sold in a market. howcheng {
chat} 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose -Nelro
Support -- good photo to show crabs as a food product.--
Eloquence* 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support per howcheng --
frothT 22:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support I can't oppose this picture because nature made this crabs' shells kind of confusing. Also, this picture it's quite attracting and reminds me of a Costa Rican fish market (that may be my personal opinion, but the point is the picture is good). Also, even if I had never seen a crab in my life, the one on top is quite distinguishable and accurately depicts what a blue crab looks like, so I have to say this picture is encyclopedic.
Bernalj90 03:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The image is way too small to be a FP, unfortunately. Try to get the larger original from Gilgamesh. —
BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-05 15:22Z
Unfortunately, there is no larger version of the picture. It was contributed to Wikipedia by one of Gilgamesh's friends, and he has only this version of the picture. Isn't there any chance to feature the picture in this version?
Tomer T 16:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, it's absolutely gorgeous, but way too small to ever survive FPC. I'd support a 1000px+ version in a heartbeat. --
Golbez 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
oppose - size.
Debivort 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
non eligible not even close. --
frothT 05:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately Oppose If someone speaks Hebrew, he/she could ask the creator for a larger image. -
Wutschwlllm 20:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I've already asked him for a larger image, he said that this is the largest he has. (The creator also speaks English, if you want to ask him)
Tomer T 14:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
weak oppose original, oppose alternative - original seems washed out, shouldn't those domes be brilliantly colored? The angle is significantly better than the alternative though, which really doesn't show the building.
Debivort 20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose original. The original has the more impressive angle, but the overcast sky doesn't do justice to the dome. Oppose alternative. The alternative doesn't have the nice angle of the original. (believe it or not, I formed this opinion before reading Debivort's response :P )—
BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-06 20:42Z
Weak Oppose Both Per above. (Believe it or not i made my decision from the first moment this image was nominated) :-) --
Arad 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support OriginalTomer T 10:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support very strange way to illustrate an article, though I suppose it is effective!
Jellocube27 01:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support. Just because easily-obtainable photographs should be superb. This is a little blurry (but still highly interesting). --Tewy 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support edit 1. Same reason as above. --Tewy 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Even if it is blurred . But I have seen worst.
Bewareofdog 04:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Original Aesthetics adds back the points lost through blurryness, and I don't see the massive artifacts. --
antilivedT |
C |
G 06:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Interesting picture.
Terri G 12:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Beautiful presentation of a common object!
RoyalbroilT :
C 20:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose see below - Am I the only one that sees the massive artifacts in this picture, particularly in the nuts without shells? (Pay close attention to any lines that appear at a 45 degree angle) Sorry, I have to oppose this, but I would definitely support it if this problem were fixed. Such a unique and fun way of displaying nuts!
tiZom(2¢) 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Maybe you are the only one... I cannot see any "massive" artifacts except some noise here and there. Care to be more specific? --
antilivedT |
C |
G 05:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I see them too. They're not really massive artifacts but rather look similar to scanlines. Looks rather strange to be honest, but not something that is easy to fix. Downsampling would help and probably not lose much/any information. In fact it looks as though the image has been upsized already with poor sampling hence the artifacts.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 11:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
OK, maybe not massive! But I can't justify supporting pictures with this problem (see crop) ...it's just not the quality I've come to expect at FPC. Again, I would happily support if we got a copy that addressed this issue. I really do think it's a fun, encyclopedic shot.
tiZom(2¢) 18:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Agree with above. Blurry in full size. Not unique, could be re-done with much better quality. --
Janke |
Talk 07:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose. Due to artifacts mainly. The pattern brings attention but doesn't really add to the understanding of the nut. A more casual presentation of shelled and unshelled pecans would probably be better IMO.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 11:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Artifacts are really disturbing.
Lycaon 08:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I've applied a Gaussian blur and reduced the image to 2000x1309 (which should still be more than adequate resolution) to remove some of the pixelization/artifacts.
ShadowHalo 19:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support edit - Fantastic. Looks great!
tiZom(2¢) 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support original, oppose edit — The original is nice. It has some flaws, but it is overall pleasing and informative. The edit causes some loss of quality and strange tone/color change.
♠ SG→Talk 03:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose not very clean looking, also that isn't exactly a natural formation. A better photograph might have a whole pecan next to a cracked-open shell and the shelled nut sitting alongside it.
drumguy8800CT 08:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
No clear consensus yet on whether to go with the original or edit 1. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 21:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support original I don't see what the improvement is of the edit. There is a barely visible cut in the center of the picture, roughly at a 167 degree angle, but the edit doesn't remove that either. ~
trialsanderrors 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose edit, decreasing resolution to a point where the artifacts aren't noticable anymore also discards good data from the picture. Weak oppose original not very enc as each individual nut is fairly small. I'd strongly prefer macroshots of closed, cut and opend nuts. --
Dschwen 12:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support original Aesthetically a very nice picture that shows pecans in an artistic yet informative way. I see no improvement in the edit -- it merely seems blurrier. I agree that close-up macro shots would add to the Pecan article, but I don't think that should count against this particular image. Despite some technical flaws, I think this image should be promoted. --
Asiir 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support. A little on the simple side, but still interesting and makes the reader want to know more. --Tewy 04:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose. This image doesn't do it for me. it's just too bland. If it were spiced up somehow I would support.
Wittylama 04:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
weak support - lovely idea, gray is a bit drab, the polygons comprising the solids are a bit simple, i.e. the cylinder part of the mug expands non-smoothly into the handle. Also, it would be nice if the figure preserved its volume throughout.
Debivort 08:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Homeomorphisms aren't volume-preserving transformations, so I don't think there is a reason to have the volume preserved. There is something to be said even for not having the volume preserved.
Spebudmak 00:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I realize this. I just think it would covey the concept of deformation better if volume wasn't appearing from no where.
Debivort 05:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree, the bottom of the coffee cup rising to make a solid cylinder at the start of the animation could be a bit smoother with the rest of the deformation.
Spebudmak 07:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
That was my original idea, but it didn't work the ways I've tried. It's just hard to interpolate a highly concave shape like the mug into a convex shape like the torus the way I did it. Maybe later when I figure a better way to do it, but right now that's beyond my abilities. Sorry. —
Kieff |
Talk 00:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Good animation. Gray is fine. But I'm afraid it gives a wrong idea of a homeomorphism. It doesn't illustrate which point of the donut goes to which point of the mug. And it is not necessary to have a continuous deformation between the two objects in order to have a homeomorphism: think of a
trefoil knot which is homeomorphic with a cylinder for instance. This animation should probably go to
homotopy instead. Someone on
Talk:Homeomorphism has already made this remark. --
Bernard 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Shouldn't this image go in
string theory? I remember seeing a film on it and homeomorphism was explained, but I don't remember why. --
Iriseyes 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. The animation is just fine where it is. Just because basic topology is a prerequisite to understand String therory I wouldn't cram it into that article. And I disagree about the move to homotopy too, that's just taking it too abstract. The anim is a proverbial example for topological equivalancy. The fact that it is animated is not the point, it just helps understanding whats going on. How it is animated, whether it conserves volume or not etc. is completely irrelevant to the concept presented. --
Dschwen 19:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support This is a good animation and illustrates well enough the concept. But I don't like the part when the cup is "emptied". After all topology is about "deformation" not "removal" of material. Maybe it could be modified to make it more obvious. In that sense, I agree with Debivort's comment. -
Alvesgaspar 00:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
A deformation does not have to be volume conserving, does it? --
Dschwen 15:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not at all, that is not relevant. But it would illustrate better the idea of deformation if the volume removed from the interior of the cup would be put (slide) to the "margins".
Alvesgaspar 16:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't get your point. You'd rather if the cylinder thinned as the bottom of the cup rises to the top? —
Kieff |
Talk 00:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Well, I was looking at it the other way around. But yes, while the cup fills its height should be decreasing, so that the transformation is perceived as a deformation of the existing volume, not the adition of new "material" -
Alvesgaspar 09:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oh, I see. That'd be extremely complicated for me to do. :( —
Kieff |
Talk 10:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment well, apparently the colors were too faint for anyone else to notice, so I made it bluer. It's the only change I can make right now, with my current tools, time and knowledge. —
Kieff |
Talk 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. There are several ways that people could get wrong ideas of homeomorphisms from this animation:
If you think that a homeomorphism is a continous deformation, you have it wrong. You must understand that the homeomorphism is just the map from the initial state to the final state.
If you think that such deformations always exist between homeomorphic objects, and therefore conclude that a
trefoil knot cannot be homeomorphic to a cylinder, you have it wrong.
Then there are problems about the way the mug is filled. If you visualize it like water being poured in the mug, you have it wrong: you have to deform matter already present, not add some new.
If, consequently, you think that the mug should be filled by expanding the inner part of the bottom of the mug, you still have it wrong, because the map is not continuous.
If, consequently, you decide to expand the inner and outer parts of the bottom of the mug together, and simultaneously shrink the upper part of the mug, you may still have it wrong, because in the process the inner part of the boundary of the mug (the cylinder part) gets contracted into a circle and the map is no longer injective.
It is likely that some mathematicians, when thinking of homeomorphisms, have in mind something like in the animation, but unfortunately it is difficult to make it into a rigorous argument. I'm curious to know if wikipedians have made the mistakes I describe? It is still a good animation, but should be better explained, probably moved to
homotopy, and should not be featured. --
Bernard 16:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Very strongly oppose. See my comments below. --
Bernard 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The first three objections are nitpicks. There are many wrong things one can imagine a layman will think from such an animation. The relevant question is whether the essential idea has been conveyed. The last two objections are apparently why BernardH considers this not to demonstrate a homeomorphism, but it does. This is a perfectly good isotopy in fact. --
C S (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Well, I very well knew all the time that it could demonstrate a homeomorphism, and I wrote it. Salix's solution doesn't surprise me; I could certainly have done something similar if I had wished (it's actually very much like making the two steps of my solution into one). I felt that people, in the discussion above, were at risk of making those mistakes, and I think I was right. Even after I had warned about pitfall 4 two times, someone below still made the mistake. Was I wrong to insist on these problems? I don't think so. My conclusion is that warnings in the image page would be useful. You talk about confusion below but it is not on my side. --
Bernard 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support The fact that homeomorphisms are not necessarily continuous deformations does not change the fact that this is an ideal illustration of the often-repeated phrase, in undergraduate classes, of "a donut and a coffee cup have the same topology". As such, per Dschwen, the animation is perfectly adequate at doing what it purports to do. Also, my comments above were just nitpicks and I still think this is a good animation.
Spebudmak 04:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support The fact that is an animation helps the viewer understand how the two shapes are topologically the same. Sure, you don't have to transform between two items with an animation to make them topologically the same, but it sure illustrates the point! Normally I'm a bit skeptical at bland, simple illustrations, but this actually does have a "wow" factor. And it's certainly encyclopedic.
Enuja 10:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support although the caption should be changed from "A classic example" to "The classic example". On Bernard's points above, correct me if I'm wrong, but every single frame in this animation is homeomorphic to every other frame. Also, I find the topologies as physical "matter" objection unconvincing. Since they're both subsets of the R³ they both contain infinitely many points, so there is no matter added even if the object expands. A mug is also homeomorphic to a mug five times its size. ~
trialsanderrors 16:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks for replying to my arguments. It's true that every single frame is homeomorphic to every other, but the reader has to imagine for himself what those homeomorphisms are, and if he takes the trouble to do so, then the animation strongly suggests a transformation that is not a homeomorphism. I'm going to repeat and expand on my last point above: if we expand the lower part of the mug and simultaneously shrink the upper part, it's all the upper, 3-dimensional cylinder part of the mug that becomes contracted into a 2-dimensional annulus. Sure the transformation could be made a homeomorphism, but the animation is not helping. It took me some time to see this problem, and somehow it looks like just a detail, but it still makes the animation either imprecise or mathematically incorrect. That's annoying. I could imagine ways to fix the problem... But anyway I don't like this animation so much. --
82.66.235.134 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC) --
Bernard 22:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
OK, I'm not quite if I follow this, your "bottom part" of the mug is the disc at the bottom and the "top part" is the tubular part, and they are for some reason distinct elements? ~
trialsanderrors 08:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
That's it. We consider them as distinct elements because we really need to apply different treatments to different parts of the mug. Another possible decomposition would be a radial one, but as I said it doesn't work either. --
Bernard 11:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Change to Oppose for reasons unlrealted to mathematics: I just noticed that the lighting is inconsistent between the cylinder and the ring. On the ring, there is a spotlight above the viewer, but this light never appears on the cylinder. Also, as the mug hollows out one of the shadows indicates a light source to the right, but the right side of the cylinder is itself in the shade. ~
trialsanderrors 08:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually, you are wrong. In the POV-Ray scene I wrote, there's only one light source just behind the "camera" and a bit to the right. The reason the lighting may look odd is that I'm using orthographic projection and a bit of transparency and ambient light to soften shadows a bit. Also, there are no areas on the surface of the cylinder with a normal vector at the right direction to create a specular reflection in this angle, unlike in the torus, so your criticism doesn't really make any sense, 'mathematically'. Sorry, but there's nothing inconsistent here. —
Kieff |
Talk 11:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
On second viewing it's not inconsistent as much as it's unrealistic. A single light source would leave a spotlight even on a cylindric surface, just turn on your desk lamp and point it on your coffee mug. Of course if you stick to a mathematical model of lighting the spotlight is a single point on the upper ring, which creates the impression that the mug is made from different material than the handle. ~
trialsanderrors 21:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support. After some thinking, I've decided to support my own image. I'm not sure, is this against the rules? ... Now, I like this image. I think it shows well enough how the mug and the torus are topologically equivalent, and it just requires a little bit of thought to figure that the bottom of the cup is rising to the top in order to make the overall shape convex for a smooth transition, and it seems that once the average person realizes this the whole concept of topological equivalence seems to "snap" in place (worked with a few friends I showed to, so I'm happy with the results — but don't take my word for it.) So I guess this animation ended up being a good thing after all. Also, if or not the image would be better at
homotopy instead of
homeomorphism is irrelevant to this nomination, since it's just a matter of moving the image to a different article. My only issue here is that I wish I could add a texture to it, but that's UV mapping and it only works with parametric surfaces on POV-Ray. That'd be extremely difficult. —
Kieff |
Talk 20:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I will ask you to be more precise about how you think the object should be deformed when the bottom of the cup is rising. If you think that the bottom should be expanded only in the z direction and the rest of the cup left unchanged, then it is just wrong, since the deformation is not coutinuous. I am annoyed that nobody gives accurate answers to my remarks, and I wonder how people can support without doing so. It seems to me that nobody sees the problem: I can assure you, as a mathematician, that there is one. This problem is all the more serious if nobody sees it: it is acceptable to be approximative only if one is conscious of the limitations. --
Bernard 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I can assure you, as a topologist, there is no such problem as you imagine. --
C S (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
My answer to "I wonder how people can support without doing so" is that non-topologists may support this animation without knowing what's "wrong" with it and without understanding the math just as non-taxonismists can support animal pictures without researching to see if the illustrated animal is, in fact, the correct species and a typical member of the species. This makes it important for topologists, taxonomists, and everyone else to make VERY CLEAR what's wrong with articles or pictures. I'm sorry but I STILL don't understand what's wrong with the picture. Since I still think it very clearly shows that mugs and donuts are the same topologically, I still think this deserves to be a featured picture.
Enuja 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
You are right and my comment was a bit abusive. However I don't know how to explain better than I did... I will ask you to be more specific about what you don't understand. I am a little lost here. I had thought my comments would be understandable at least by mathematicians and would have hoped one of them would lurk around here, so if a mathematician reads this he is encouraged to give his opinion on this matter, whether he understands and agrees or not. If non-mathematicians fail to understand... Sorry, but that is also a weakness of the animation. People think they understand but they actually understand very little, I'm afraid. --
Bernard 03:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
To be honest, I have no idea what would be the best and most accurate way to make this animation, and I'm pretty sure such a thing is beyond my skills at the moment. So I can't say how it should be deformed. The only reasons it turned out this way, with the bottom rising and all that, is because it gave the best aesthetical results and it was withing my skills. I also have a feeling that a mathematically accurate animation would look less convincing than what it this one is. The original point of this animation, in case you're not aware, was just to illustrate the famous idea that the donut and the coffee mug are topologically equivalent, and to this purpose it seems to be good enough. It was never meant to accurately illustrate the mathematical concept of homeomorphism or homeotopy. See
this page for more info on where it came from. I'm certain that it is inaccurate in that sense, but I think you're missing the point and expecting too much from the animation. Meanwhile, you are encouraged to suggest a better and more accurate approach for the image, and if it is within my skills I'll certainly give it a try. Also, if you feel the animation is misplaced and lacks an accurate description to clear things up, just be bold and make the changes yourself! I'd really like some constructive criticism here, and I hope you're willing to provide it. Thanks for the comments, looking forward to a reply. —
Kieff |
Talk 00:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It is not so much that this picture is inaccurate, but that it suggests a wrong way to deform the object. I am not asking too much of the animation. I recognized its value. But having a mathematically wrong animation in FP, that is not possible. As I said, I have ideas to fix the problem, but that would not put it in FP realm to me, and would make it more complicated; and after all, why fix a problem that nobody acknowledges? The best would be to just warn about those problems in the image page. Sorry, don't want to work on the animation myself, lost too much energy here (actually, asking people who oppose to do better themselves has several times been viewed as bad style on FPC). I will ask for comments in the page you mentionned. --
Bernard 01:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm not asking you to do better animation or anything like that, I just pointed out that you could have edited the articles already. Also, I noticed you have said, several times, that you have ideas on how to fix these issues you pointed out, but you never really stated what these changes are. I'm just asking you to explain this further. I'm just curious, really. And I'll learn something more on the subject, and that's always a good thing. :) —
Kieff |
Talk 02:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It is some work to describe, and I would have done it more happily if people had understood my previous comments. Anyway, here it is, I've added the thumbnail on top of the section. This raises a few other issues: it will be difficult to understand without seeing the interior of the mug; people who don't see the original problem will wonder why it is done this way... --
Bernard 15:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm a graph theorist, and we don't really deal with those kinds of minutiae, but it seems to me your objection stems from the visualization of the mug as a tube on top of a disk, with the diameter of the disk the same as the outer diameter of the tube. In that case the removal of matter from inside the tube amounts to a reduction to a 2-dimensional annulus. But an alternative visualization is the disk inside the tube. In that case the removal compresses the inner cylinder into a flat but 3-dimensional disk – a volume-reducing but perfect homeomorphic transformation. ~
trialsanderrors 09:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
That's the "radial decomposition" I was writing about. I think you are making mistake 4 on my list above. Your transformation is not continuous. --
Bernard 15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
OK, in that case I can't continue the conversation without formalizing this, and that's not something I'm particularly interested in. ~
trialsanderrors 17:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but does that mean you agree, disagree, or just don't know? --
Bernard 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Somewhere between the second and the third. ~
trialsanderrors 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
support graphic is fine, illustrates the
topological concept of a
homotopy perfectly. But I do agree with Bernard that its not the right one for
homeomorphism. It actually reinforces the wrong idea about what a homeomorphish is. People will look at the animation and leave with that incorrect impression. --
Salix alba (
talk) 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Thank you for giving your opinion on the homeomorphism/homotopy problem. I would like to ask also what you think of the other problem I wrote about, namely that the transformation that is suggested between the torus and the mug is not in fact an homeomorphism (fails to be either continuous or injective)? Whether you understand, agree, and think it is a serious problem or not... --
Bernard 12:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I beleive you can construct a continuous and injective map which mirrors this illustration. What you don't get is differentiability. Consider just a small portion round the top of the cup, before its been pressed in, and just after. A slice through is illustrated below, I've constructed two diagonals lines and divided the interiour into three sets of points: a,b,c.
The deformation maps each set of points before onto the corresponding points after. Hopefully enough to convince you. --
Salix alba (
talk) 13:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
OK, that's an acceptable way to solve the problem. Neutral, though I would prefer if it was moved to
homotopy. --
Bernard 14:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I expect many people intuitively visualize something of this sort when they see the animation. I'm rather baffled that it has been a source of confusion, but in hindsight it's somewhat understandable. I remember when I started learning topology that I would overthink these things. There was a tendency to think things really couldn't be as they somehow appeared. If one works a lot in hands-on topology in 3 dimensions, one learns to trust one's intuition again (or at least certain parts of it....). --
C S (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. The only real objection I see is that the animation demonstrates an isotopy, which is a stronger condition than homeomorphism between two objects contained in an ambient space. Is this a serious objection? I don't think so. The gist of what topology is about is conveyed more than adequately. It's a great animation. --
C S (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:Mug and Torus morph.gif --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 19:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Animated gif of the evolution of Canada's provinces and territories
Reason
Self-nom; seeing the response to the animated Australia map below (people saying the concept was good), I thought it was time to nominate one I made of Canada some time ago, spruced up a little bit. It may look low quality in thumbnail view but full view makes it better. The actual animated version is in the two articles mentioned; each frame is also individually used in
Territorial evolution of Canada.
