Support —
Noclip 05:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment If your reason for nominating this image is "Go ahead and tear it apart, a 32-piece panorama I'm sure everyone will find a ton of problems with" I don't really see why it's here at all --
203.54.74.6 06:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. The vantage point is too low, the hedge is spoiling it for me. Plus for a 32-piece pano the overall quality is a bit low, did you use a tripod? --
Dschwen 07:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Yes, I used a tripod, and next time I'm there I'll try to cut down the hedge.
Noclip 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
;-) Could you not just take the photo from in front of the hedge? *no idea by the way, I'm only asking*.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 16:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Or bring a ladder :-) --
Dschwen 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose The nominator already predicted everyone will "tear it apart". If he has no confidence in the photo, why should anyone else? --
UCLARodent 08:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - FPC fails again (sic from discussion page). Why so much negativism (starting with the nominator) and condescension, this isn't very smart if we want to get better contributions to this page. The quality is low but there is still the possibility of improvement through downsampling. Agree with Dschwen, the shooting position was not the best.
Alvesgaspar 10:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment It was already downsampled from 14,000 pixels wide.
Noclip 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose First I have to commend Noclip on getting a good shot of this station. I was just there this summer, and because of the traffic patterns, buildings and terrain there are few places to get a good shot. You could try getting even closer to avoid the traffic lights, but would then get major perspective distortion. Next time rent a helicopter. --
Bridgecross 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I don't think it needs downsampling.. Looks sharp enough, but it is quite low in resolution for a 32 segment panorama. Why did you downsample it so far noclip? I don't know what camera you're using but a typical 6 megapixel camera should be able to capture that sort of detail with only 4-8 segments, I would have thought. Anyway, the main reason for the oppose is simply the angle. It is a decent capture but poor composition. As others have said, it might be a difficult subject to capture but that doesn't mean it should be FP either.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 15:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose with Props - I hope to god you're joking about the helicopter, Bridgecross. Anyway, per everyone else, this shot really does have too many faults to be FP. It's also got an odd perspective; the hedge is in fact too distorting as it has been suggested above. Please (I beg you) excuse the horrible quality of the example image I put up; I used
Windows Paint to make it. =O (The props are for the effort and the decent shot of a difficult subject) --
Iriseyes 18:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
That isn't tilt, that's sloppy trimming. If it was tilted the flagpoles and traffic lights would be too.
Noclip 19:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
sloppy trimming? What are you talking about? It's in the interior of the image, and due to the perspective as mentioned above.
Debivort 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Sloppy trimming of the hedge. And the perspective had to be distorted so that the subject wouldn't be, the image isn't called "hedge."
Noclip 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Oh haha, I see, I thought trimming of the panorama assembly was meant.
Debivort 04:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose per everyone, maybe renting a RC helicopter and mount your camera on it and have some sort of remove release and have really really good skill to control the helicopter would do... :-p Also it would be better if taken about 30minutes before it was taken, the lighting is more evenly matched. --
antilivedT |
C |
G 23:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
lighting changes
[1] -
Fcb981 03:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose I'd be more interested in the image if the building had some exterior lighting and the night sky had some more gradient added to it. I've tried to approximate and example as above in version #3. But a better example can be seen
here. The original just seems a little flat overall due to lack of natural or manmade light. But it's a nice image as far as focus and stitching. It's not a terrible image by any stretch, but just not all that worthy of a FP for me.--
Mactographer 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose Per above, and the flag on the LHS has a piece that is duplicated (presume stitching fault) --
Fir0002 09:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Nomination withdrawn Has no chance succeeding, comments turning in to a circus (my fault).
Noclip 18:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted --
Julia\
talk 19:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Support —
Kmd15 00:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose Good atmosphere. But Blown out highlights and also sort of flat and booring composition. Too dark and not a WOW factor. I can assure you this wont pass with our voters. (but that is still up to votes). Good luck with other shots. --
Arad 01:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted --
Julia\
talk 19:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)reply
I very nearly dropped my gloves and ski poles in endeavouring to capture this rather surreal image behind me from a chair lift high up in Alp D'Huez in the French Alps in late December 2005. Even if I had it still would have been worth it. I think it is a great example of how it can be just as spectacular going up as it is coming down.
|
| title = Yoda duelling Emperor Palpatine
| image = Image:YodaDuel.jpg
| caption = Jedi master
Yoda battling [[Palpatine|Emperor Palpatine in the Senate chamber
| articles =
Duel in the Senate
| creator =
| reason = A very crisp, clear picture that shows Yoda's duelling abilities, and also gives insight into
lightsaber combat
}}
Not promoted —
Julia\
talk 20:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator —
Arad 14:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The best picture of two sibling baby Goats I've seen, and you've probably seen it a little further down the page, where it is already nominated. --
Dschwen 14:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
UH OH - Thanks for telling that. --
Arad 14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
This was already nominated further down the page. Please vote there. --
Arad 15:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted —
Julia\
talk 20:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator —
Zainub 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Please read the nomination procedure requirements more carefully. This nomination does not meet our size requirement. -
Andrew c 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Opps, sorry, I'll remove the nomination then. --
Zainub 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted —
Julia\
talk 20:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator — howcheng {
chat} 18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn -- image is not eligible. howcheng {
chat} 06:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Beautiful and cool. This was the cover of one of my physics textbooks, inside of which gives the credit: "Randy Montoya, Sandia National Laboratories." --
Asiir 19:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Most certainly has that "wow" factor. --Tewy 19:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Support — It's way cool. —
Zaui (
talk) 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Support — Wow factor indeed.
8thstar 20:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong support - It certainly looks cool, but is it actually physically cool? :-)
There seem to be three copies of this image, two of which are being considered for deletion. See Image:Z-machine.jpg and Image:Z-machine480.jpg. Ah. One's already been deleted.
Mrug2 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment It failed Nom back in march 2005 because of free use issues. I assume those are resolved? -
Fcb981 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Hmm... good question. I was going by the PD-USGov tag that's on Commons, but I suppose the question is, if Sandia is a contractor producing work on behalf of the US Gov't, is that the same as work done by a US Gov't agency? I don't know the answer to that. howcheng {
chat} 22:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Amazing pic, despite obvious distortion. (If a legal problem is discovered, see above discussion, consider this revoked.)--
HereToHelp 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I tried nominating this before, and it was found to not be PD because Sandia is not part of the government; it's a part of the company Lockheed Martin, that does research of interest to the