Support —
Golbez 13:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Do you take suggestions? It would be good to have an intermittent frame showing only the outline of the country at the end so it doesn't jump from present to 1867. Also, the dates might be better presented as a timeline. Otherwise this is pretty nice. ~
trialsanderrors 19:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Another one: There are occasions where it isn't clear which territory the Arctic Islands belong to. ~
trialsanderrors 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Not sure how to make that one clearer, I do believe that Keewatin never included them, so they always belonged to either the NWT or Nunavut. I've added dashed lines between Nunavut and NWT though. --
Golbez 12:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. There was a peer review of this image (by the same nominator)
here, which includes some other suggestions as well. Just throwing that out there. --Tewy 23:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I'd honestly forgotten about that, I knew I'd done one on Commons but I forgot about the one here. --
Golbez 11:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support, very well done. The only reason I do weak is because I'm not sure that gif is the best way to represent this. Maybe an html solution where you click on tabs to change images would work better (I can't find an example, but I know I've seen them).
grenグレン 11:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - I've uploaded a new version with a timeline, explanations, and a blank frame at the end as suggested, which I thought would not work at all but it kinda does, it cleanses the palate (and palette! heh) before restarting again. I should have done this after the peer review, but here it is. :) --
Golbez 12:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Very nice. High enc value. I liked to see it start from the beginning of Canada, but maybe that'll be too long to fit in a single map. Anyway, good job again. --
Arad 15:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
It would also seriously threaten my sanity, as the borders of the colonies of pre-dominion Canada were, shall we say, poorly documented. ;) I'll eventually make one, probably. --
Golbez 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support -Very informative -Nelro
Support. Nicely done (although a little slow, but that's just because so much happened). --Tewy 22:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support — Well done, especially now that you have incorporated the other suggestions. Though, I've got one more for you: could you make the borders slightly thinner? I'm thinking about 0.5 to 1pt smaller.
♠ SG→Talk 03:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately not without redoing the whole shebang. :| --
Golbez 05:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Support I think it's great, I especially like the recent addition of the timeline. I was thinking of doing the same kind of thing for the
Grateful Dead#Lineups, haha. A couple of comments though: Perhaps the text of Saskatchewan could be the same (or comprarable) size as the others, and not slanted? A hyphen could make it fit, maybe. Also, it would be great if the text could be curved to follow the lines of equal latitude, which are particularly important in the case of the edges of the Western provinces.
Spebudmak 07:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Also, how long will it be before people start demanding vector-based graphics for animations like this?
Spebudmak 07:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
shh don't give them ideas --
Golbez 10:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. I like the delay between the frames, as it gives you ample time to read it. Also,
Question: Does anyone know if Flash presentations are ever going to be compatible with WP? With a forward/backward button, this would be an ideal candidate, as the viewer could read at his own pace...
tiZom(2¢) 15:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Good job again! Canada's proud of you ;-) --
Arad 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
weak oppose - ambiguous regional identity of islands at many places in the animation, and the boundary lines change thickness throughout.
Debivort 20:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
They do? Where? The international borders are thicker than the internal borders, but beyond that there should be no changes. As for lack of identity, 1) I don't think the District of Keewatin extended beyond the mainland, the islands always belong to the NWT except when 3) Nunavut comes along, and its borders are clearly delineated. So, please be specific - where are the borders wonky, and which islands are ambiguous? --
Golbez 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
No the borders are the same. The international ones are thicker only. I think it's a mistake eye makes because of colors maybe. --
Arad 15:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
You are right about the borders changing only when they change status. I hadn't realized that was the distinction. It would be worth saying that in the caption. As for the NWT, there is no way to know that the islands belong to NWT or any of the other sepia territories that run into the water there. Change opposition to weak opposition.
Debivort 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The
brise soleil on Santiago Calatravas's Quadracci Pavilion of the
Milwaukee Art Museum in three different positions. Image 1: open.
Image 2: closing.
Image 3: Almost closed.
Reason
After the
failed nomination earlier this month I was intrigued by the building and looked for better versions of the brise soleil. This set of pictures from Flickr captures the entrance of the pavilion at sundown, just when the brise soleil is closing, and gives a better idea of its purpose. It also has a quite beautiful atmosphere. I did some cleanup work on the image, but I did not retouch the right wing of the sail, which seems to have some surface damage. (Note this is not a representation of the whole pavilion, which should be covered from a different angle.)
Question Are all three of these images being nominated as a single image, or are we supposed to select the one we like most?
Basar 06:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Your call. I'd say it's sufficient to feature Image 1, but they also work as set. ~
trialsanderrors 08:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Well then, I'm willing to go out and support picture 1. I can understand why some people may have trepidation because of the cars and people in the picture, but I'm willing to overlook that because of the composition which I feel is good, the quality, and the enc value it has.
Basar 17:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I thought about removing the cars but didn't because by good luck they have the same color as the background. Next round of retouching I'll remove the dent in the door though :-) About the people, any architecture photographer would drool over them. Thankfully they're all wearing dark colors, so they add a human element without distracting from the main subject. They're almost like the human props drawn into
architecture sketches to add the impression of habitation. ~
trialsanderrors 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I suppose you are right about the people; they are sort of nice.
Basar 00:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support a composite image of all three, which would have great encyclopedicness. I'd make one but I don't really have the time right now. howcheng {
chat} 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
No worries, I can do it if it finds consensus. ~
trialsanderrors 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support image 1 - Pretty. I like the light above it. ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 03:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
black problems
Comment, I wanted to support the first one... but the blacks on all of them seem really odd... does anyone else notice this? Look at the bushes, the car tires, and the back of the person with the black shirt.
grenグレン 21:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
That image are the parts I referenced. The blacks seem to just be hollow and two color not showing any of the detail.
grenグレン 03:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
OK, I can only see it when I invert the picture, but it seems it's a side effect of my way of increasing contrast, which is supposed to give the image a more "metallic" feel. I switched back to normal contrast enhancement. Let me know if that solves the problem. ~
trialsanderrors 04:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It seems to always look like that to me... you told me to comment... but, I have to remain neutral on it. I really don't like that metallic look as you call it... and maybe it's just my monitor...
grenグレン 07:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Image 1. I've reduced the size of the other two - let's make this a nomination just for one image, as per normal. I don't think a composite of 3 images would be good.
Stevage 02:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment A composite would add an incredible amount of enc. I actually had no idea what this actually was until I saw the pictures of it opening and closing. Granted, I didn't read the article but a composite would be very interesting.
CaseKid 06:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I added a sequence of images to all individual images now if you click on any of them. It spans a total of six once I get the last one uploaded. ~
trialsanderrors 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Those pictures to way more justice to the museum than mine did. --
Paul 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Image 1Tomer T 15:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Image 1 -
Nelro 15:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:Milwaukee Art Museum 1 (Mulad).jpg --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 19:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Paris metro network pictured at a geographically accurate scale.Edit 1: white background.
Reason
It's clean: without the names of the stations, the interconnectedness of the network is easier to see, and the map isn't too cluttered. Also, this map doesn't have the artificially-parallel lines that the standard
RATP-distributed one does, making it (purportedly) geographically accurate.
...although I realize it's hard to see much in the thumbnail view.
Spebudmak 03:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose May I have the honour of screaming "SVG!!!" for the first time? Also is it geo-referenced? If it is it should be treated like a map with scales and other things that you would find on a map. --
antilivedT |
C |
G 04:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree with you completely on these technical issues; perhaps they could be addressed by someone who knows how to make SVG images. What do you think of the aesthetics, though?
Spebudmak 04:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
IMHO the contrast is low and a white background would be better than the current grey background. The lines should be thicker and the station dots should be larger. --
antilivedT |
C |
G 04:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Q So does this also exist with names? ~
trialsanderrors 04:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
oppose grey background looks muddy, and almost completely uninformative as a thumbnail.
Debivort 04:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Made an edit, replaced background with white. (I hope I didn't miss any spots with my bucket-tool.)
Spebudmak 08:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Bucket fill is not optimal, since the antialiasing of the image is geared towards a grey bg. Recoloring, another reason to use SVG. -> Oppose both. --
Dschwen 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Unfortunately, this isn't very appealing, graphically. Informative, yes, very good for the article, but no "wow" factor to make it an FP. --
Janke |
Talk 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, although aesthetically very well done (obviously a lot of work in this one!) I would only support a metro map (of any city) if it had the station names and other information found on the official map. As a metro map on wikipedia, this is not ecyclopaedically useful except for showing that the metro covers a lot of ground.
Wittylama 10:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't think you could fit all the station names on here -- look at the high density of stations in the centre! (note that only the central one-quarter of the image is actually "Paris"). It's a tradeoff between geographical accuracy and getting all the station names on. Maybe you could fit the names of the transfer stations but that's all.
Spebudmak 17:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppos Even after clicking on it, it's almost impossible to see which lines are RER and which are metro. No station names, no geographic names of any kind. Not very informative, not very visually pleasing, and it's not even an .svg.
Stevage 02:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The RATP map does not differentiate between Metro and RER lines either (the line thicknesses are the same).
Spebudmak 17:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Do you need a microscope to read the "RER" designation?
Stevage 02:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Come again? Are you viewing the image at full resolution? I think it's very easy to read the "M"'s and "RER"'s.
Spebudmak 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose with the leaps and bounds we've undergone in diagram awesomeness you'd need a clear SVG with an image map, probably.
grenグレン 08:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - It's very hard to get a high contrast picture of icicles, due to weather conditions; I know this from experience. I'd support an untilted version of this picture - of course part of the edges would have to be clipped.
Mrug2 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Reason: Lady of Hats has many very high quality SVGs which are all "biology book" worthy. So here I nominate the collection. We already had a FP collection before, so here is another one.
Comment Well, that's a lot of good images. However, I'm afraid that they will have to be nominated separately. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 23:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Oppose: 5. Neutral: 1. Can see: 2 Animal cell can be shown better, namely the chromatin and the neuclous isn't very clear. Sodium channels on #1 need to be labled. I can't see #2. (I also added the number lables for the purpose of identification in the votes) -
Fcb981 23:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Please, for the love of God don't vote on these. It'd take a week to close a nom like this. :) --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 23:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Hahaha. lol. Then I'm sorry. --
Arad 00:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I've fixed #2 so it can seen now. —
Pengo 08:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
oppose procedurally - there is no community consensus on what to do with a set like this. First of all, they aren't united by a theme. What article do they illustrate? If we let these nominations linger a full week, it will be a nasty burden on whoever has to close the nomination. Let's go to the talk page, hammer out some ideas and then re-nominate.
Debivort 02:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Copying this here: Discussion on featured picture sets at
WT:FPC. ~
trialsanderrors 03:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose as set They illustrate so different things, that I see no reason to bunch them together as an "FP set". This is quite different from the Mandelbrot FP, where the images formed an unbroken sequence. --
Janke |
Talk 13:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose as set per above
grenグレン 08:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted without prejudice. Feel free to renominate if and when featured picture sets become a reality, or individually.
MER-C 08:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Well, that's a lot of good images. However, I'm afraid that they will have to be nominated separately. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 23:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I remember that we already had a FP set before. --
Arad 23:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
True, but these are used in different articles. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 23:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support all EXEPT #2 #2 is on the simple side to be featured, I think. -
Fcb981 23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I think we need to define what a "set" of featured pictures is. I don't think it applies in this case though since the only commonality is the creator. Oppose procedurally therefore, I'd be up for supporting individual images though.
LadyofHats needs more barnstars though. ~
trialsanderrors 00:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose 6, 10, 11, 12: The drawings are great, but following the labels is like watching a tennis match (though at least they're not just numbers). Most of these drawings could use image maps too. I made one
for number three just a week ago (after moving the labels slightly). I'm also not sure about having a group of images going through FPC together and oppose procedurally as per Trialsanderrors. —
Pengo 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I started a discussion on featured sets at
WT:FPC. ~
trialsanderrors 00:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose as set There is some duplication among these, at least visually, and not all are FP quality, IMO. This is quite different from the Mandelbrot FP, where the images formed an unbroken sequence. --
Janke |
Talk 13:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose as set per above
grenグレン 08:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose as setTomer T 19:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted without prejudice. Feel free to renominate if and when featured picture sets become a reality, or individually.
MER-C 08:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The O2, formerly the Millennium Dome, seen from the River
Thames.Alternative edit.
Reason
A fortuitous shot of this monster. The Dome is highlighted by lateral sunlight while contrasting nicely against the cloudy sky. It's among the "most interesting" free-license architecture images on Flickr and certainly the most encyclopedic view.
Please
sign your post using four tildes: ~~~~.
Pstuart84Talk 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support -Beautiful
Tomer T 15:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
oppose grainy/blurry at full size.
Debivort 20:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Sharpness lacks, but this is one of those pictures that has enough going for it in terms of composition that there's an acceptable tradeoff. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Harmil (
talk •
contribs)
Support Agreed- the composition is great, as is the encyclopedic value. I'm sure the noise could be digitally removed.
Jellocube27 23:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I already did some noise reduction, although other editors might have better tools for it. There is always a tradeoff between sharpness and low noise, so I usually try to hit the middle ground. On sharpness, it's not Diliff quality but I think it's pretty sharp for a picture taken from half a mile away. The thumbnails came out pretty blurry though. ~
trialsanderrors 02:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. I'm not too thrilled by the compo, too much dead space. The subject is fairly small and yet rather blurry.. --
Dschwen 21:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I took this on an atmospheric evening last summer, having used the bridge frequently to travel from my home in Cardiff to work in Bristol. Although the bridge is in silhouette, I think this shot does a good job of illustrating its structure and size, and is visually appealing and eyecatching. It's already featured on Commons but I hesitated to nominate it here because I thought it'd be shot down for unc1; I've reconsidered because (bias aside) I believe it's highly enc.
Support (both my versions, slight preference for original - weak oppose Armedblowfish's edit) —
YFB¿ 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support original, weak support alt 1, oppose alt 2, Needs to be looked at in full size since the thumbnail doesn't show off the detail of the image effectively (esp the diagonal cables). Btw, I swtiched the image to panorama in the article. ~
trialsanderrors 23:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Outstanding quality! the clouds have almost no noise. well done. -
Fcb981 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose while the resolution is high and quality decent, I feel that the backlighting kills the encyclopedic value. You can only see so much of the structure, and I would rather see the subject lit than in shadow.-
Andrew c 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Nice job! --
frothT 04:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose -nice picture bu its too dark -Nelro
Suppot - Excelent composition and atmosphere is this contre-jour picture. I like the dark menacing shades of the clouds above the bridge. -
Alvesgaspar 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Willing to overlook lighting, but what about the left side of the bridge?--
HereToHelp 02:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Um, good point - I'm not sure what happened there. I've restitched the image with the rest of the frames and uploaded the result as an alternative version which shows the entire bridge. I'm not convinced that any particularly useful information is gained by this addition and I can't decide whether the first seems a more balanced composition. Thanks for pointing it out - any opinions either way? --
YFB¿ 07:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Alternate. Per above.--
HereToHelp 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Maye it's good for commons but I don't see the Enc value for Wikipedia. I like it in a way but the subject (i think it's the bridge) is too dark (no detail) --
Arad 22:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Arad, thanks for commenting. If you're struggling to make out the subject, it may be that your monitor isn't properly calibrated. Many monitors are set too dark "out of the box" and need adjusting to get full shadow detail. Admittedly this image is dark (as Alvesgaspar puts it, "contre-jour") but it should be easy to see the bridge's structure in considerable detail on a properly calibrated display. --
YFB¿ 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the reply but I can assure you my monitor is perfectly calibrated. It's just that I don't think the image is a perfect FP for Wikipedia. It's a very good photo indeed, --
Arad 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, just wanted to check we had a level playing field :-) --
YFB¿ 02:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It's going to be promoted with or without my vote anyway ;-) --
Arad 06:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Alternative versionTomer T 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support The detail is great when viewed at full resolution. In case it makes a difference, I created a version of this with slightly greater contrast and brightness.
Oppose alternative version with slightly greater contrast and brightness, blows out the sky. --
Dschwen 12:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
So... Which version? Moving to "additional input required" section. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 11:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm for the unedited alternate. That's just me, though.--
HereToHelp 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support alternative, Oppose alternative version 2 I can't really decide what version is better (original or alternative), but I have a slight preference for the alternative (after all, there's more information in it). The sky of version seems almost too bright in my opinion. -
Wutschwlllm 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. I actually like the asthetics of this picture, but I wonder if it might have too much noise in the sky. I would make a decision after seeing the opinion of a more capable user. JHMM13 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
You need to log in and use our tildes: ~~~~ to sign your comments. ~
trialsanderrors 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I think the rainbow is actually lensflair. :-D --
Arad 23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
No I was there, the rainbow was quite real. That's why I took the picture.--GodΩ War 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I was joking. It's because of an earlier nomination which had a lensflair "rainbow". --
Arad 20:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oops, sorry - that was my idea, I feel stupid about that now.
Mrug2 00:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Why you feel stupid? Because of the rainbow? If i miss directed you, my apologies. --
Arad 01:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Harsh shadows everywhere, grain in the sky, and it's nowhere near as sharp as it could be at that resolution --
frothT 23:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose a very artistic shot however could be more ENC. The focus and noise in the sky distract me more than the dark shadows. -
Fcb981 05:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support -
Mrug2 00:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Support - Photo IS of high quality. the shadows are NOT that harsh, and the shadowing ads emphesis onto the colour of the rainbow. The waterfall behind is quite beautiful and SHARP! —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Syberwolff (
talk •
contribs).
Animated timeline map of the Confederate States of America
Reason
Self-nom. After seeing the happy responses and suggestions for my Canada map (Below) I decided to try it out on the Confederacy. This is much less a 'territorial evolution' map and more an 'animated timeline' but I'll stick with the naming system. ;) I added a days-of-the-month timeline because there are a few months where a large number of events happen. I wonder, should it be there the whole time, or only during busy months? Anyway, let me know what you think. --
Golbez 10:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support -Very good and informative -Nelro — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.68.46.208 (
talk)
Comment What is the top counter (that goes from 1 to 30) referring to. perhaps you could label it?
Wittylama 14:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Day of the month; since some months, particularly in 1861, had multiple things going on, I figured that was the best way. --
Golbez 14:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Can you put commas in between the day of the month and the year?
Neutralitytalk 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Question Are the colors based on a cartographic precedent? I have to admit I find them poorly matched and not very telling (for instance USA and CSA could be separated by different color schemes, with different levels of brightness or saturation establishing different levels of incorporation). Also, I don't see the need for the day-of-the-month timeline or the thick line between USA and CSA. ~
trialsanderrors 19:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The colors are based on all of the hundreds of maps I've made up to this point, and I haven't yet been shown a better scheme. :) As for 'different levels of incorporation', I'm not quite sure what you mean; like showing how much control the CSA held at a certain time? That would be more of a war timeline, whereas this is more of a political timeline. --
Golbez 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Yeah, that's a term I made up on the spot for want of a better one. It roughly means a state in a union is a higher level of incorporation than a territory, so a possible color scheme would be:
State of the Union
Territory of the Union
Independent state
Territory of the Confederacy
State of the Confederacy
It doesn't have to be these exact colors, but it's easy to signal affiliated states by using different color depths. ~
trialsanderrors 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Hm, I might try that out at some point, but for now I like my system. :) though it did get a little out of whack here, I used my normal "disputed" color for the CSA territory. --
Golbez 13:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. In reference to Trialsanderrors. I don't know (care) so much about colors. I think the day of month thing works because there is plenty of room and I can't think of anything more worthwhile. I think the thick line is good because it's claiming to be a national boundary... not just a state boundary.
grenグレン 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - I haven't looked at this in enough detail to make any criticism of the quality (looks pretty good on first glance) but I don't really think an animated GIF is an ideal way to show this progression. There are simply too many steps and the animation is therefore too long and lacks user control. This would be great as a Flash applet with forward/back controls and a speed slider for the automation. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that there's a Flash implementation for Wikipedia so I can't really suggest a constructive way to make this better - I just think it's too long at present, and too likely that someone would want to go back a frame or two and not be able to. --
YFB¿ 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Yeah, as with my other animated timelines I'll eventually make a list article, I simply haven't done that yet. And yeah, this is rather long. And no, I will not be making one for the United States, that animated gif would be over 5 minutes long. =p --
Golbez 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
HTML-ish tabs
I was wondering the same thing. Is there a way to make it so you click on a little tab with a year and it changes to another (preloaded) image. I know this can be done... but I'm not sure if the code is allowed in Wikipedia. I think that would be ideal (providing there aren't too many years. But, can it be done?
grenグレン 13:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, very nicely done, I like how it shows the confederacy separate from seceded states. Although it might be good to also show the borders of the US territories. Also, should Indian Territory (oklahoma) be confederate too as in
this map, or at least shown as disputed? I tried doing something similar several months ago made from maps on wikipedia, interestingly with colors like those suggested by trials&errors above and showing part of the war borders. I had previously thought that writing would not work in an animated gif, but it does work very well here. --
Astrokey44 12:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
My original version did have the U.S. territories, but there are too many changes in the time period that it distracted from the focus, which was the CSA. --
Golbez 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
And that one includes Indian territory, but I specifically omitted that from mine, because even though it started under CSA control, it was never formally annexed or organized by the CSA, unlike Arizona Territory. --
Golbez 13:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Very well done animation, shows the image's intention well. The image is very informative with its descriptions and dates.
Hello32020 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
weak support very informative, but I would prefer something like the color scheme in the non nominated example.
Debivort 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I would recoment pending above recomended color scheme (blues and greys); also your "day of the month" bar kind of threw me off (I thought that it was going to be a slide counter, as in "map 1 of 30".) Otherwise, I am totally digging this map, and hope to see your continured involvement with Wikipedia.
OverMyHead 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose The Canada one does a better job at representing this kind of an animated map. This one here is too cluttered, the day-of-the-month timeline is unintutive and unexplained, and the color scheme is unhelpful and unattractive. ~
trialsanderrors 18:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:CSA states evolution.gif --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 00:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Pomegranate (Punica granatum), illustration by Otto Wilhelm Thomé, 1885Alternative: white background.
Reason
This is a nomination partially to advertise two rich and underused resources:
biolib.de , a repository of old, mostly out-of-print biology books, and Otto Wilhelm Thomé's work on German, Austrian and Swiss plants in particular. I picked one that is both attractive and easy to clean up (since most original scans have the common dark edges). There are two versions: I prefer the version with the yellowed, somewhat uneven paper, but there is also an edit with white background. (The original is
here.)
Support Version 1 I like it. Nice and clean, high-resolution, no noise, yada-yada etc. etc. — 'WiiWillieWiki→(Talk) 14:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support OriginalTomer T 14:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Either.
This is another pomegranate FP, but it is a photo, so no need to fear overlap.--
HereToHelp 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support version 1, sharp clean image.--
Dakota 03:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support original. That is indeed an excellent resource.--
ragesoss 05:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support original only. The second one looks anachronistic, since paper was never completely white like that before bleach.
Chick Bowen 03:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
In 1885, paper was (sometimes) plenty white; color like in this "original" (which has been retouched already and may have had an unknown amount of color correction to enhance the red even before trialsanderrors worked on it) would be a combination of aging discoloration and a not-super-white but probably much whiter original color. Still, I mostly agree with you.--
ragesoss 04:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I should have been more clear--yes, the paper will have darkened considerably, but the background of the second picture is, essentially, blank—i.e., not like paper at all.
Chick Bowen 04:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The original of my edit is directly from the biolib source. Looking at their gallery as a whole, they certainly didn't do any editing to their images. Of course the scanner setting might have contributed to the high saturation, but I don't see eveidence that all their images are oversaturated. I agree with Chick that the white background is digital white. ~
trialsanderrors 05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Closeup of
Eastern carpenter bee (Xylocopa virginica) male, showing white face and mouthparts.
Reason
This is a great shot of a bee. The vivid colour of the flower the bee is resting on is dramatic, and reflected nicely in its eyes. The tight focal length on the bee's face gives it a personality that would be lacking in a blander photograph.
Oppose - Is this picture of fish and chips or a beach? The nerve! ;-)
Mrug2 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I think that there are a lot of good pictures that thier subject is a beach. What's bad with a picture that its subject is
Fish and chips?
Tomer T 20:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose -Not a very good picture -Nelro
Please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. ~
trialsanderrors 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Meat-and-potato picture. ~
trialsanderrors 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
What is wrong with a food picture?
This one is featured.
Tomer T 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The problem is not that it depicts food, but that it depicts it in a not very attractive, encyclopedic, or technically outstanding way. ~
trialsanderrors 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Not only is the horizon tilted, it's also curved. Either make the pic unacceptable as an FP -
Adrian Pingstone 22:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose just noticed some worrying DOF problems on the back of the fish. In fact, almost all of the fish is at least a little out of focus.. FPs should be razor sharp --
frotht 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Neutral Don't know what everyone else is talking about- seems like a nicely enc (and very sharp and high-res) pic of fish n chips. But it doesn't belong on a beach; the beach background makes no sense. Put it in a fast food place or something --
frothT 18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Froth, in many parts of the world where fish and chips is most common (ie UK and Australia, not so much the United States), it is pretty common to have them at or on the beach. See the image caption in the
fish and chips article. Your own American bias may place fish and chips in a fast food restaurant but that isn't necessarily the case, particularly since this is a British image.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Hm, I didn't know that but I was referring to the incongruity of having fast food just sitting alone near the beach, as if it washed up on shore or grows naturally in nature or something. Something like
this provides a more realistic context --
frotht 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. I'm going to buck the trend here and support it. Ideally it could be higher res and the horizon could be straightened somewhat but it isn't vital since it is OOF and of secondary importance to the beach and the foreground.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose', the composition doesn't work for me, why are the fish and chips just sitting there on the foreshore, and where are the seagulls?--
Peta 00:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support-don't know why, made me laugh (Also support beause it is a very original, unique pic)
Penubag 02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubagreply
Support, please, you're makin' me hungry. I actually didn't know what fish and chips looked like before seeing this picture, so very encyclopedic. --
Lewk_of_Serthiccontribtalk 18:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The light on the sunward side of the food seems too bright. Plus the composition seems odd to me. This just looks like someone left their order on a wall or something. howcheng {
chat} 23:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose I agree that the light seems too bright. I think the beach is also very distracting.
ShadowHalo 23:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose The beach is blurry enough not to be the focus of the picture, but is also clear enough to distract the viewer from the fish and chips. Better focusing would improve the picture. --
Sturgeonman 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Interesting shot, but no FP material. -
Wutschwlllm 13:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. I love it when I find fish and chips sitting on the beach!
Kaldari 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support -Great Compostition -Nelro
Nelro 11:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. The composition is good, but there are artifacts, it's blurry, and the lighting is dull. A downsizing might help. --Tewy 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It's blurry in the foreground, if that's what you mean, on purpose. It focuses on the subject. Please explain. How would a downsizing help? --
Birdman1talk/
contribs 17:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Viewed in full size, the subject itself is a little blurry (look at, for instance, the eye). A downsizing would increase the overall sharpness of the image, even if it makes it smaller. --Tewy 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oh and don't get me wrong, it's a great picture, just not quite a featured picture in my mind. --Tewy 00:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose- great picture and all, but just not FP stuff(even I could take that snapshot if I had a camera)
Penubag 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubagreply
It's easy to say, but practically it's harder.
Tomer T 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Sorry, but I don't think it's quite good enough for a FP. It just isn't very striking; I think it might be because it's a little busy; maybe it lacks some important lines or coloring, something that would bring the picture together. The reflection almost does it, but it is disturbed by the weeds.
Basar 06:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Not particularly sharp, and artifacty. Dull lighting could be overlooked, but not the technical flaws.--
ragesoss 05:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Now new and improved without the circles around the numbers... ~
trialsanderrors 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Great SVG and enc.--
HereToHelp 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Support A exemplary picture! An attractive and informative composition. A+++ SELLER FAST DELIVERY
Jellocube27 00:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support if either an
image map version is made, or a labelled-with-words version is made. (It's a great picture and i'm sure it will pass anyway). I wish I had bought that journal where they'd done a study which showed exactly how much more effectively people learnt when labels were closer to the picture. I also wish I had a word for the "close label effect". —
Pengo 02:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Also, I suggest creating either an "image map version" (first I've heard of this), or simply a second version with English labels instead of numbers. I've never understood the arguments for one or the other: just make both.
Stevage 02:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify my position above: yes, having a numbered version is equally important :) —
Pengo 03:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The numbers are universal. They will be even more important in a Commons nom.--
HereToHelp 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Yes, please, someone create an image map for
Eye!!! —
BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-09 20:31Z
Ok I've gone and filled my own request, and made the image map: Template:Eye diagram (not currently transcluded anywhere). —
Pengo 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: This image has parts that are not visible on a white background. This might be obvious to people with good monitors when you see the grey checkerboard, but my screen's contrast is pretty crap, So i've made a red backgrounded version to highlight it instead. Umm.. Does anyone else find this odd? (detail especially on the left side of the eye is lost with a white background) —
Pengo 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
That's interesting. Perhaps the white bits could be surrounded with a black outline?
Stevage 02:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Please no black outline, but a more neutral color for the background would help, since red is already used in the illustration. ~
trialsanderrors 03:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm seeing perfectly those transparent parts on white background. It look great. The quality of this pic is amazing, idk how can it be improved. --
Arad 04:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Just checked and those bits are visible when the colours are inversed, so it must just be my old LCD screen. My apologies. —
Pengo 08:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, the image map of this looks amazing!
grenグレン 08:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, looks amazing. --
Mardavich 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Conditional Support - It looks great. But I'm not so crazy about the background being the same colour as many elements in the subject. A light cyan might be better, since it really isn't present anywhere else in the image, and is light enough to allow labels to be seen. --
Paul 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Also, does SVG support embedded metadata? (I'd be surprised if it didn't , since it's XML-based.) Because I preferred the version with labels. However, if the descriptions for each numbered label were in the metadata, it would make the picture independent of any page it might be embedded in. It's a pet peeve of mine to see images with label descriptions or colour keys that are in the referring page instead of the picture itself (though in this case, having the descriptions in the picture itself would make it too noisy, which is why I'm suggesting the use of metadata). --
Paul 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes,
SVG supports metadata but I don't believe there's a standard way to embed caption information, or at least any standard way to read it back again (someone please, please correct me). There is a
standard [way to include href links, but unless Wikipedia begins to support them, or has a way to convert SVG link tags (with
CURIEs) into image maps, then, well, it's all just an exercise in futility. Perhaps you'd just like the labels named or given IDs that reflect what they point to. I doubt it would help anyone though. —
Pengo 02:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:Eye-diagram no circles border.svg --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 16:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support -i like it
Nelro 22:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - It looks good, but I feel it doesn't really show much of the park. It would be better if the picture had something important to the park, not just a brick sidewalk with trees. If this picture, hypothetically, had made it to FP status, nobody would know where that place is. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 22:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose per JuWiki.
Basar 23:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose: my knowledge on photography is basic, enough to say that this picture is nothing compared to other featured pictures. Has nothing special or at least a technique. Sorry guys but I'm pretty sure Colombia has better views. --((
F3rn4nd0 ))(BLA BLA BLA) 05:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The white balance is way off- way too bright. Also, why are there trees growing all over the sidewalk in the background? --
frotht 08:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
oppose the subject of the picture isn't clear
Penubag 02:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose — I love these sorts of old maps/starmaps but even at 1804 × 1236 pixels, it is still not high enough resolution for the detail to be visible, sorry. —
Pengo 22:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose ack Pengo.--
HereToHelp 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: Unfortunately, the reproduction I've scanned from is only about 8 x 12 inches in size, and doesn't show any more detail than in this scan. If anyone has a better original, pleace replace. --
Janke |
Talk 08:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose I feel kinda bad opposing for resolution when it's 1804x1236px, but there isn't enough detail to be able to read some of the text.
ShadowHalo 23:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Well, you can't really read the small print on the existing FP "Carta Marina"
[3], either, even though it's over 5000 px wide... --
Janke |
Talk 06:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I can read just about all of the text pretty easily, and the major captions are larger and clearly visible. I think it's more of a problem that I can't read the names of the planets (I'm presuming that's what they are based on the corresponding symbols) in the center-top circle.
ShadowHalo 06:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 05:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral Very high quality drawing, but not very exciting. —
Pengo 05:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support We are lucky to have a free license on a diagram that aethetically seems (IMHO) worthy of a quality biology textbook.
Spebudmak 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It is infact worthy. --
Arad 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Support This is pretty well done, although I'm not sure why the background is grey and what the significance of the green and yellow arrows is (both easily fixed, I suppose). "Weak" only because I see number of more impressive illustrations on
LadyofHats' user page. ~
trialsanderrors 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now. The arrows indicate the direction water is moving in, but the colors suggest the arrows indicate the movement of two different substances. I will support an image in which the arrows are the same color. -
Mgm|
(talk) 09:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weakly Oppose The yellow arrows indicate the diffusion of water into the cell's vacuole, the green arrows show water diffusion out of the vacuole. This is obvious if you think about it, but not immediately clear. I agree that the quality of the diagram is extremely high; however I do not really think that the image holds enough interest to be featured. --
Ninjakannon 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 05:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support: per nomination.
RyGuy17 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose original, it needs a caption. There also appears to be jpg artifact at the bottom, fuzziness, and a little up and left of the big-pig's head you see a scratch line.
grenグレン 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support I removed the scratch line and a whole slew of scanner artifacts. The background is far from perfect, but the subject is in focus and the composition is good enough to support. ~
trialsanderrors 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
OK, I added my own edit and support that. ~
trialsanderrors 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
oppose See reasons above
Penubag 02:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubagreply
OpposeSupport I can't get over the background. I think it would be a nice picture if the mud was just brown.
Basar 02:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Are you saying that as a matter of aesthetics or because you think the mud is blown out?
grenグレン 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I guess aesthetics; it just seems a little distracting. Why, are those blown out reflections or is that just a bunch of white stuff on the ground? It also might be nice to have more DOF.
Basar 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It looks like some heavy frost or light snowfall. anyway Support, highly enc (nursing, farm, pig, etc.) good quality. -
Fcb981 03:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
This is quite certainly frost. I checked for blown highlights but didn't see any digital white. Even the very light areas have structure. ~
trialsanderrors 03:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I never thought of frost, maybe that's because I'm from California. I think it's OK now.
Basar 04:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose. I find several distractions in the picture. The sow's tail is docked, and she has an ear tag. The sow is not washed or cleaned. I would expect to see a better looking pig competing at my local county fair. At least the piglet is clean and extraordinary looking. The picture as a whole doesn't strike me as an extraordinary picture of a pig (as my grandpa had these Yorkshire pigs when I used to help at his pig farm). The snow in the background doesn't provide a great contrast like some nice green grass or mud would.
RoyalbroilT :
C 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
That may be so, but isn't it nice to have a pig looking like a pig and not all prettied up? I think that mud would be nice too, but if pigs live in frost, then I think it's enc.
Basar 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
come on, if you want a perfect picture of a pig someone can make an .svg picture. This is a great animal shot, full of life (for a change) Good lighting, composition, clerity is great. Tag on ear is Enc to farm. -
Fcb981 05:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
A FP should be the best that Wikipedia has to offer. It's just a dirty pig to me. It's probably more than mud if you know what I mean. Look at these clean pigs and tell me that they don't look much better:
HampshireDuroca clean Yorkshire . Either that, or go to a dirty muddy pig like
this one. Notice that it they still has its have their tail intact and no ear tag.
RoyalbroilT :
C 05:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I cleaned up my wording above a bit to better reflect my thoughts. I realize that my words are quite harsh (which is unusual for me), but I expect a featured picture of any animal to feature show quality animal. FP is a high standard.
RoyalbroilT :
C 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Why? The criteria require accuracy, not prettiness. Would you also reject pictures of cats unless they're best-in-show? ~
trialsanderrors 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Both aesthetics and encyclopaedic value are required. The line of reasoning "it's hard to take a pretty photo of X" is bogus, sorry.
Stevage 01:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Certainly not my line. I think the dirty pig rocks and would def'ly take it over a washed one. ~
trialsanderrors 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
umm, it's not mud. Mud requires the temperature to be above freezing, and the snow indicated otherwise. It's 4 letter word that starts with S. I could be in favor of a pig with a muddy snout and/or muddy legs. That is not the case here. There are other breeds of pigs that look a lot nicer with some s... on them like I linked to above. I bet you couldn't even see the s... on the red breed called Durocs.
RoyalbroilT :
C 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Huh? What? Who are you talking to? ~
trialsanderrors 22:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support BothTomer T 13:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I thought about it for a bit, but no. It's glarey, with not much contrast, and the quality just isn't great. The composition is nice, but it's let down by so many other things. The bright background is just too displeasing.
Stevage 14:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Aesthetically painful to look at. It's just used to illustrate "pig" and "omnivore," there is no reason to have an ugly sow with an ear-tag and a distracting background.
Enuja 01:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose I just feel there are better pictures of pigs out there and so, this is not one of Wikipedia's best works.
Bernalj90 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose In my opinion, this is just an ordinary picture of a (muddy) pig. I don't see anything special about it. -
Wutschwlllm 14:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Bad lighting (overexposure and harsh shadows). Should be taken at another time of the day.
Alvesgaspar 17:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I just don't see either overexposure nor harsh shadows. There is plenty of detail in the shadows as far as I can see. That being said I'm not too excited about the pic either. Focus is a bit soft and the subject matter is a bit too arbitrary. --
Dschwen 19:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Arbitrary!? Since when is the ruins of an ancient civilization arbitrary? As a matter of fact, since when is a UNESCO world heritage site arbitrary?
Bernalj90 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
By arbitrary I meant that the way the photo is taken does not depict the site in a unique way (or show its unique features) that makes it distinguishable from other ruins of an ancient civilizations. I did not intend to belittle the subject itself at all. --
Dschwen 07:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, I'm seeing artifact around where the building turns into the sky... and what Schwen said.
grenグレン 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
oppose- Anyone can find a pic like this on the internet
Penubag 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubagreply
Thats easy to say, but I think we give should the contributor some appreciation for uploading the picture under a free license... --
Dschwen 07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It is a picture that was pictured by a Wikipedian
Tomer T 13:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral Not concerned about shadows, which would be hard to get rid of without artificial lights (bleh) or if the sun was directly behind the subject, and that might not be possible based on positioning of the subject and lends itself to overexposure, which I see none of here. (That long and still a fragment! My English teachers would be proud.) But the view does not lend itself to showing the layout of the whole site (where am I?), and the focus, while good, could be better. This may be due to the camera itself.--
HereToHelp 00:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strongly Support I agree the shadows are well proportioned in this picture and I can't complain about the quality or resolution in any reasonable way. Also, I love the fact that it depicts a little-known yet immensely important ancient historical site.
Bernalj90 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Artifacts all over the place. The shadows look interesting, but overall this image is just not that striking to me. The lower third looks too bright. Not really Wikipedia's best work. -
Wutschwlllm 14:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Las Limas Monument 1, an important iconic representation of the
Olmec belief system. Carved between 3000 and 2500 years ago, this statue shows a youth holding an apparently-lifeless
were-jaguar baby. Incised icons on the youth's shoulders, legs, and face are considered by many prominent archaeologists as archetypical representations of Olmec dieties.
[[Señor_de_las_limas_2.jpg|thumb|200px|Edit 1 by
Chabacano]].
Reason
First, this is a very striking picture. The statue itself is very expressive and the light pool surrounding the were-jaguar baby gives it an otherworldly glow. Second, this statue is very important archaeologically, and a drawing or photograph of this appears in nearly any book on the Olmec culture. Third, the clarity is such that, at highest resolution, the incised icons on the statue can be clearly seen. In summary, this is the best photo I've seen of this statue, and one that Wikipedia is very fortunate to have. It's less in focus in the chest area than the face, and I myself wish the glow were a little less bright. Nonetheless, I do think the combination of its encyclopedi-osity and striking beauty makes this a fine candidate.
This photo was taken by an amateur photog from Mexico at the Museum of Anthropology in
Xalapa,
Veracruz, where the statue is on display. I saw it on Flickr and contacted the photographer, who graciously allowed me to upload it under CC 2.5 Attribution. For comparison sake,
here is another photo of the same subject.
P.S., I also think that the subject matter is a nice counterbalance to the many wildlife, landscape, and cityscape shots we see here in FPC. Thanks,
Madman 15:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support per nomination. It seems nice to me.
Basar 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I think it needs some editing to remove the lines and dots in the background. It may still be too low resolution and I'm not sure why such lighting is best to illustrate this sculpture. I'd probably oppose after editing but I think it could help.
grenグレン 21:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Regarding background, I will have to depend on the kindness of strangers to do this, but I'm sure it can be done. Regarding the resolution, the criteria states that one side must be at least 1000px, and so this does qualify. And, I'm not sure that this lighting is the best to illustrate this sculpture, but the lighting does emphasize the religious nature of the statue and perhaps shows why this statue was venerated in modern times as a Madonna. Too often artifacts like this are shown in a dead, antiseptic light, and that's what makes this photo exciting to me. In addition, museum photos are difficult since amateur photogs do not control the lighting, placement, etc., and often risk getting chased out by the authorities. The results usually
end up like this.
Thanks for your comments,
Madman 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Whatever enc you lose is more than made up by by the composition. I would support an edit to remove the non-black patches, and to make the black blacker. The idea is there, but a bit of editing can bring out the full potential. I will abstain until such an edit is created.--
HereToHelp 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Okay...but somehow the sharpness is lacking. Alas, I have been spoiled by Diliff, Fir, etc. and their professional equipment. I still congratulate the photographer, though.--
HereToHelp 00:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I have requested that the folks at the
Graphics Lab take a shot at these fixes. Thanks,
Madman 15:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
That was fast! Check out Edit #1. I have used the Graphics labs folks in the past to improve several photographs. As mentioned, it is very difficult to get good shots of archaeological artifacts and they are really brought out the detail in
this shot of Maya glyphs.
Madman 19:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose Distracting lights in the upper-right corner. Also the the lighting doesn't exactly help enc --
frotht 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, great subject, not a terrible shot, but the image quality just isn't that amazing. Seems... not very sharp? And to continue the argument above, the subject itself is only about 710×970 pixels, which would barely qualify. Would be great if someone with a high-end camera got a shot of this using a tripod. —
Pengo 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
CommentThe edited one is much better. I don't think the concerns about bad lighting are justified, on the contrary the lighting adds to the picture. I believe that there are good reasons for using effectful ligthing when taking a picture of a three dimentional artefact, inbstead of always using a straight flash or a diffuse lighting.
·Maunus··ƛ· 19:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
oppose-bad lighting
User:penubag 02:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubagreply
Oppose Lighting, no size reference. -
Fcb981 05:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I am puzzled by the comment. I am unaware of Featured Picture which has ever had a "size reference".
Madman 13:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I suppose what
Fcb981 is saying is that there is nothing in the picture to give an indication of scale - the statue could be 1 foot tall or 20 feet tall, the picture is no guide. However, the picture needn't be a guide as to scale, that information could be in the caption and/or the article, which ought to be sufficient.
Pstuart84Talk 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I think any additional size reference would distract from the quality of the image. It may be sufficient to write the size in the caption/comments of the image --
Chris 73 |
Talk 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support This picture definitively intrigues me, catches my eye, and makes me want to read more about its article. The quality is quite good and seriously I can't really see the difference between both the original and the edit.
Bernalj90 03:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose - No doubt it is a bad lighting, with blown parts and harsh shadows, affecting the clarity of the image and its enc value. However, without this type of lighting the mistery is lost...
Alvesgaspar 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support edit 2, satisfies my featured picture requirement --
Chris 73 |
Talk 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, mainly because of the blown highlights right in the middle of the subject. It really detracts from an otherwise compelling image.--
ragesoss 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 02:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Size requirement not fulfilled, unpleasant background, (one) german annotation. Also it clearly seems to be a derivative work and it is a bit fishy that this isn't mentioned anywhere. --
Dschwen 20:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Inadequate size, Flash reflection and unclear acknowledgement --
Mfield 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Too small (read the FPC rules!) -
Adrian Pingstone 21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Way too small, very little detail for any of the noodles.
ShadowHalo 23:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Too small, and I really don't like the background glare in the middle/bottom of the picture. Also, this seems like a small subset of pasta types that don't include most of the ones I'm interested in.
Enuja 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per above (Too small, there's a glare, kind of exclusive)
WiiWillieWiki 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose very low quality, high glare and in thumb it is highly unreadable. ~
Arjun 21:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
A good example of a food picture.Suggestion If your goal is to take a featured picture with pasta kinds as a subject, I suppose you could lay out different pasta noodles and take a higher quality picture in the style of "Lemon" at right. Good luck. --
Sturgeonman 20:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Another possibility is to do something like the coquina variation image that Debivort did: take individual pictures of pasta noodles and stich them all together into one single picture, so you avoid the flash reflection. howcheng {
chat} 20:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
A very important thing is to use bounced/indirect flash instead of direct flash. Just hold a mirror in front of the flash and reflected to a white ceiling or somewhere and crank the flash level compensation (or exposure compensation if that's not available) up to avoid under-exposures. --
antilivedT |
C |
G 07:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 08:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Displaced victims of the earthquake, in front of a temporary tent shelter. Other tents can be seen in the background at right.
Reason
A picture that adds significantly to the SF 1906 earthquake article - the very first shelters were tents, before the Army built more permanent shelters. A high quality scan (1381 by 1078 px) of a 1906 snapshot that has survived in good shape for over 100 years. A snaphot, yes, but with high historical significance.
Comment: I think the image illustrates the clothing of the period very well, but doesn't do much to illustrate the tents, nor the article in question. —
BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-12 16:21Z
Oppose, until there is a good extended caption to place the image in historical context.--
ragesoss 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Ditto Brian. I couldn't tell from the picture that this is near SF, related to an earthquake, or even a shelter. For all I know this could be a camping vacation in sweden. Just commenting on the picture, this doesn't mean that I doubt your word if you say it is what it is, Janke! --
Dschwen 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Still a great find though!reply
Unfortunately, our great-aunt died many years ago (at the ripe age of 98!), so it's impossible to get any more info about the picture, or the location, other than what's written in the album. She lived in California for over a decade back then, and we have many of her pictures from SF. I doubt anyone can pinpoint the exact location of this shot, without having access to records of displaced people - such records may (or may not) have been kept back then. --
Janke |
Talk 07:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, compared to some of the other quake FPs this isn't so great.
grenグレン 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Well, this doesn't show the quake, it shows the displaced victims in front of their tent shelter... ;-) Seriously, I think it adds some human perspective to the article. --
Janke |
Talk 07:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose with regrets. This is a nice picture, with the right amount of patina to convey "old", but as has been mentioned before, the occasion of this tent outing remains unclear. Also there are a bunch of technical problems, e.g. the elder gentleman on the right has no eyes. And finally, no caption. I'll give it a E4T5A9. ~
trialsanderrors 17:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose I may be missing something, but I don't see how the picture demonstrates that they actually are quake victims. They could be anyone in 1906 merely standing in front of a tent. --
Sturgeonman 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 08:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The haze prevents a clear view of the subject, and the wing distracts from it. This looks like a typical snapshot, not like the best Wikipedia has to offer. --Tewy 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose edit 1. The wing and haze are probably the biggest problems, and cannot be significantly fixed in an edit. --Tewy 22:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Tewy. I think it is crooked too.
Basar 04:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Crooked, blurred, no contrast -
Adrian Pingstone 11:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Not only for the already mentioned reasons, but I also think a picture from space of the area would be much more significant.
Bernalj90 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose -Only opposing because of the wing, other then that its great -
Nelro 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Support of Edit Not bad. A little hazy, but otherwise great shot. --
Sturgeonman 20:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose -- It just doesn't look right with the wing in the way. Otherwise, it would make a great featured picture. ~~Eugene2xSign here ☺ ~~ 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 08:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
A company of Danish artists in Rome, a painting by
Constantin Hansen from
1837. Description from the image's page: A group of Danish artists in Rome. Lying on the floor is the architect Bindesbøll. From left to right: Constantin Hansen, Rørbye, Marstrand, Küchler, Blunck and Jørgen Sonne.Edit1
Support — Beautifully detailed. I've added an image map so you can click on their faces. Only two three of the subjects don't have Wikipedia articles already. —
Pengo 11:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Changed to weak support only, due to compression artefacts. —
Pengo 00:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Flawless scan, image maps are great.--
HereToHelp 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose There are quite a lot of compression artifacts. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 20:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support -Great! -Nelro
Oppose I like the picture, but someone needs to put serious effort into improving quality before this is supportable. Both versions have dust particles all over the place. ~
trialsanderrors 18:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 08:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Holdridge Life Zone Classification scheme. Potential evapotranspiration is the amount of evaporation that would occur if water were not limited. Annual precipitation is rain or snow.v2: Larger numbers & labelsv3: Larger belts/region labels too
Reason
Really well illustrates Holdridge's life zones, and is visually pleasing.
Question What are the chances of increasing the text size? Even in full resolution it's barely readable. ~
trialsanderrors 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The numbers down the left and right sides (which I assume you're talking about) appeared larger (or at least clearer) in Inkscape before I uploaded. I'll have a go at fixing them. —
Pengo 05:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The text labels could be bigger too, at least on the sides. I don't see any space constraints. ~
trialsanderrors 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I've increased the size of most of the text labels now. —
Pengo 07:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support if you can add to the image page all of the sources you used to create the image (to allow us to verify that it is factually correct). It'd also be nice if you could say what you used to make it... but, that isn't as necessary.
grenグレン 20:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It was created entirely in
Inkscape. It's an amalgamation of various sources. See the image page for links to 7 web-based sources and 2 textbooks referenced (Sorry, they weren't linked from the old image page). Textbook of Biodiversity can be viewed through google books, but the other book (Ecology) was my main reference point and AFAIK is only available hardcopy. The colours used are my own. —
Pengo 03:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I wasn't so interesting in checking the sources myself, hah, but... I've just noticed people forget to source diagrams. I'd just looked at the old version it seems. Great job :) --
grenグレン 03:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Question - Why are the life zones hexagon shaped instead of triangular, which would be the natural thing to do?
Alvesgaspar 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I didn't invent this diagram, I based it on existing diagrams, so I can only give a best guess. A hexagon better approximates a circle than would triangles or diamonds. E.g. a dry forest is has 500 to 1000mm precipitation (actually to 2000mm) and an evavotranspiration ratio between 1 and 2, which would fill a diamond on this diagram. However at the extremes of these parameters it might start to be considered a steppe or a very dry forest, so the hexagon better approximates this, while still giving rigid boundaries without gaps. —
Pengo 22:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
That's why bees use hexagons in their honeycombs: they are the regular polygon with the most sides that still tessellates.--
HereToHelp 15:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support v2 v3 Enc, SVG, larger labels visible in preview (important since many people don't have the ability to read SVGs).--
HereToHelp 15:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak support edit Overall it is fairly well done and informative. It isn't remarkably striking, but it is probably about as interesting an image you can get with the subject matter. The use of color helps, and the shapes are dynamic. Isn't that useful in a thumbnail because labels are hard to see, but the edit helps the preview be more readable. SVG is a plus so it can easily be translated, edited, and updated by others.-
Andrew c 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support if the alpine, subalpine, etc. labels are also increased in size. They're still barely readable. ~
trialsanderrors 07:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
English actor
David Garrick as the titular role in
Shakespeare's Richard III as painted by
William Hogarth. The scene depicted is Act V, Scene 3 where, on the eve of the battle of
Bosworth Field, Richard is visited by the ghosts of those he has murdered. They warn of his death and he awakes to the realization that he is liked by no one.Alternative version.
Reason
David Garrick was one of the most painted individuals of his time, but this is really the most arresting image of him. Garrick was one of the first actors to use a naturalistic style of acting and while we only have descriptions of his performance and paintings of him in character, this image comes the closest of any of them to portraying the power of his performance.
Oppose because of low resolution and compression artifacts. I'd support a high quality scan, though. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 16:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Suport Alternative, Oppose Original -i didn't realize that there was a better one -
Nelro 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment huh, did you know that we have another, much large copy of this at
Image:Garrick as RichardIII.png? Won't comment as to quality, just seems odd.
Mak(talk) 20:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral high quality, oppose nom. Malemi's version is larger (the other is too small to qualify) and has better colors. It also has a layer of colorful noise on it.--
HereToHelp 23:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose both, the first is too low resolution and seems to have odd coloring. The second has odd blue dots.
grenグレン 05:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose both per gren -
Wutschwlllm 13:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Tapantí National Park during a foggy/rainy day. One can see the tropical plants on the sides and the natural fog from the waterfall in the background.
Reason
Not only is this the only picture in Wikipedia that depicts the Tapantí National Park in Costa Rica, but it's also one of the most beautiful depictions of a tropical rain forest in Wikipedia. This picture grabs the viewer's attention and incites him/her to read more about the article. The picture has a relatively high quality and resolution (2080 × 1544 pixel) and any blurriness in the background is caused by the naturally forming fog from the waterfall and the water vapour exhaled by the trees and wet ground (not to mention that it was raining the day the picture was taken).
Oppose This picture has alot of potential if it is taken properly. That waterfall catches my eye but its depiction isnt very good. Overall, the picture has bad composition and I really hate the fog. I find it takes away from the picture. --
Midnight Rider 02:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually we have to put up with the fog if we want an encyclopedic picture of Tapanti. It's a
cloud forest. ~
trialsanderrors 08:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Bad timing and composition. Generally it is bad to shoot landscapes during the day especially overcast noons, and are best taken dawn or dusk when the dynamic range is much more balanced. Composition wise, I have no idea what you trying to show here, other than a montain with a fall with some foliage close to the camera. --
antilivedT |
C |
G 07:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above.--
HereToHelp 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- The photo has too much of a purplish tint, and the heavy fog just completely ruins it. ~~Eugene2xSign here ☺ ~~ 22:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Sorry but it's too small and obviously not the best of Wikipedia. We can have a larger size for sure. Needs a crop at the bottom --
Arad 02:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose It is definitively too small.
Bernalj90 02:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose I've cropped it, but there's not much else that can be done.--
HereToHelp 00:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Female internees practicing calisthenics at
Manzanar internment camp, 1943.
Reason
Another political image of sorts. In 1943, Adams visited the Japanese-American internment camp at Manzanar and took a series of photographs, many of which are considered among his best portraits. He has been criticized for putting a positive spin on the subject, but when he gifted the set to the Library of Congress, he defended his decision:
The purpose of my work was to show how these people, suffering under a great injustice, and loss of property, businesses and professions, had overcome the sense of defeat and dispair [sic] by building for themselves a vital community in an arid (but magnificent) environment. —
Ansel Adams, 1965
I believe this picture perfectly encapsulates this intent.
Support I looked through this database on several occasions for images to nominate. Good choice! —
BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-12 16:23Z
Support. This is an issue that resonates highly with me. My wife's family was interned during the war and I've visited Manzanar several times myself. howcheng {
chat} 17:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, until the image page has a good extended caption.--
ragesoss 19:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Female
internees practicing
calisthenics at
Manzanar War Relocation Center,
Owens Valley,
California. In 1943,
Ansel Adams followed an invitation by newly appointed camp director Ralph Merritt to photograph the everyday life of the
Japanese American internees in the camp. Unlike his colleague
Dorothea Lange, whose pictures for the
War Relocation Authority focused on the hardship and humiliation of the deportation and internment, Adams's intent was to "show how these people, suffering under a great injustice, (…) had overcome the sense of defeat and despair by building for themselves a vital community in an arid (but magnificent) environment." (Ansel Adams, 1965)
I think we should make this mandatory for all nominations. PS I also started an entry on the book: Born Free and Equal. ~
trialsanderrors 20:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Very good caption. I agree about making extended captions mandatory. Even for photos of mundane things, information about location, provenance of the subject, etc., and a basic description is helpful.--
ragesoss 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It might also help cut down on the number of ill-conceived nominations we get if editors are required to write a paragraph on the picture they nominate rather than just exclaim "beautiful shot". ~
trialsanderrors 01:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
They are mandatory as one of the FPC requirements, but woefully underenforced. The Macarthur picture doesn't even have a source!
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 05:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Nice composition.
ShadowHalo 23:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, that man could take photos
grenグレン 03:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support I wonder how he made pictures look so good.
Basar 06:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Very nice historic photo by famous photographer --
Chris 73 |
Talk
Support Yowza, what a great photo we've found here :D although its encyclopedic value may be dubious, it is nonetheless a famous (and I dareday fantastic) photo of good technical quality!
Jellocube27 07:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support per all above -
Wutschwlllm 14:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
An example of the entire post-processing effort used to make a viewable "HDR" image in one depiction (if requested, all exposure brackets can be uploaded).
Comment: it looks to me as if you could have gotten the same result by just tweaking the gamma curves of the 0.0/f offset exposure. The subject isn't really calling for such a long exposure series and HDR as far as I can see. More details on the tonemapping algorithm (and the software) used would be a plus for the caption too. --
Dschwen 08:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree with Dschwen here. It looks like there were no blown highlights on any of the exposures apart from +1.33. You could have achieved much the same result from post-processing the +1.0 exposure I think. In fact, apart from a more subtle gradient from left to right in the sky, I don't see how the end result is significantly different from the +1.0 exposure apart from being a bit soft from the stacking... A very aesthetic scene (where is it?) but doesn't really do justice to
tone mapping for me.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 08:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I'd almost agree, accept that no matter how you tweak either the 0.00ev or the 1.00ev, details are always lost (especially along the coast and in the sky as you said). You can grab the originals (Nikon RAW) at
0.00ev NEF or
1.00ev NEF. The point of this blending was to to find the subtly in color without making a surreal image -- hence the actually small exposure range. Also, it's
Lake Michigan inside the
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.
Thre range is small in terms of f-stops, but large considering the number of shots. Was that really necessary, wouldn't two or three exposures have been enough? --
Dschwen 12:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose No opinion on the image yet, but time to crack down on lack of a caption. ~
trialsanderrors 09:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry, what do you mean by lack of caption? I can make the caption more detailed as requested, but it is certainly present.
Cody.Pope 09:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Image does not give a good example of tone mapping as the dynamic range of the subject is not that large. I can release
this HDR series into a compatible license if there is interest.
HighInBC(Need help?
Ask me) 20:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Response I can see many of your concerns and I appreciate the feedback. The one thing I would say is that the small range is actually very helpful when it comes to blending the image. Most tone mapping software actually suggest 9-15 images to get the best results; since the blending is pretty complex, the more data the better results. A lot of hazy and murky tone-mapped images are a result of too few exposures and/or poor blending software/settings (think murky black skies). I good tone-mapped image should actually be -- at first glance -- unnoticeable and natural. And a lot of the HDR-tone-mapped-images aren't usually like that all. That being said, I still would like to see a good tone-mapped image presented in a similar matter as this. It's more the format of the image that I was promoting. In the future, I'll try to get a image with a higher overall range, but I'll still make sure to get a large number of shots. --
Cody.Pope 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree with some of your points but disagree with others. I don't think you need a large number of images. You just need images with a reasonable amount of overlap. Tone mapped images that end up with problems such as murky skies are usually the result of poor settings and trying to squeeze too much dynamic range into a limited output rather than a low number of source images. Your image does look quite natural but that is mainly due to the fact that the scene didn't really HAVE a large dynamic range requirement in the first place. Any time you try to fit significantly more dynamic range into a typical PC output, you're going to either lower overall contrast, create halos or at least display a scene that on first glance looks a bit fishy and strange.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The
Jolly Roger is the traditional flag of
European and
Americanpirates. In early
Roman times through the
Middle Ages,
skulls and long bones were on display in
catacombs,
churches, and
graveyards to serve as a reminder of your own death. Thus, it became a common symbol of death and decay. It might seem a bad idea to forewarn a quarry by flying the Jolly Roger; however, its use may be seen as an early form of
psychological warfare.
Reason
I think this is a good use of the SVG format, and it is a commonly used and encyclopedic flag.
Support -We need some flag FPs -
Nelro 20:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Have a look at
this page and you'll see why that's a rather silly reason to support this picture. I oppose, as it doesn't properly meet the size requirement. PhoenixTwo 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I don't feel it properly represents the subject. It seems very childish in a way. It's also only 800x500, which doesn't meet the size requirement. The upside-down heart for a nose doesn't really look to great either.
24.239.185.95 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Please log in to vote.
HereToHelp 01:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Note This is a
scalable vector image which means that its resolution is unlimited. Only the preview version is 800x500 px. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 23:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Come on folks its an svg it has no size. But I oppose because it doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me unless it's
the flag of a specific pirate or something --
frotht 23:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose: I agree with Froth. I think the picture is rather simplistic and childish- unless there was evidence that a flag looking exactly like that was used, I think it is a no. Otherwise, it should be portrayed as the flag of that individual or group, rather than a generic Jolly Roger.
J Milburn 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Reply I chose this version because I felt it was the most encyclopedic. There is a whole, and rather large, article on this flag. It is also the basis of all the other permutations of similar flags such as the one of
Calico Jack. Many good SVGs exist for the different permutations of this flag that are particular to a pirate, but articles are not written on those; this is the main flag.
Basar 03:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. If we promote this, we might as well promote all of the
other flags. --Tewy 06:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Flags would make ausome FPs -
Nelro 10:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I didn't realize there were so many good flags. Perhaps flags should be exempt from FP; if that is the case, consider this nomination withdrawn.
Basar 15:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't think they should be exempt, but we should go through the svg designs and look for the one that shows a high level of creative effort, accuracy and provides detailed info on the image page. ~
trialsanderrors 17:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, featured pictures are the best images Wikipedia has to offer, and this applies to the flags as well. If there is an exceptional flag, as you described, then it may be nominated. I just don't feel that this particular flag is exceptional. --Tewy 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I thought I remembered a discussion about NOT allowing flag images. Someone had nominated a Union Jack (or something similar) at one point, but now I can't seem to find the discussion in the archives. howcheng {
chat} 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I've seen a lot of Jolly Rogers in my day, and I must say this is the cutest version I've ever seen. Problem is, the Jolly Rogers isn't supposed to look cute! It's supposed to look ominous and foreboding. Maybe even intimidating.
Kaldari 21:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have thought about this a lot, and I have decided to stick with my vote. If we accept this, we are setting a precedent that flags will get through. Though I admit some definately are featured picture worthy (
Image:Austria Bundesadler.svg, for example) if we accept this, then almost all of the flags in the linked category (including flags such as the Japanese one, which would be ridiculous) would basically have a 'right' to FP status.
J Milburn 11:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Technical shortcomings ruin it for me. Edge unsharpness and slight overall blurryness, flat shadow without details, but considerable noise, and a slight tilt (especially noticable on the right edge of the frame). --
Dschwen 20:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Colors look flat and washed out, not much contrast.
Kaldari 21:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
OpposeE4T5A8 Very atmospheric shot, but not very high technical quality, and among the gazillions of photos taken every year in SF it's certainly not the most encyclopedic shot of the Port. ~
trialsanderrors 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Overexposed, artifacts. --Tewy 06:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Exposure looks perfect to me. Just the right amount of accent white. Also I didn't notice any artifacts.
Fg2 07:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The exposure looks pretty good to be too, but look at the bottom - the white areas fade into the artificial background and it is difficult to see the definition of the biscuit. Also, it looks a bit 'overcooked' (no pun intended) - there are some definite dithering and posterization issues in the detail.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 08:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I'll defer to the experts here.
Fg2 09:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I do see what you mean about the bottom blending in with the white background (which I presume is a light table).
Fg2 10:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC) But at full res, it looks distinct.
Fg2 10:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Illustrates the subject in question, but is not among Wikipedia's best work in my opinion (and it doesn't make me want to eat a sausage biscuit).-
Wutschwlllm 13:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Not enough background contrast. posterization. -
Fcb981 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
OpposeE4T4A2 I realize the fact that this thing looks extremely unappetizing actually enhances the enc of the picture, but still, yuck. ~
trialsanderrors 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
So about this new template...a little too black and white, don't you think? It reminds me of a straw poll. --Tewy 05:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Yuck. It makes people avoid eating a sausage biscuit instead of wanting to eat one. ~~Eugene2xSign here ☺ ~~ 01:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. High-quality shot and it really does look quite tasty. Don't know what everyone else is talking about --
frotht 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
oppose - Glare obscures too many buildings, blurry in shadows, no extended caption.
Debivort 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Very weak oppose, this would probably be great on commons, but as an encyclopaedic image I'm just not seeing it here, sorry. :( --
Golbez 23:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose A lens glare art does not make. Personally, I don't find beautiful things that make me flinch or wince (it looks so bright), and I don't see how it's particularly encyclopedic. Very few buildings can actually be made out, and it looks like there is dirt or smudge on the lens, making the shadowed buildings even harder to see.
Enuja 07:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose An interesting pic but sadly not FP material. It's unpleasant looking at the glare and the focus is poor -
Adrian Pingstone 08:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Adrian Pingstone. --
Mad Max 04:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Try putting the sun *behind* you next time. That will avoid the unpleasant lens flare and overexposed centre part of the image.
Stevage 05:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- The lens flare hurts my eyes, everything is out of focus, and it's just downright ugly. ~~Eugene2xSign here ☺ ~~ 01:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Osteorpermum ecklonis, or African Daisy, is a species of shrub belonging to the
Asteraceae family, the same of
sunflowers. It is a perennial plant, 60cm to 1m tall, normally grown as annual. The flowers are daisy-shaped, white or bluish, blooming in summer or early autumn, and the leaves are green and elliptic.
Support Great image and sufficient caption.--
HereToHelp 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
weak oppose Beautiful picture, but not very encyclopedic. Yes, flowers are most the important diagnostic feature of flowering plants, but it helps to be able to see other parts, as in the oft-quoted cut lemon shot. In the case of pictures to identify plants, I think we should insist on foliage, although some way to include roots and seeds would be superb. Also, I'm not a big fan of the pale, slightly washed out lower and left petals, especially in the larger versions.
Enuja 07:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose The over-bright petals on the left spoil it for me -
Adrian Pingstone 08:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose per reasons stated above. --
Mad Max 04:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose as per Enuja. --
Balster neb 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 07:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The surrender of the British at Yorktown, Virginia, on October 19, 1781, which ended the American Revolutionary War. Painting by John Trumbull, photograph by the Architect of the Capitol
Reason
This is one of those 'famous' paintings that many people recognize, and as such I thought it would make a good Featured Picture. Of course, before it gets to be an Featured Picture it has to clear this selection process first :)
Please
sign your post using four tildes: ~~~~.
Pstuart84Talk 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment It needs to be slightly cropped. Also, what's with the upper right corner? Is that in the original? ~
trialsanderrors 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral A good picture, but it's a bit blurry.
Tomer T 15:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginiana) is the only
marsupial found in
North America. A solitary and nocturnal animal about the size of a domestic cat, it is a successful opportunist and is found throughout
North America from coast to coast (introduced to
California in 1910), and from
Central America and
Mexico to southern
Canada .AlternativeAlternative 2
Support I've had trouble viewing the fullsize version, but I can view the alternates and they are very sharp.--
HereToHelp 00:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
Debivort 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Very nice.--
ragesoss 02:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support (original image) What's with the interface between the tail and body in the original? If someone can explain to me what is going on there, and convince me that there are no edits to the actual opossum in the original (finger placement, tail, ect.) I'll support. Otherwise, I oppose. It is a very pretty picture, but I don't think featured pictures should be misleading about their subjects. One minor thing that bothers me is how its eyes look; not having seen an opossum in the daytime, I think it might just be that opossums have funny eyes, but does anyone know?
Enuja 03:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
CommentNot sure about the eyes, Enuja. He was out during the winter and he was out during the day neither of which are normal for opossums. --
Cody.Pope 08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support The tail is going behind a twig first and then the big branch that's all. No edits at all, only some minor color tweaking when converting from RAW to jpg (also cropping, obviously). Also, concerning the full size version display, I tend to save my jpgs as 5-scan-progressive which means that your browser will load the image five times, which each scan getting progressively clearer (you won't notice this at all on fast connections); so you may need to wait a sec for a clearer version (the advantage being that the file sizes tends to be smaller for the same quality image, I think). --
Cody.Pope 06:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support awesome possum! I've seen opossums during the day before, although it's rare (usually you just see them dead on the road or not at all) and this is a great depiction of one. The way he's sitting stock-still in a tree like that is absolutely typical. I once almost walked straight under one without seeing it until a friend pointed it out.
Mak(talk) 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support and comment (original) Like HeretoHelp, I too seem to have difficulty downloading the fullsize image, and not just because the download takes a long time. It just stops, says done, with nothing on the screen. This should be worked out before nomination. However, I think the picture is very good quality, especially in capturing an opossum in daylight. --
Asiir 20:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: I had the same trouble, but I purged the page and then purged my cache and it was fine. I wonder why the problem is persisting. Perhaps a re-upload is in order?
Mak(talk) 20:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. I can't vote on the original since it isn't loading for me. It just stops. I've tried clearing my cache, but nothing works. Anyway, I don't support alternative or alternative 2. While the face of the animal is in focuse, much of the lower half is not. It seems as if the twig in front of the animal grabbed the focus, so the animal's tail and feet are all blurry. --
Mad Max 04:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Support original. --
Mad Max 07:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Eh I'm not really sure why there are so many problems with viewing -- progressive scan is supposed to be a standard. On Sunday Monday I'll re-upload as jpeg basic. If you're having problems, could you please leave a message on
my talk page, telling me what browser/OS you're using. Thanks. --
Cody.Pope 07:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Update The main image has been re-uploaded as a jpeg basic. It should load fine now. Sorry for the inconvenience. --
Cody.Pope 02:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - Great shot!
FCYTravis 02:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, but has anyone noticed the hot pixel in the right eye, or is that just the reflection of the sun? howcheng {
chat} 20:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Atmospheric gases scatter blue wavelengths of visible light more than other wavelengths, giving the Earth’s visible edge a blue halo. At higher and higher altitudes, the atmosphere becomes so thin that it essentially ceases to exist. Gradually, the atmospheric halo fades into the blackness of space.
Reason
A beautiful high resolution phograph that illustrates
Earth's atmosphere very well. Some image noise and minor compression artifacts are visible in the dark areas but I don't this is a very big problem.
Support A great shot, very illustrative- although perhaps somewhat uninformative. It is a pity that the sky has so much noise. Also, the horizon is tilted.
Jellocube27 23:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose - I'm not sure what this image represents, but it is not for sure the top of the atmosphere, whatever the way we define it (the air density decreases exponentially with height). The "normal" clouds may extend from near the surface to the tropopause (the top of the troposphere), which is about 10 km high. At heights of about 80 km, the top of the stratosphere, the air is barely dense enough to scatter light to a visible degree. However, the atmosphere extends much higher than that, with measurable effects (like the auroras, which may occur at 1000 km). The question is: if, in the present picture, the cloud tops are 10 km high, what is the altitude of that line separating the blue from the black: 20, 30 km? But it is a beatiful image though the quality could be much better. -
Alvesgaspar 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The naming of this image as "The Top of the Atmosphere" on NASA's site is apparently based on the
Kármán line which "is commonly used to define the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space." According to
[4], this photograph was taken from an altitude of 335 kilometres. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 00:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support Alvesgaspar, see accompanying text at
[5]. I like the faint moon in the picture (should be noted in the caption though, at first I thought it might be a reflection). I don't have much problem with the noise or the tilt, but the color gradation gets a bit stripey in the mid-resolution version. ~
trialsanderrors 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment – Using simple geometric reasoning, and based on the apparent curvature of the Earth in the photo, I have made a gross estimation of the scale of the image, which is of the order of 1:300 000 (this is a lower estimation, the true figure might be 1:150 000 or even more). This means that the height above the clouds of that line separating the blue from the black is of the order of 10-20 km (12 km according to my calculations), very far from the Karman line’s 100 km. Anyone interested in making a better estimate? -
Alvesgaspar 10:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't see a sourced claim that this is the Kármán line. Are you saying that the image incorrectly presents the gradual color change in the atmosphere, and the fade into blackness should occur at higher altitudes? I don't see any argument in the accompanying text that the atmosphere ends where the picture turns black. We should be careful when writing our captions for the image not to imply this, but for the most part the image visually represents the gradual thinning of the atmosphere. ~
trialsanderrors 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Photographically, it's as good a picture as I've seen of the upper atmosphere.
KFP has given us a good overview of the source's information, and it seems to portray the facts well, even if Wikipedia's editors can't agree on what they're seeing (I'll take NASA's word on the altitude over "a gross estimation of the scale of the image.") The composition is excellent, and it relates well to encyclopedic content. -
Harmil 21:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Good upper atmosphere picture. -
M&NCenarius 22:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
This is a high quality scan of Ernst Haeckel's arachnid illustrations from Kunstformen der Natur. I think it illustrates the article
arachnid very well.
Support, with preference for edited version. —
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 15:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Great illustration, flawless scan, but why are the links to the species (even on the talk page) all red?--
HereToHelp 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Because no one's written the articles yet. Not surprising considering there are some 70,000 named species.
Mgiganteus1 15:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I know red links mean a nonexistent article...but with that many species, I might be able to forgive that.--
HereToHelp 02:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oh, it's Haeckel-time again?! I'll support as soon as the species on the pic got articles. Otherwise it's more like eye candy. Oppose. --
Dschwen 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
But it illustrates
arachnid right? This seems like asking a panorama of New York city to link to articles of every building visible, not just the article on the city...
Debivort 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I wonder why you chose that example :-), as I happen to have an example for just
that (but maybe you knew that...). Granted, its not every building, but the notable ones (better than none at all...) --
Dschwen 09:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Haha no, that was a coincidence. That said, I think that image would have perfectly illustrated New York, without any blue links to the buildings - of course it's better with them though.
Debivort 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support The picture is attractive and highly informative. That we have no articles on the species is the (very understandable) fault of article-writers. 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Support - it illustrates arachnid just as well as any one of the species.
Debivort 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - What is this, the fourth Haeckel print to be nominated? Well, if it ain't broke...
RyGuy17 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
This is I believe the 9th to be nominated, and looks like it will be the 7th promoted.--
ragesoss 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Haeckel rocks.
Wittylama 04:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Needs to be cleaned up a little bit around the edges though. ~
trialsanderrors 06:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Wonderfully illustrated, very nice
Anchorage 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. -
Mgm|
(talk) 09:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Could the borders which enter and leave the frame be cropped out?
Leon 11:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Hard to do, since some of the arachnids already touch the borders of the image. It might be possible to airbrush them out though. ~
trialsanderrors 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - These ones are always good. Also the red links link to Commons articles, not Wikipedia. It is very unlikely that we are going to have pictures on every one of those species, even if an article was written.
Chris_huhtalk 12:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment It's possible that we do have articles on some of these spiders, just that the scientific names have changed since this plate was drawn. That's often the case with Haeckel's drawings. It can be very difficult to track down the new names just using the web (i've done so with a few of his drawings before). For example spider #1 (Tegeocranus hericins) gets only 3 hits on Google, all somewhat based on this image's description page. Not hugely helpful. Anyone who wants to have a go finding new scientific names or common names is welcome. —
Pengo 13:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Supportedit by Trialsanderrors, nice visual image.-- –
Dakota 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support edit, which should be uploaded over the original.--
ragesoss 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It seems a little overbrightened to me (the numbers and the lines that should be close to black are a pretty light grey), but it's something of a matter of taste... and an improvement, in any case. By the way, I can provide something closer to the original scan if it will help (before I fiddled with it in Picasa).--
ragesoss 19:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Well technically the colored areas should not be affected (I spent about an hour creating a mask for this yesterday), but I toned it down a bit. I guess those darkened borders have a certain nostalgic appeal. ~
trialsanderrors 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
What's the hangup with this one? I could upload my edit over ragesoss's original if that solves the deadlock, since he already ok'ed it. ~
trialsanderrors 06:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:Haeckel Arachnida.jpg (edit uploaded over original) --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 12:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Spilled
diesel on Easter Road,
Edinburgh, 2006. The thin layer of hydrocarbon results in
iridescence, the appearance of fringes of colour.Variant cropVariant crop
Reason
I was very pleased with how this worked out. The diesel was fresh and smelly. I took it on my Fuji Finepix and cropped and rotated it to this composition, which turns it into a rainbow. What do you think?
CommentOppose The sidewalk in the bottom third is distracting. I would support this if it were cropped to just include the rainbow, and if the resulting image was still large enough (at least 1 MP, and 2 MP is better). It also needs a more detailed caption. --
Asiir 20:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I tried a couple of tighter crops. As to the size, that is all the size I have, regrettably. --
Guinnog 21:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Changed to oppose -- it just needs to be bigger for an FP. Still, overall I really like it as a picture. --
Asiir 12:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Too small, the FPC rules say 1000 pixels minimum in one dimension (unless the pic is historical) -
Adrian Pingstone 23:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The original is 976, which is not far off 1000. --
Guinnog 01:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Apologies, I was looking at a variant. However, with digital cameras easily producing pictures 2000 or more pixels wide there's no reason (apart from heavy cropping) for a small pic. But I do think it's a fascinating picture -
Adrian Pingstone 08:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Great idea, poor execution. Try again with a higher quality picture and I'll upvote for sure :)
Jellocube27 07:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment for a more enc. caption, you could mention that this is an example of
Iridescence. --
Bridgecross 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 05:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Detail (rez and focus) are fine, and I don't see any artifacts or anything.--
HereToHelp 12:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose Uninteresting angle, subject blends in with background, lighting is a bit cold, composition is too simple (looks like a mug shot) -
Fcb981 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Great photo
Tomer T 23:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose per Fcb981. --
Mad Max 04:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral - I love to support but the background kills it for me. The animal blends too much with it and the background is uninteresting. Otherwise it's a very sharp image. --
Arad 19:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Question: Who left the anonymous vote? I didn't think that was alllowed, anyway, can you clarify, oppose as per nom doesn't make sense, thanks --
Benjamint444 23:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It doesn't matter as I, the closer, can pretend it doesn't exist.
MER-C 05:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose For same reason as I did on common (user Benh) ; the overall picture has too much sad "brown/gray" colors I don't like (looks like the weather was cloudy a shoot time, so I suggest you try to adjust temperature to a warmer side a little). As has been said, the picture is very sharp though and I may support an edit.Blieusong 10:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral for the edit version, I change my mind from oppose to neutral, so my vote won't be a penalty if other user like the pic. still not enough for me to support however (ack every comments over here).
Blieusong 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Not very striking composition. Distracting background. Not quite up to the very high standards of Wikipedia's existing featured pictures of mammals. --
Balster neb 17:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 05:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
A view of downtown Boston, Massachusetts taken in August of 2006.Edit 1, fixed tilt.
Reason
This photo features a magnificent view of the Boston Harbor. The image with exhibits bright, vibrant colors, and its lighting and composition is ultimately flawless. As one who has studied photography and enjoys photographs of city skylines, I can say that this is one of the best images I have ever seen of its kind.
Support Per nom, a pretty darn good image.--
HereToHelp 01:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Weird borders on many of the buildings against the sky, especially the one on the far right. Buildings all lean in toward the center. Also, lacks a good extended caption.--
ragesoss 02:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Full size image is blurry, many of the windows look strange (in addition to the edges as Rageoss brought up), and this picture makes Boston look like a very small city (I think because of how its cropped). Somehow, the thumbnail looks fake (like a computer generated image).
Enuja 03:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
In response to the "computer generated image" comment, that is the reason that the image caught my eye at first. It does have that CGI look to it because its composition and lighting is so detailed and flawless. –
Crashintome4196 11:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, per HereToHelp --
Chris 73 |
Talk 06:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Blurry at full size. I don't really like the cropping, and the buildings seem to lean. --
Mad Max 08:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Not acceptable for FPC because the buildings tilt inwards (easily corrected in a graphics program) -
Adrian Pingstone 08:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment (no vote)-- Are any of the buildings that are depicted here considered landmarks?
Spikebrennan 15:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - This is a beautiful picture. I love the sky, the buildings, the boats in the foreground (which give it a nice "Boston" touch). I do agree it looks a little fake, but I'm over it. What concerns me is the cropping. I'm editing today from
One Financial Center :o) ...a building that is part of downtown, but cut off from this picture on the left. Also, the
Federal Reserve Building is missing. I think that the crop really reduces enc.
tiZom(2¢) 18:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak opose, not sure if its just me but all of the buildings look a bit artificial and 2 dimensional
Ahadland 17:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
OpposeE6T2A2 Tilted, oversharpened, sky looks painted on, boats look like they're on a slab of concrete, etc. ~
trialsanderrors 17:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per above. The tilt is very very bad also. And the quality is poor, except on the thumb view. If the tilt is fixed, with a few of other issues i might give a weak support. --
Arad 19:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose The subject should be of natural things or make a point about urban life. Too bland and featureless.
Padddy5
Oppose Whoa, what happened to the sky? The whole thing looks like a computer rendering. -- BlastOButter42SeeHearSpeak 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose The tilt looks horrible, the sky just looks plain awkward, and the picture is blurry and grainy. And why in the world are those dots splattered all over one of the building's windows? ~~Eugene2xSign here ☺ ~~ 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose As per above. I suspect that heavy post processing has made this picture look artificial. The post processing is also likely responsible for the strange artifacts on the borders of the taller buildings. --
Balster neb 16:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. That sky makes me think of that Kurdistan, Iran picture that got delisted as soon as it hit the Main Page. howcheng {
chat} 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose looks like someone upped the saturation or something. Concur with howcheng. -
Francis Tyers· 11:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment can we see the original? -
Francis Tyers· 11:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment This is the original image (the top image), save for a minor crop. I've since fixed the tilt (it is pretty bad!), but I'm afraid the blurriness was unavoidable: the quality of the camera I used is nowhere near that of a professional model. I appreciate the feedback!
Spinnick597 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 05:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Question Doesn't "locomotive system" include the muscles? Seems to be mis-titled. —
Pengo 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support. This is another good diagram by
WikipedianProlific, but it's in PNG. --Tewy 22:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. Alas, only photographs and svgs are passing these days… This might be hard to vectorize because of the shadow and texture of the bones can be rather irregular.--
HereToHelp 03:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
...and there are possible spelling errors, so right now it's more of a conditional weak support. --Tewy 19:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Not my favourite diagram but proud of it none the less, it's as good as any FP wikipedia has, and better than most imho. I'm not going to get into a lengthy discussion about the pro's and cons of SVGs and JPEGs. But the reality of the situation is that this image is 2000 pixels square thereabouts and no PC monitor looking at wikipedia can display even near that. It can be printed on A3 paper at around 200 DPI, it's really not an issue. Its one thing to request new diagrams be done in SVG, or painfully small ones, but theres no point wasting time that could be spent making new diagrams on tracing old ones into a new format with no real benefits. And no, locomotive system doesn't refer to muscles. Muscles are, interestingly, part of the muscular system. And even if muscles were part of the locomotive system, i'm bemused as to a good way to show both the bones and muscles as one would cover the other.
WikipedianProlific(Talk) 11:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I think the main argument for SVG is because someday somewhere someone might have an application off of the computer screen. I'd have loved to bring your horse to
science fair on a glossy 4 foot wide piece of paper. I think simpler ones should be SVG, but the shading on this would make that rather difficult. That's why I thought SVG was supposed to be better than large monitor filling PNG
grenグレン 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose I believe there are four spelling mistakes - tuber ischm should be tuber ischium, tubuar sacrale should be tuber sacrale, humerous should be humerus and coccygeal vetebrae should be coccygeal vertebrae Can someone confirm if I'm right? -
Adrian Pingstone 17:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry to bring about a PNG/SVG argument, but SVG would be able to easily correct this. --Tewy 00:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support if it's factually correct. Very nice looking and if someone with the ability and time wants it could use a nice image map.
grenグレン 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Just get rid of pink background
Penubag 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubagreply
Pink? Try a different monitor; it looks very light brown to me. --Tewy 02:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Well okay salmon colored XD
Penubag 06:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubagreply
Support if the spelling is checked/fixed. I'd also prefer a white background. Otherwise I think this is a very good illustration. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm a little surprised to see support for an image that (at the time of my writing this) still has four spelling errors. A count of Support at this moment might make it a Featured Pic!! -
Adrian Pingstone 16:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
That's what user talk pages are for. ~
trialsanderrors 08:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Why would I put my comment on the uploaders Talk Page? I'm commenting on the FP image and we do that discussion right here -
Adrian Pingstone 08:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm sure if you point the mistakes out to him, he'll fix them. ~
trialsanderrors 08:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Image has now been updated with a white background and fixed spelling.
WikipedianProlific(Talk) 02:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
(
Purge the cache to see the change). --Tewy 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Looks like all the conditionas for the conditional supports above are met. ~
trialsanderrors 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Doesn't appear tilted to me... The focus is alright, but there is a problem with the graininess. Is there a sharpened version? Anyways, it's a very shocking and unusual pic, as well as being encyclopedic.
JumpingcheeseCont@ct 09:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose statisfies all technical criterias ? don't think so. it's grainy and blurry, vertical lines aren't so vertical and I don't like the composition -
Blieusong 10:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - grainy, very out of focus in parts, bad lighting. Subject matter is amazing though. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose The buildings are clearly tilted top left and top right (which, for me, is not aceptable for FPC) -
Adrian Pingstone 15:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose While the picture is eyecatching and illustrates the subject matter well, it is too grainy and out of focus in parts. The overall composition is also a bit weak. --
Balster neb 17:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose I like the actual subject of the photo but agree with other users it is slightly graint and out of focus.
LostCity42 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Very grainy and blurry. I don't think this will make a very good featured pic. ~~Eugene2xSign here ☺ ~~ 22:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose and comment for all the reasons above. Someone, however, should get a shot of this some year, so that we can feature it as Picture of the Day on
St. Patrick's Day. But I guess we missed it for this year. Great encyclopedic value here.
Asiir 12:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I fear this won't pass, due to the flare at the top of the picture - which is a shame, as I quite like it :/
86.54.161.98 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose as per the comment above but moreso because it's just not sharp enough.
grenグレン 18:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Two steps back, one step to the left, and this could've been a perfect shot. But
commons:User:Fabien1309 has a great picture gallery if someone is looking for pictures to nominate. ~
trialsanderrors 21:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose I can't see why this one was nominated (flare) -
Adrian Pingstone 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose -the lensflair kills the picture. -
Nelro 20:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 11:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
A set of playing cards released by the United States Department of Defense. The cards depict high-ranking officials of Saddam Hussein's government who the United States sought to capture in the Iraq war.
Reason
Its a high-quality, high resolution picture of a list of all of the most important officials of Saddam Hussein's regime. I think that this image is very encyclopedic.
Support What a coincedence! I was just looking at this image 5 minutes ago! I think it's enc, and high-res, although I'll go neutral if someone knows of a better version. ·
AOTalk 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, and before someone brings up the possible legal argument, the Jokers are trademarked, not copyrighted. I think that means it's FP-legal. --
Golbez 16:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
emphatic oppose propaganda is by its very nature POV. If
This nom was rejected on those grounds, so too must this one.
Debivort 16:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Since the word "propaganda" appears nowhere in that link, I fail to see how your WP:POINT oppose is relevant. --
Golbez 17:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
You're missing the point of
WP:POINT. Propaganda is grounds to oppose, and even if it were misapplied here (on which I have no opinion) it has nothing to with disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please be more careful in your accusations. ~
trialsanderrors 18:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Which part of the FP guidelines says propaganda can't be a featured picture? --
Golbez 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Which part of the FP guidelines says propaganda can't be a featured picture? — Irrelevant.
WP:POINT refers to disruptive actions taken in order to amplify ones viewpoint. If Debivort starts nominating 20 ugly propaganda pictures because he's unhappy with the way the discussion here is proceeding it's
WP:POINT. Offering his interpretation of the criteria is not
WP:POINT, even if it is outside the consensus opinion. ~
trialsanderrors 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I suppose the clause was slightly eliptical.
It was rejected because the illustrated article was POV, not because anyone called it propaganda. That said, I feel the Pastafarian image is certainly anti-religious propaganda. See my enumerated point below if you still don't understand my point.
Debivort 19:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Complete and utter rubbish propaganda is defined as "Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid". This isn't attempting to influence anybody's opinion it is merely informing people of who the USA wishes to capture.
82.36.182.217 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Was this a civil comment 82.36.182.217? Now, just to be clear: I believe that an image should be eligible (and not considered POV) as long as it illustrates its article neutrally. Others (a majority of people voting in the past) have indicated that an image is ineligible if it illustrates an article that is inherently POV, regardless of whether it illustrates it neutrally or not. I have accepted this consensus, and my current vote here reflects that. So, let's reason it out: 1) This image very neutrally illustrates
Most wanted Iraqi playing cards. 2) The topic
Most wanted Iraqi playing cards is inherently POV because it is the American Defense Department's subjective evaluation of who were bad guys in Iraq. 3) Therefore: if we allow illustrations associated only with NPOV articles, this is ineligible. However, if consensus has changed, and NPOV illustrations of POV articles (such as this one) are eligible, then I will change my vote, and renominate
Touched by His Noodly Appendage which illustrates the POV article
parody religion in an NPOV way. Cheers.
Debivort 19:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes it was a civil comment, I apologize if it came off as otherwise. I think if an image is POV it should be no grounds to oppose. Anyway I hope you do change your vote :) —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Ahadland1234 (
talk •
contribs).
"utter rubbish" is civil, well ok... You haven't really explained your opinion in the context of my argument. I'm guessing you think an image that illustrates a POV article in an NPOV way is OK (I agreed in the past but am yielding to consensus here). Do you also think that an image which illustrates an article in a POV way is OK? I.e. could the
Flying spaghetti monster be used to illustrate
Christianity? Lastly, please sign your comments using four tildes: ~~~~.
Debivort 20:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
To be completely fair I could have said complete and utter shit, or some other profanity. I completely agree with your Flying Spaghetti Monster pic. Ill support yours if yo support mine :P —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
82.36.182.217 (
talk •
contribs).
right... well I guess the value of pursuing this thread is now apparent.
Debivort 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Well to be honest you opposed for no valid reason who cares about POV. If POV is not listed as a reason to oppose a featured article candidate dont oppose it —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Ahadland1234 (
talk •
contribs).
Hahaha now you're just messing with us right? Or maybe you are overlooking
FPC#9... Also, you could at least humor us by signing your statements with four tildes.
Debivort 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I respond by quoting you " 1) This image very neutrally illustrates Most wanted Iraqi playing cards"
Ahadland 21:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Sighh. You seem to be ignoring the rest of the comments and questions I left. I even asked you about them directly 6 bullet points ago, with no reply. My patience for trying to explain my relatively simple point has evaporated, so unless you start adressing my points, don't expect much more energetic participation in this discussion from me, if any.
Debivort 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support An important piece of recent history -
Adrian Pingstone 17:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Most of the actual photos are very poor quality. Fully 25% of the playing cards have no image at all. The DoD watermark is unnecessary.
Chicago god 19:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
That is no reason to deny FP status, I have the actual playing cards in my home and the quality on those pictures is the same as on this picture. The reason being some of the suspects were very hard to photograph. The watermark is relevant because it tells you who published it and suggests a reason why they were taken, i.e. the us government took it to inform people who the "enemy" was.
Ahadland 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Chicago, I think you have completely misunderstood this poster, It has been issued by the US Government and has NOT been created by the nominator Ahadland. So the missing pics, the low quality of some of them and the watermark are simply features of the poster itself -
Adrian Pingstone 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose the idividual faces are really poor quality, plus it doesn't catch the eye -
Nelro 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Ahadland - you struck out someone else's vote? Well, I guess you'll get your consensus ...
Debivort 21:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I put in brackets until they state their reasons, once they have I'll reinstate it —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Ahadland1234 (
talk •
contribs).
I reverted it. Discarding invalid !votes by logged users is the closer's job. ~
trialsanderrors 22:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC
I put in the strike because he never gave no reasons
thats a double negative, it means i did put reasons. -
Nelro 11:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
How are the two remotely related? --
Golbez 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
As I understand it, the FMS pic was rejected due to POV issues, even though a majority considered it worthy of being a FP (yes yes, I know, it's not a poll), and I agree with
Debivort that if the rules should apply at all, the same rules should apply here...
highlunder 03:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Why the big discussion about NPOV? I know it's an important topic, but let's talk about that some other day on
WT:FPC. This image should be rejected based on quality alone. Half the faces have really bad artifacts, none of the borders line up with the other cards, and to be quite frank, it looks like a school project.
tiZom(2¢) 01:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Tomtheman5 - very poorly executed... they could at least have lined up the edges of the cards and got the border thicknesses consistent. --
YFB¿ 03:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I agree with above. The Quality alone is very bad. It really does look like a school project. Even worst. Even though I hate all these people (on the cards) it's still not a good idea to put their faces on cards as if they are some sort of game or something. This whole thing could be done much much better with better images. --
Arad 05:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. You know, this technically might be counted as a fair use image under Wikipedia rules. It's unlikely that the DOD is the owner of any of the head shots themselves. Although Iraq and the US do not have a copyright treaty, Jimbo has stated that we should still honor Iraqi copyrights (although I can't seem to find that link right now). howcheng {
chat} 05:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
If it wasn't fair use it would have been deleted
The point is that fair use images are ineligible for FP. --
YFB¿ 15:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Please state your reasons, thank you Ahadland 15:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
per tizom, howcheng, and noclip. --
Mad Max 01:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)--
Mad Max 01:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose No doubt some copyvios in the photographs, low quality, arguably POV-laden.
Noclip 19:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose I don't like the watermark. I would prefer to support an actual photograph of the actual playing card set (assuming the quality was good enough) rather than this image which looks like it was made in PowerPoint or something like that. Perhaps a real photograph, with just two or three of the cards, so that in thumbnail, some detail could be seen?
Spebudmak 07:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose for quality of the collage. I don't mind the pixelated images of the Iraqis because I think they were that way on the printed cards as well. But, the differing border heights and widths is something that should be done correctly. Also, I see no reason for the logo (although, that's less important if it weren't pixelated). I would support a version that thixed this. I really don't understand the NPOV arguments. It doesn't matter if it's propaganda if it's noteworthy and well done... and this image represents
Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards incredibly well--propaganda or not.
grenグレン 10:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose for copyright reasons. This is not a free image; a collage of fair use photos cannot magically become PD.--
Pharos 16:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
That's not the argument. The argument is that the government released this set of cards and therefore it's free. But, the government didn't originally take the pictures so, I think it may be possible that they are violating copyright?
grenグレン 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I'd say that's exactly the same argument. Btw, wasn't the U.S. Government sovereign over Iraq during the time the poster was released? Oppose btw. ~
trialsanderrors 05:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Look, the US government has a right to fair use just like everyone else, and fair use is often employed in government documents. It's very important to understand that not everything in US government documents is PD, because many items in these documents are not produced by US government workers — and this is especially true of photos of people the US is trying to capture. I would say it's irrelevant whether or not the US was ever sovereign over Iraq — the US has certainly never made any claim of conquest over Iraqi intellectual property. By the way, I've listed this image as "no source" on Commons, for lack of information about the individual photographs.--
Pharos 07:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose Propaganda. Propaganda is inherently POV, and therefore lacks encyclopedic value. Maybe in 20+ years time this can be looked at as an example of propaganda instead of simply being propaganda. Besides which the image is pretty lousy (it would be better if it were a photo of the actual playing cards), and lastly there are possible copyright issues as stated above. —
Pengo 13:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Every picture is propaganda --Ahadland 19:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You clearly don't understand
WP:NPOV, Pengo. Our policies clearly permit the use of POV sources unless they reflect the position of a negligible minority. ~
trialsanderrors 02:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
See
Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria #9. Religious, political, and commercial photos require caution. There's a fine line between describing a POV and promoting it, and the line has a lot to do with timing. Ten years from now a propaganda image from 2003 might be an appropriate FP (unless the war is still on, sigh). But not now.
Kla'quot 07:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Almost every article in
this article is propaganda; the argument against this image on those grounds is absolutely absurd. My problem with this image is that in any scaled form (in an article) it's totally unintelligible. Perhaps a high res scan or crop of a few of the cards would be better.
Leon 01:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose for aesthetic reasons. At this size, it just doesn't look like anything.
Kla'quot 06:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose can only be used under fair use. I have uploaded the file to Wikipedia under a Fair Use claim and deleted the Commons image. As the photographs are not the work of the US Govt, this is not a public domain image. I'd appreciate if people more experienced in writing FU rationales check the image page.--
Nilfanion (
talk) 23:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose LOL! I don't mean to insult, because it is a good picture, but it's more of an April Fools' schtick than a real instructional tool, in my opinion.
YechielMan 00:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I have a
WP:FL (3/16), I am close to having and a
WP:FA (3/26), I want to become an admin to be involved in
WP:FC. I might as well get my hands dirty at
WP:FP
Oppose. Needs cropping to focus just on the plaque and also needs perspective correction. howcheng {
chat} 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I am not photographer. Is cropping with Microsoft paint sufficient? How does one do perspective correction?
TonyTheTiger (
talk/
cont/
bio) 21:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Still oppose. The newer version is well-taken of its subject, but "there's no 'there' there". howcheng {
chat} 06:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Do you mean "I am not a photographer", or "I am not the photographer"? If it's the latter, then the licencing information on the image page is incorrect. If it's the former, apparently you are a photographer, albeit perhaps a reluctant one... but you won't be able to do perspective correction without a decent photo editing programme - MS Paint is definitely not going to be sufficient. --
YFB¿ 01:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I am the photographer. I am not a serious photographer. I just use a point and shoot Canon Powershot A620 and MS Paint for cropping in general. I have a new (Feb 2007) Hewlett Packard Pavilion DV9000 and all the programs that come with Microsoft Vista Home Premium edition plus the Canon utilities programs. I may have other
I can see you didn't finish your comment, but I'll respond anyway. I'll do the cropping and perspective correction - MSPaint is not sufficient (it's bad quality for re-saving images and it can't do perspective correction). It's very low quality. For FP-quality, you need something like
Adobe Photoshop (what I use),
Corel Paint Shop Pro or the
GIMP. I've uploaded it on Commons, I'll add cats when CommonSense is updated. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - severe noise, composition isn't great (bottom of plaque is cropped off, a 'front-on' view would be better than one slanted up from below), and the flash glare at the bottom is distracting and makes the lighting uneven. Re-shoot (if possible with a higher-quality camera - the noise may be difficult to avoid otherwise), from a better viewpoint, using a tripod and with the flash turned off. --
YFB¿ 01:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose Vanderdecken's Edit 02, oppose all other versions. Tony, you've addressed most of my criticisms and the new non-flash image is a vast improvement over the original, particularly after Vanderdecken's crop (Vanderdecken - I think your colour correction is a bit off; it seems to have a slightly red cast). Unfortunately (and I think this is probably the fault of your camera, so it's going to be hard to do anything about it) there's still a lot of noise and the sharpness isn't great. Top marks for effort and for responding positively to criticism, but sadly I can't quite place this image amongst Wikipedia's best. --
YFB¿ 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose its a lovely subject although it has far too many technical faults Ahadland 15:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support — I have retaken the photo. I don't want to crop it with MS Paint given the technical sophistication of this panel of judges. It could be cropped slightly especially at the bottom to get rid of the exit sign. Feel free to aid in the photo editing by cropping and any other minor adjustments that are considered fair in this process. Please vote on new image.
TonyTheTiger (
talk/
cont/
bio) 20:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I'll make another edit tonight (after 6:00PM GMT/UTC). Bagsy that, I'll do one of the flash, one of the non-flash. I'll upload them both to commons and post here - until then, keep voting above this divider. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Done. I now Support edit 02. I found the quality of the non-flash one to be so superior to that of the flash one, I didn't bother uploading an edit of the with-flash. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Supoprt edit 02. Its very high quality and an interesting subject --
User:Ahadland1234 14:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment After the cropping of the bookshelves, I think the book cart may look odd.
here is another take without the bookcart in need of cropping.
TonyTheTiger (
talk/
cont/
bio) 17:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, uninspiring subject. The photo cannot represent "WP's best" on this subject unless it's been professionally photographed. These photos do the plaque justice, but they do not represent Featured Quality.
Wittylama 23:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. It seems to me that the nominator has slightly misunderstood the purpose of the Reason section in the nominations. It is intended to point out the strengths of the nominated image not the nominator :-) --
Dschwen 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Autumnal foliage of Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia climbing a green railing at the side of an urban road (Forques, southern France)
Reason
The photo captures the Virginia Creeper at its most vibrantly-colored, with good saturation, lighting and composition, contrasted against a green railing.
Oppose Composition alone is what kills it for me. there is no size reference, the angle is confusing and the green bars are bad. Other than that good shot but the composition is glaring. -
Fcb981 23:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose What Fcb981 said. --
Mad Max 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support. The composition isn't that bad. The bars appear to be some sort of railing, so they act as a relative frame of reference. I think this image might have done better if shot in a more natural environment for encyclopedic purposes. But plants do grow in urban environments, and there are gardens and such (what I'm getting at is the context of this photo is confusing, hence the weak support). However, the composition is dynamic and engaging. The subject is very interesting, the colors are vibrant, and it illustrates not only the plant but the change of color in autumn. While the subject takes a large portion of the frame and is at an angle, the photographer did a good job of maximizing the depth of field on the subject. I really do enjoy this image. The reflection off the leaves, white balance suggests a cloudy/rainy day, as does the overall darkness and shadows. The dark background counter balances the red leaves. The green bars are a good contrast to the red as well. And the stones under the leaves are a nice touch. I've convinced myself to change this to a full on support, despite the confusing context.-
Andrew c 02:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
comment I agree the context is confusing, as you would expect ornamental plants to normally grow in a garden environment. However the Parthenocissi are incredibly vigorous and grow wild all over southern France. Apart from foliage color, the image illustrates a part of the
article which mentions the plant's propensity to climb structures like telephone poles. I've amended the caption here to reflect this.
mikaul 10:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Recieved support to nominate in picture peer review
Wikipedia:Picture peer review/StMarysChurch. I believe its of a high quality/resolution and is pleasing to the eye. I welcome any other user to edit using tools/photoshop etc (as I do not have the tools or the knowledge) if they are worried about the foreground tree shadow or roof highlights (as mentioned in review).
Support - I don't think I can find any faults with this pic. Well, the bottom right is very slightly blurred and an extreme pedant would accuse it of colour fringing in a few places, but I'm willing to overlook that. At 1024x768 preview size it's crystal clear, so a thumbnail will be perfect. The image page is very helpful, has all metadata intact etc., good job. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I'm sorry but the angle is not the best (too low) and I find the distortion quite annoying.
Alvesgaspar 19:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support I don't have a problem with the angle- nice pic. --
Sturgeonman 19:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Desperately needs a caption. What's the significance of the church or architectural style? Right now it's E5T7A6. ~
trialsanderrors 22:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn, thanks for caption. I have to think more about the picture, maybe I'll do an edit. ~
trialsanderrors 01:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I have just improved the caption but would like to note that the image description page has an extended caption explaining its significance. If the caption needs work, please feel free to improve.
LordHarris 23:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Supportits a beutifull abd well composed photo -
Nelro 11:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose It would be great if submitters of FP candidates corrected tilts and leans, this pic is a good example. The tower is leaning heavily to the right which, to me, looks ridiculous. Remember that we are looking for the very best pics so distortions like this are not acceptable to me (even if few voters on FPC notice such distortions) -
Adrian Pingstone 16:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
SupportI dont like that tree in the front view but its a very nice picture and the distortion and angle are fine. Its a nice pic. I looked at other featured architecture pictures and must say they are all of big and significant buildings, there are no small buildings. I think you shouldnt judge a photograph of a building on how it looks to other buildings, but by its own merits.
LostCity42 17:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The big tree shadow in front is distracting, as is the young tree tied to the stake. howcheng {
chat} 01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The Las Vegas Strip at night viewed from the Bellagio - New OriginalRemoved all hot pixels and the halo around the bleu dome - Edit1 by
AradEdit 2 The right side of the restich looked a little dull. I upped the levels over there but in hindsight maybe a touch too much, I still say it looks good -Fcb981
Support —
Mfield 20:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Very cool picture, but I feel like I'm seeing double on the far right side, there seem to be some doubles of buildings. Also, in the center there are two bright green spots in the sky which I can't account for. The are a couple other lines which I can't understand where they're coming from. I don't know whether these are due to stitching errors or what, but I wonder whether it's possible to fix them? Or at least minimize the doubling effect on the right side? It's an awesome picture in any case, just thought I'd ask though.
Mak(talk) 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment They are not stitching errors, they are actually reflections. The only way to get this shot is to take it from inside the Bellagio which necessitates taking it from behind a non opening dual paned window. This led to some slight reflections at the right hand end where the camera was at a very oblique angle to the glass for the extreme right shots. For photographic purposes I would crop the panorama down to remove any reflections but I decided to leave the shot with them in as for encyclopedia purposes I felt it was more useful to include the
Project City Center construction on the right.
Mfield 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Ah, ok, then the other random lights are probably also reflections, and are probably pretty inevitable. Support.
Mak(talk) 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose - Great scene, but I'm afraid the reflections everywhere really kill it. Has anyone noticed a pair of blue lights, repeated about ten times across the whole length of the sky?
Mrug2 22:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Ah, I see them - hot pixels, I'll remove them and replace it
Mfield 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Removed hot pixels and some reflections and replaced image.
Mfield 23:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - Very good panorama -Nelro
Support New original - Great panorama sans the hot pixels. --
antilivedT |
C |
G 07:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. Several minor issues. The color balance might be a tiny bit off towards too much yellow. I'd like to see the pano extended at the bottom. And there is that duplication effect from shooting through glass. Everything is doubled. The New York casino suddenly is the New York, New York Casino. --
Dschwen 15:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Yep, that is of course how it is - thanks for pointing that out to people :)
Mfield 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Uhm yeah, as my
edit summary stated, it probably was a little too subtle ;-) --
Dschwen 11:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment There is an odd halo effect around the blue dome near the center.. also there are still several hot pixels. Other than that, absolute rubbish just like the rest of your photos ;) heheh
drumguy8800CT 16:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 1 - But I still see hot pixels. And there are a few bleu dots in the sky. They look wierd. What are they? --
Arad 20:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Info Edit 1 - removed all hot pixels and the halo around the bleu dome and Eiffel tower of Paris Hotel. --
Arad 21:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support new Original - Good job really. Amazing photo now. The edit 2 isn't much different. So I support both. --
Arad 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 1 - I really like it now. Well done, Arad.
Mrug2 00:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks mate. You've got a really nice user page too ;-) --
Arad 01:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose both I know it might seem odd for me to be opposing a picture I took, but I've just looked at it properly and realized how embarassingly badly the verticals are aligned and what a mess I made of something in the PP process which made it hazy. I am rebuilding it from scratch right now and I will replace my original so I am opposing both edits in the mean time.
Mfield 03:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Edit 1 - have replaced original with complete restitch, now is vastly improved over all previous edits.
Mfield 06:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - new version of original
Mfield 06:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose edit1, weak support new original. Great job on the verticals, and I very much prefer the new version in terms of contrast/exposure correction. --
Dschwen 08:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment It looks as if the new origenal and edit arn't being voted on. Should it be renominated or something so that conscensus can form. -
Fcb981 05:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
"Edit 1" or "New original"? Moving to "additional input required" section. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 2 ("new original") This one is far better than the first two. --
Sturgeonman 21:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I can't quite follow this "new original" stuff, so I'll just support which ever one is agreed upon by the community. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to get us much of anywhere…--
HereToHelp 22:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support New Original --
Arad 03:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 2 Ill support my oun edit as it now has some other support and I think it balances the image in terms of brightness better than the new original. -
Fcb981 04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support New Original Fcb981's edit is good, but it leaves an awful green glare at the left side of the MGM Grand building. Arad's edit leaves the image kind of muddy (looks like smog) with washed out colors, and it isn't as clear. --
Mad Max 04:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The order which the original 13 states ratified the constitution, then the order that the others were admitted to the union
Reason
I looked at the article and saw this picture, which clearly explained and showed in a nice, attractive manner the order the states entered the union. It even shows W.V. and Maine splitting from Virgina and Massachusetts. Having this as a featured piture would compliment the featured list it is in.
The Placebo Effect 20:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Support -i think there must be a better way to show Maine becoming a seperate state from Massachusetts -Nelro
Weak oppose - This is a nice and illustrative animation. But no being an American, it would be an useful improvement to show the names of the states when they appear.
Alvesgaspar 21:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support - Change my vote, the "weak" goes to the grey time scale and the aliased lines -
Alvesgaspar 21:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Question: I'm terrible at U.S. History, but... is that exactly what each state looked like AS it joined the union? In other words, did any of them change boundaries after they joined?
tiZom(2¢) 22:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The only states that did are virgina, and massachusettes.
The Placebo Effect 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Nevada changed too -Nelro
It did, but it changed to the boundries it has now before any other states were added.
The Placebo Effect 13:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
So did Missouri. Texas may have as well, and Kentucky was originally part of Virginia. --
Golbez 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I would like to see the name of each state in its location at the "map". Now it's not really understandable for readers who don't know a lot about the U.S., its states and its geography. I think that in its current condition, it is not an attractive picture for most of Wikipedia's visitors.
Tomer T 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I have updated it to include the states names. --
Astrokey44 10:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support I feel that adding names would clutter this map, and initials wouldn't add much to those without much knowledge about the US.
KenBest 04:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Provisional Support, I would like to see the year in question written in a large font - currently it only really shows the sequence of statehoods, to see what year the state received statehood you have a lot of trouble reading the years on the slider-bar at the bottom.
Actually I tried updating it with the dates before, but the thumbnail image refuses to work. Probably this is because of the larger filesize.. it is now located
here --
Astrokey44 12:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Agree with Witty lama. Also, why is the time scale grey (instead of back or dark blue)? By the way, the states names are nice.
Alvesgaspar 10:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
the blue bar might be harder to see if the key was black. im glad you like the names :) --
Astrokey44 12:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support very nicely done.
Cat-five -
talk 22:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong opppose the borders are not even attempting to be anti-aliased.
Circeus 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
anti-aliasing makes maps harder for other people to edit --
Astrokey44 15:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Is it really that likely the date of statehoods will change? The image should look good at full size. It absolutely does not.
Circeus 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support very encyclopedic, nice job
RyGuy17 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support educational and nicely done
kstern 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Edit or original? Moving to "additional input required" section. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 16:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Edit. I doesn't hurt to have the dates and states in the image, and it's not detracting, really. └Jared┘┌talk┐ 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Edit It gets the message across even better.
The Placebo Effect 18:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:US states by date of statehood3.gif --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 15:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment A better, extended caption is needed before some people will support this picture. It is a FP criterion. What are those small white lines throughout the picture?
Basar 18:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment So sorry... I found this while surfing from one Wikarticle to another, via "See Also...". Anyway, since it is a satallite photo, I assume the white lines are similar to the ones in
this photo, used by the techinicians at NASA for measuring distances. I think they are called "reticles". Does this exclude the pic from FPC status?
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude when I said it would need an extended caption, it's just that some people have recently decided to be stricter about that. I don't know if the lines exclude the picture. Perhaps there is a version where they aren't present or maybe someone could edit them out. The picture is also not very prominent in that article right now. Maybe it could be used in the Edward's AFB article too.
Basar 19:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It's already used there and in one other article.
Basar 19:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Why is it in black and white; it's still there isn't it? And it does need a better caption: those lines actually exist! It looked Photoshopped at first. I support nonetheless.--
HereToHelp 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment / additional info To see what it looks like in color, and for a better sense of scale, I found it on Google Maps
here.
Spebudmak 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose because the vanilla Google Maps satellite image is in color and at comparable resolution; surely there must exist a high-rez, color, satellite image of this that would be more suitable for FP. It's a really cool subject though.
Spebudmak 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support edit - I personally don't think that color adds much to this image, and the visibility of the actual subject of the picture -- the rose -- is much lower in the Google version. I took out the yellow whiskers. --TotoBaggins 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - A very interesting photo that was probably taken from aircraft. Highly recommend over others. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.79.36.130 (
talk •
contribs) ← No anonymous votes plase. ~
trialsanderrors 03:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose 1. Needs a caption. 2. Not very encyclopedic, not particular high quality, and not that eye-catching: E4T5A6. (The subject OTOH might be feature-worthy with a better picture.) ~
trialsanderrors 07:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment OMG GIGANTIC CROP CIRCLES!!! This is definitive proof that a) Aliens use crop circles to navigate, b) The government knows about it, and c) Worst of all, the government supports it!
66.109.229.101 (
talk·contribs) 12:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment -the balck and white version is better -
Nelro 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Clarification - The color version is a copy-vio-illegal-for-the-front-page-or-any-other-page... thing. I only put it there to encourage people to finda a fair use or some such copyright-free image... The black-and-whites are the noms here... 'WiiWillieWiki(talk) 14:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Good quality, and an overall interesting image. I would probably go for either of the first two, not the colored version. └Jared┘┌talk┐ 17:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Great image, although a better caption could help. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Davidkupec (
talk •
contribs).
Support original. Very encyclopedic and probably the only perspective from which you can see the entire compass rose. howcheng {
chat} 01:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
A 1888 "Goodwin Champions" baseball card of King Kelly, one of the earliest cards using chromolithography to create multi-colored images of players.Edit 1 by
Fir0002 - removed color cast
Reason
A beautiful early baseball card that's also an interesting industrial artifact. From the Library of Congress collection at
memory.loc.gov. For the full set, see my
Commons user page. Proposed PotD caption:
Support (oppose edit, no reason to change hue) —
trialsanderrors 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support (original, oppose edit) lovely subject, great quality scan, very informative caption.
Mak(talk) 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Support, per above.
Jellocube27 05:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Not only is it beautiful and razor sharp, it's so encyclopedic that it has a very strong contribution to three almost unrelated articles. Impressive!
Enuja 07:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support per above, and nom.--
HereToHelp 12:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support per all above. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong support very striking image which is not technically flawed, and also has a very detailed caption.
Ahadland 17:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
StrongSupport - great scan, pin sharp, wonderful enc. This is a perfect example of the ideal FPC - hosted on Commons, way above the resolution guidelines, perfect description, tagged impeccably, nomination flawless - even including a PotD caption. Absolutely great. I propose we add this to the WIAFP page as a shining example to new contributors and voters. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oh, and I'm sure if I post it on Commons it'll sink without a trace... ~
trialsanderrors 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Try us ;-) --
Lycaon 13:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose original, Support Edit 1 Surprised no one has noticed the color cast yet. --
Fir0002 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Are you sure it's actually "color cast"? The image is of a paper object mass produced in the 1880s. A yellow discoloration from acidic paper is to be expected. I don't think it takes anything away from the image as it is in the original.
Mak(talk) 05:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Fwiw, the mount paper in the original photograph has a higher saturation level, almost identical to the card paper. I partially desaturated the border to create more contrast to the card, but I didn't set it all the way to zero saturation because that created an unappealing contrast. So the 60% desaturation is a compromise I found least intrusive. I've looked at pretty much the whole LoC collection since I started working on this set and I can't find any evidence that the yellowing is the result of the reproduction. The card is about as yellowed as one would expect after 120 years. ~
trialsanderrors 07:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, an excellent picture. Not certain which version would be better- I think they both look pretty good.
J Milburn 11:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Excellent. howcheng {
chat} 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Animated map/timeline of the territorial evolution of Mexico
Reason
Self-nom; after the success and good reception of my
lasttwo nominations, I decided to throw this one up. The individual frames will eventually be at
Territorial evolution of Mexico once I get that article done. The color of the United States changes to a paler gray to kind of move it to the background and cause it to be ignored; it still needs to be there, unless I make the map jerk around, but I wanted to make it kind of forgotten, since it's not involved in the changes anymore. --
Golbez 10:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support — Great work!
Ancjr 10:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support -Superb-
Nelro 14:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong support great image, which obviously took a lot of work to compile.
Ahadland 17:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - voters may wish to take a look at the concerns raised on the
image talk page. I remain neutral. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral for now - The time scale is cluttered and the year labels are too small -
Alvesgaspar 19:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
They are identical in size two my other two recently featured images... --
Golbez 01:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
SupportLooks good and easy to watch.
LostCity42 17:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose The only problem i have with this image is a possible NPOV issue with the wording. I'm refering when it says: "united states recieves mexican cesion". I think it would be more apropiate to just say something like: ceeded to the US, because of X treaty or whatever. The way it's currently writen almost sound like it was a gift where there was actually a war. if that is changed i will change to strong support. (The image itself it's f-ing GREAT by the way. I hope you keep doing stuff like these on interesting/encyclopedic topics. Keep it up!!)
Nnfolz 08:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I share your concern over this, I wasn't quite sure how to word it in so few letters - especially because the area didn't have a single name, except "Mexican Cession", and we can't say "United States obtains/gets/conquers Mexican Cession" because neither quite fits. I can try to fit "Mexico cedes Alta California, Nuevo Mexico to United States", how would that work? (Except it also included the disputed Texan land... hrm). Maybe do what I did for the constitution, have "Mexican Cession" in large text, then explain the specifics in smaller text? Like "United States receives Alta California, Nuevo Mexico, and disputed land with Texas following Mexican-American War"? And thank you very much for the kind words :) --
Golbez 08:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Something like what you did with the constituton i belive will be ok. I think the example you gave will work just fine. Wonder when we will se the next in this series of pics.
Nnfolz 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
If you mean the next version of this, tonight. If you mean the next country, I dunno - I tried doing Brazil and Argentina but lack of English sources has hampered my progress. Next will probably be Indonesia. --
Golbez 01:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I meant next country. ;-)
Nnfolz 05:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I support the wording given by Golbez above similar to the way the new constitution is done. The inclusion of a mention of the war makes it clear it wasn't just a friendly gift, but it incorporates the common English name for it, Mexican Cession. These really are great, and as a member of WikiProject Indonesia, I'm looking forward to that one.
Rigadoun (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I've uploaded a new version with new wording for the Mexican Cession, and an error fixed (Aquascalientes was split from Zacatecas, not Jalisco). --
Golbez 12:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks! Full support nowNnfolz 04:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The Campanile and Mt. Tamalpias from
Memorial Stadium at sunset, 2006Edit 1
Reason
I was absolutely stunned by the quality of this picture of
Sather Tower upon first seeing it in the
University of California, Berkeley; the mix of color (assisted by the time of the day of the photograph) is simply stunning. The image is 2448px × 3264px (and it still very beautiful zoomed in to full-size) and it demonstrates the concept of a
campanile (as well as symbolizes UC-Berkeley) very well. Thus, I feel this satisfies all criteria under
WP:FP?.
Nomination and Support Original -- tariqabjotu 02:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Very nice. -
Fcb981 05:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Support (prefer original) I told Trisweb to move it Commons and nominate it there because it doesn't show very much of the university, but artistic and technical quality are outstanding. ~
trialsanderrors 06:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, I thought of that too. However, like others have said, I thought it was encyclopedic enough to warrant giving it a shot here. -- tariqabjotu 20:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose, per trialsanderrors... but only if it gets a good extended caption. Otherwise, full oppose. In addition to weak encyclopedicity, the dark foreground detracts from it for me. --
ragesoss 09:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support. I was really thinking of this in terms of an illustration of UC Berkeley. As an illustration of the tower, it is sufficiently encyclopedic.--
ragesoss 22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose - Agree with the suggestion of Trialsanderrors. But first quality should be improved: grain reduced, sharpness increased and image cropped.
Alvesgaspar 11:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Creator Comment - I can take prepare it better, it has not been touched-up as of yet.
Trisweb 03:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Illustrates the article
Sather Tower very well. I don't think the image needs cropping. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 13:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support The tower looks good to me.
LostCity42 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support (original) lovely composition, please don't crop it. An encyclopedic image of an important part of the campus. Lovely shot. Don't ruin it by over-photoshopping.
Mak(talk) 17:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree, the picture is perfectly in balance, I don't see how cropping would improve this. ~
trialsanderrors 17:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Though the picture is very artistically composed and looks like a painting, I do not think it illustrates very much. I agree with user Trialsanderrors on this. --
Balster neb 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't know why people oppose "per" me. After all, I support the picture. It could be more encyclopedic by showing more of the campus, but it does perfectly well depict two encyclopedic subjects plus it does an excellent job capturing the atmosphere of an East Bay evening. That's enough for me. ~
trialsanderrors 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I support your idea of moving the picture to the Commons FP candidates page, due to its artistic nature. I don't support the picture as it is for its quality flaws. As for the crop, there is too much black (and other things) in the foreground. -
Alvesgaspar 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Sometimes areas with little contrast are necessary to balance the picture. In this case the foreground covers the lower 1/3 of the picture, which matches the vertical, where the Campanile splits the left 2/3 from the right 1/3. After all, you rarely see requests to crop the sky. ~
trialsanderrors 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Agree that this has quality flaws (gradation is bad, needs sharpening) -- it has been poorly processed, and I will reprocess and upload a new version. However, I like the composition and will not be cropping it further. There is detail in the shadows that I may try to bring out.
Trisweb 03:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Love the picture
shas 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose I guess it is artistic but really doesn't show much as far as enc goes. --
Fir0002 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, gorgeous and I don't get why people are saying it's not encyclopedic, it's not like it's some random tower, like some pictures are random fields or what not. --
Golbez 11:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Creator Comment - New version of image uploaded; sharpened, noise removed, color corrected. Should I move the article to the correct spelling (Tamalpais) on Commons? I don't know how, but I'll do it if you think I should...
Trisweb 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Your call, if you want to make the picture available on other wiki projects it's better on Commons. But if you're only checking en.wiki it might be easier to keep track of it here though. And fwiw, I prefer the original muted colors. ~
trialsanderrors 23:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Pretty, but I've seen much nicer shots of the campanile. —dgiestc 03:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - I think both version should be shown here, as it is the usual practise of en:FPC. Personnally I prefer the first.
Alvesgaspar 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support original as i think its a lovely shot and quite encyclopedic. I also like the background Ahadland 13:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Fir0002. --
Mad Max 01:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support BothTomer T 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Please read the criteria, featured pictures must be under a free license, this image is a fully copyrighted image, and is only allowed under
Fair use.
Mak(talk) 00:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted (ineligible) --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The stepped tanks are the example of the ancient Indian architecture. Such tanks are found in many ancient constructions in India. This picture points to one such structure which is a part of the sun temple at Modhera, Gujarat.
Oppose - not clear enough, blur, camera shake and a bit of noise. Subject is not, to me, special. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose good shot, but I don't really like the boys being in the image. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Ahadland1234 (
talk •
contribs) 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC).reply
Given that there is a reason for the boys to be there, I change my vote to support. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Ahadland1234 (
talk •
contribs) 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC).reply
comment I thought to include boys so as to give viewer a frame of reference for size of the triangular steps.
Uday 13:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I am also putting one more image of the stepped tanks for more reference, may be one can get an Idea about actual structure.
Uday 13:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Stepped Tank At Sun Temple, Full View, Modhera.(Not for featured picture)
Comment -i would support the full version, as you can see the whole thing. -
Nelro 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Zooming in on Steps alone rouses curiosity enough to visit the main page of the article. thats why the smaller, zoomed in picture may draw more attention towards the subject. Thats why I preffered to nominate this picture instead of Full view of the tank.
Uday 05:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, it's far too narrow to be a FP for that article. There would need to be a whole section on something as specific as the triangle shapes. I also think the angle of the image could be better. Sorry.
grenグレン 10:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 08:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
This image shows the true excitement of the opening ceremonies and the lighting of the
Olympic Flame for the
Olympic Games. It's of great quality and focuses wonderfully on the subject—the flame.
Oppose Size.
Nnfolz 07:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
This image more than doubles the minimum required resolution.
Debivort 08:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, and urge Nnfolz to elaborate on his objection. --
Golbez 11:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Ooops!I'm really sorry. Guess i looked at it really fast and forgot that i was looking at a preview and not the whole image.
Nnfolz 22:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, very noisy, and the team at the bottom is not nearly sharp enough. Excellent composition, but serious technical flaws.--
ragesoss 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - quite noisy, and the composition isn't that great - the flags at the bottom are sort of half-in, half-out. Similar deal with the people, perhaps some cropping could help here. And of course the central point of the whole photo - the flame - is completely blown out.
Stevage 21:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)reply
i don't see anything wrong with the composition -
Nelro 12:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Ragesoss and Stevage. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 15:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 08:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Mammatus Cloud formation over Swifts Creek, Victoria. Mammatus Clouds only occur where cumulonimbus are present and are often the byproduct of strong storm activityAlternative
A short interlude between insect noms :-) Quite a dramatic skyline of relatively uncommon clouds.
Support Self Nom. --
Fir0002 05:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Although the size of the right side forground black is on the big size I see no other problems with the picture. Keep up the good work. -
Fcb981 06:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support I like the contrast between the grayish white sky to the pitch black objects on the ground. The cloud looks surreal. However, I believe the alternative is better used for the article about the Mammatus clouds since only that certain cloud is featured while the original have maybe two or more other clouds. I might be wrong however.--
BirdKr 13:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Full panorama. Very striking, and I agree that the contrast looks very nice. --
Havocrazy 06:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
question -were the clouds at the bottom part of the sky really that dark? they are very very inky (for clouds).
Debivort 08:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
My interpretation of the image is that it's raining in the distance where the clouds are so dark. This is an effect which is best seen in the plains (and which I hadn't seen clearly myself until I visited the desert in southern Idaho).
Mak(talk) 16:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I've seen mammatus clouds before several times, but never with such high contrast between their light and dark regions, but if you can verify it...
Debivort 21:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Apologies for late reponse, the clouds were an excellent example and had very good definition. With a polarizer and correct exposure values the captured image was pretty close to this. Not saying that I didn't use some contrasting to enhance the visibility of the clouds, but I don't feel that this detracts from the image at all. --
Fir0002 12:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, you need a description, etc.
grenグレン 11:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Conditional support original Someone get the cloud experts in to add a description. Also, you should stick to the template for creating FPC nominations. The "articles this picture appears in" info is missing. ~
trialsanderrors 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
As discussed when the new template generator thingy came in, it was by no means consensus to use it. Adding the "articles this picture appears on" is not a requirement and is rather ridiculous, as no one should judge the image on the thumbnail on WP:FPC, but should go to the image page, where interested users can easily see the File Links section. --
Fir0002 12:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not if someone removes the picture from the article while it's under discussion. ~
trialsanderrors 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Doesn't look like a better caption is forthcoming. ~
trialsanderrors 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
What more do you want from a caption? It states what it is and where it was taken - any more and that's what the article is for! As a side note I notice you're supporting the arachnid nom above this which has a total of 1 extra word (number actually) in it's caption than this. But oh well if you really want something bigger. But may I remind you this is WP Featured Picture Candidates, not caption candidates and the primary focus of this page is identifying the best images not the best captions. All the caption on this page should have is what would be necessary in an article where it is placed. And in this case it is silly to restate what the article says like the caption on the Tawny Owl nomination. I think when I get a chance I'll go into this with more depth on the talk page, but for now I've tacked on a little bit from the article to accommodate your demands. --
Fir0002 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
There is no reason to be come truculent. I see four editors here who have asked for a better description, and jfwiw, a good caption is part of the FP criteria, so the objection is perfectly valid. Oh and btw, the top quarter of the picture needs to be cropped. ~
trialsanderrors 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support OriginalTomer T 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose by questions went unaddressed.
Debivort 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. I don't find the subject particularly mind-blowing and the whitebalance is uneven across the picture, causing a slightly visibly stitching seam. --
Dschwen 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It seems that this picture could be promoted if it had a better caption. Moving to "additional input required" section. --
KFP (
talk |
contribs) 11:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support either. Move my vote if it's in the wrong place. The caption is fine, because as Fir said, any more would be reinstating the article. I agree with
BirdKr in that the alternate would be better to describe the article, but the original provides some perspective. --Tewy 15:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, but not for the purpose of promoting an image or not. I think as long as the caption on the nomination page says what's unique about the image, or otherwise details the image itself, the POTD caption can supplement the nomination caption with information from the article. But not promoting an image because it doesn't have a full POTD caption doesn't seem like a good reason to me. --Tewy 05:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I think it's a very good reason, because it shifts the burden of writing the POTD caption from the scheduler to the nominator. If you want your picture promoted it's perfectly fair to request that you also provide the context in which it will be presented on the front page. ~
trialsanderrors 07:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support original only, very nice image. No problem with the caption. ~
Arjun 02:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support original But since some people are rather particular recently, I guess an extended caption would be appropriate..... -
Wutschwlllm 22:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The iconic Barwon Heads bridge is the major landmark for Barwon Heads. It is heritage listed and featured several times in the ABC television series
SeaChange.
Reason
It adds quite a bit to the article both as the iconic image of Barwon Heads, and of course of the bridge itself. I like the composition, particularly with the two people standing on the jetty to the left. I'm not really sure if it's straight, so please rotate it if you prefer. This image is a crop of a much wider panorama extending to the right, which I can make available if anyone wants it. I just noticed a couple of clones in the image (see the vehicles on the bridge) - could be a problem.
Oppose The bridge itself is under 100px tall and the image has lots of jpeg artifacts. --
antilivedT |
C |
G 07:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Have to agree with Antilived, the vertical view is a bit wider than necessary and there are plenty of jpeg artifacts in the image. One of those images that is good for the article but not significant or visually impressive enough for FP IMHO.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 12:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose:as per above. Also I think the sky makes the image look quite poor. Perhaps if it was taken when there was a lovely blue sky?
Ahadland 13:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)reply
U.S. Army Sgt. Kornelia Rachwal gives a young Pakistani girl a drink of water as they are airlifted from Muzaffarabad to Islamabad Pakistan, aboard a U.S. Army CH-47 Chinook helicopter on the 19 OctoberEdit 1, larger version, noise reduced.
Reason
Swiped from
Commons, a powerful picture depicting humanitarian aid, in particular the international response to the
2005 Pakistan earthquake. There are some blown highlights in the background (the light areas in the foreground seem mostly ok), but I don't think that detracts from the overall quality of the picture. Proposed PotD caption:
The
2005 Pakistan earthquake was one of the most devastating earthquakes in modern history, registering 7.6 on the
Richter scale and killing more than 75,000 people. The disaster triggered a worldwide
humanitarian aid effort, with governments,
international and
non-governmental organizations providing relief in the form of money, rescue equipment and military and civilian personnel.
Support shows the good side of human nature Ahadland 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Granted, it's a sweet picture, but that isn't a good enough reason for me to support it. --
Mad Max 00:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's a good picture but I have mixed feelings about the message it conveys. The young girl doesn't seem to need help drinking from the bottle, so the image looks contrived. I'd also prefer a picture which does more to challenge stereotypes of what aid is about.
Kla'quot 06:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Corny, fabricated, and POV far beyond that of the Iraqi Leaders' Playing Card set.
Spebudmak 06:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The proposed PotD caption seems a bit off-base here, all I see in this image is an attempt by the U.S. Defense Department to change its image in Muslim countries.
Spebudmak 06:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It might not be intentional image-fluffing, but to many non-Americans it will come across that way.
Kla'quot 07:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I actually left out any reference to the US Army and stressed the international effort on purpose. I have grave doubt these issues would come up if this was a picture by the Finnish military. ~
trialsanderrors 07:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I applaud your efforts to lessen the emphasis on this being US military, but it would be impossible to show this picture without mentioning the the US military. Perhaps this problem wouldn't come up if it was the Finnish military, but the Finnish military don't have an recent appalling record of media manipulation. —
Pengo 13:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
This comment seems to be quite uninformed, at least regarding the picture at hand. From all I can tell it's one is a series of at least three (others
here and
here). All the other pictures I've seen by
Mike Buytas from the Pakistan assignment are situational snapshots, so I find no evidence that this one was staged. I'm certainly no friend of the U.S. foreign policy of the last couple of years, but that doesn't keep me from looking at the U.S. military image repositories for high quality shots. I'm also not religious, but that wouldn't keep me from nominating religious motives for FP if they are of high quality. If you can't put your POV aside and focus on the image quality then I recommend you don't particpiate in FPC. ~
trialsanderrors 23:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
But Wikipedia readers have POVs too. What I'm trying to say, and perhaps what others are trying to say too, is that putting this image on the Main Page would probably backfire. The first thing I did when I saw the picture, before reading anything, was click on it. Then I noticed the U.S. flag on the woman's uniform and said to myself, "Oh sheesh, military P.R." This was, I emphasize, before reading a single word about where the picture came from. To me it just has an air of "P.R. photo" about it. Other readers will probably react the same way.
Kla'quot 05:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
There is no policy that sources, which includes images, have to be without POV (remember that Neutral Point of View does not equal No Point of View). They just can't unduly amplify viewpoints of small minorities. The FP criterion is accuracy, and I have seen no support for the claim that this image is staged. Also, some people here need to read the
propaganda article, because the word doesn't mean what they think. ~
trialsanderrors 10:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
As a matter of fact, I did just that, before dropping the "p" word, and to me it fits the definition.
Spebudmak 01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, I wanted to support, as I think the POV argument is silly... of course the U.S. wants a better image... but, it was still an important part of the response... and nothing says an image in itself has to be neutral... only a page. But... it's just too grainy (Army lady's hair + Pakistani girl's face).
grenグレン 10:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
weak support I strongly disagree that this shot appears fabricated, nor do I think its conception was first and foremost intended to propagandize the US relief effort. There is a spontaneity to the shot which is unmistakable; if it was set up, it was set up badly, with faces half-obscured; do we also imagine that the tear running down the child's cheek was somehow fabricated? The image is powerful, rather than cutesy, charged with emotion and compassion. Cynical responses to the caption, however, I can well understand. I would agree totally with trialsanderrors that the caption should reflect the wider humanitarian message which the image clearly conveys and would support cutting out the US military "branding" completely. With the caption thus amended I would change to full support without hesitation.
mikaul 10:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
commentThe grain and noise is noted, and while not totally irrelevant, it's not bad enough to influence my support. This sort of image need not be technically perfect in order to achieve its primary function.
mikaul 10:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The image caption (as opposed to the PotD caption) is the original from the photo and can of course be edited to apply to the article it's posted in. ~ 19:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Question sorry if this is a dumb question, but why does it look like the girl has a number 2 on her forehead? Is it just on the picture? Is it for identification, so she doesn't get lost?
Mak(talk) 16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It's not uncommon, when there's a risk of families being separated, to make some kind of identifying mark on kids' foreheads in case they get lost. I remember reading a report of a kid turning up at a Pakistani hospital with a cellphone number scrawled on her forehead, her parents later discovered to be in another hospital 200 miles away.
mikaul 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Could we put a note to that effect in the caption? I see I wasn't the only one wondering what the "2" stood for.
Asiir 18:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose - Not for political reasons or any POV bias, which I also find a little silly. Just because the quality is not good enough though the composition and human expressions are great -
Alvesgaspar 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I added a noise reduced edit, although the difference is probably only visible when the pictures are enlarged. ~
trialsanderrors 21:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | Found a larger version. ~
trialsanderrors 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Propaganda photo. —
Pengo 12:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Lighting through their hair is distracting, other quality problems. "Propoganda photo" and "POV" are ridiculous reasons for opposing. --
frotht 18:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Support I'm shocked that some of you are opposing because you think it's a "propoganda photo." If we cut every photo that sent a message, there would be no more photos on wikipedia. --
Iriseyes 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Shocked? First of all, there is no question that this is propaganda by definition, given that its source is a
U.S. Army press release on the Army website. Also, (unlike Finland) the U.S. government is clearly involved in an active campaign to change the way it is perceived in Muslim countries, e.g. the State Department report discussed in
this CNN article (admittedly old but the first thing I found on Google). I did not oppose solely due to the POV nature---as I said, it is also corny and fabricated---but I do think that the caption should at the very least reflect this fact, and that the POV arguments below about the Iraq card set, the Noodly Appendage, etc. should apply here also.
Spebudmak 22:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
A seperate issue is that the arguments by trialsanderrors about the photo of the anti-Iranian American holding up a sign not being sufficiently notable or representative of that conflict (the Iran Hostage crisis in that case) should be applicable here. If we have one FP to represent the Pakistan earthquake, is this really the best choice?
Spebudmak 22:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
On the Pakistani earthquake, certainly not. As an image of humanitarian aid I think it's iconic. The difference is that the Iran Hostage picture is really not a high quality picture, and the only reason it gets this amount of attention is because of the message it conveys (as I posted there, I doubt the picture would have been nominated if the banner said "Oppose Proposition 16"). This one is a high quality shot, at least from the response at Commons, and the discussion on the origin distracts from the discussion on its quality. ~
trialsanderrors 23:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support I thought about nominating it myself. All that fuss about staged propaganda is ridiculous to me. The U.S. Army (sometimes) also helps people, you know. I'd also support any picture which shows the flip side of the Army (e.g.
theseiconicexamples, but unfortunately either the resolution is not high enough, they lack of overall quality or do not have an appropriate license).-
Wutschwlllm 11:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Support. This is not only engaging and has historical value, it is Encyclopaedic in the extreme! I strongly doubt it was staged, but even then it it still a great photo that represents its subject.
Wittylama
Support per Iriseyes
Tomer T 11:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Not encyclopedic. This picture only adds beauty, not information to the two articles it is in. These two individuals are not important, and giving water is not a terribly epic humanitarian act. Airlifting people, yes, that is an epic humanitarian act, but you can't tell that they are in the air, or the relationship of these two people, or really anything else from this picuture.
Enuja 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Support Per Tomer T
8thstar 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Looks a bit too much like propaganda to me.
highlunder 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - Oh sure, it's horrible propaganda because the photographer did such a wonderful job of capturing altruism and empathy. Politicizing a featured picture candidate is a sad waste of time. Take away the context and you're still left with an apt depiction of humanitarian aid. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support both It has to be a propaganda pic, since the US is doing humanitarian work, right? I am alarmed that the majority of the oppose votes are solely due to political reasons and paranoia towards the "message" the pic is trying to convey. How about evaluating the pic based on its technical and encyclopedic merits? I do have a bias in my opinion, but the fact that some of the users would consider the pic to be less offensive (not sure why the pic is offensive in the first place) if the Finnish military had been the one providing care for the child does cast doubt on the oppose reasons. Are users afraid that Wikipedia will become a vehicle for blatant pro-US propaganda? That'll hardly be the case given the stanch opposition to a pic with a slightly positive image of the US. Wikipedians are suppose to be open to unorthodox and new concepts (in this case, the pic), instead of simply shutting it out due to personal political opinion. Anyways, I see no major difference between the cleaned-up and original pic, so I support both. Unique/striking pic and encyclopedia for the earthquake and humanitarian aid articles. Oh...and maybe mention something out the 2 on the girl's forehead in the caption.
JumpingcheeseCont@ct 06:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - Propaganda claims are absurd. From a encyclopaedic point of view, a larger shot could illustrate more, but this is a really great photo and still shows enc. qualities.
Iorek85 12:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Edit 1 is 1758 × 1276, that's well within our criteria. ~
trialsanderrors 06:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment, I find how the DOF was done to be distracting. The amount of distortion in the foreground isn't so swell... also, I think someone with a good camera and some image software could make a cleaner version.
grenグレン 22:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. It's definitely got my vote in terms of composition and artistic creativity, but there's a slight blur, as if the camera moved during the exposure, and the DOF is too low, I think, for this type of image. Good shot, but there are a few flaws that are too big to ignore. --Tewy 22:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose, personally I'm not a fan of the composition, too abstract and sterile and not ... foody enough for me. (Go and tell me that's not an official reason for opposing). For such a common subject, I'm sure a better photo could be taken. —
Pengo 23:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose (A better photo could be taken)
8thstar 18:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Just not up to FP standard. It's a neat composition but lighting ain't too good, macro technique (and lens, unfortunately) are poor and ultimately (as 8thstar points out) we could do better.
mikaul 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose The loss of DOF at front and back is too distracting -
Adrian Pingstone 18:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 11:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, sorry but I think a FP of "Honey" should also include
honeycomb and maybe a bee or two. Though it is a fine pic, it doesn't represent "all" of the idea of Honey for me.
Wittylama 21:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I think there can be a featured picture of honey related to it as a food and one related to its natural form.
Tomer T 23:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Depicts honey exactly as it comes to one's mind.--
Orthologist 21:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Unless you've ever had raw honey, in which case, you'll never think of this kind of picture as "real" honey again.--
ragesoss 23:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, per Witty lama.--
ragesoss 23:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Needs to be cleaned up. ~
trialsanderrors 00:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, per Ragesoss. --
8thstar 18:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Technically and aesthetically reminiscent of a 1970's cook-book. Also per Witty lama.
mikaul 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - the remarks about the image not simultaneously representing every different form of honey are just silly. Would we reject a photo of an animal because we can't simultaneously see front, back, underside, male, female, young, mating, dead, etc? This is obviously a very useful photo that illustrates honey - even at thumbnail size. The
honey article has plenty of space to have different photos representing different aspects of the subject. One photo doesn't need to do it all.
Stevage 05:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose I hope this nomination is a joke. It's not interesting at all.--
Svetovid 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
That's a matter of opinion
Tomer T 02:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 11:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Question Is the bird really inside the nest or the picture is just another composition like
this one? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
85.139.196.156 (
talk)
info yes, this one is all real, and in the grey fantail one it is the chicks, not the adult which is inserted. --
Benjamint444 12:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
oppose the flash makes the lighting on the subject too uniform, and the background is very grainy.
Debivort 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose i can't support a photo where you must have been about a metre away from a nesting bird to get this shot, the bird doesn't look to happy about it. Plus flash flattens branches.
Chris_huhtalk 09:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Not sure if I'd support a cleaned-up version (I'd probably go neutral), but this one has dust all over the place. ~
trialsanderrors 21:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Not really "eye-catching"
8thstar 18:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Almost looks like somebody's vacation photo. howcheng {
chat} 06:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 11:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - I think it's featured on Commons, too.--
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |
talk 17:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
Oppose no context.. the only idea of scale I get is from the size of the lights underneath the overhang. It's also not a plan, elevation or section so its not exactly useful for architectural study. Regardless, the image could be sharper. --
drumguy8800
C
T 23:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
is already featured, and more enc due to the cut pieces reviealing the interior of the fruit. --
Dschwen 12:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_black_problems.PNG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.svg)
.jpg)
_version.jpg)
that Debivort did: take individual pictures of pasta noodles and stich them all together into one single picture, so you avoid the flash reflection.
howcheng {
chat} 20:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:VanGogh-starry_night.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[3]](/info/en/?search=Image:Carta_Marina.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg)
Question: Who left the anonymous vote? I didn't think that was alllowed, anyway, can you clarify, oppose as per nom doesn't make sense, thanks --
Benjamint444 23:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I guess it is artistic but really doesn't show much as far as enc goes. --
Fir0002 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
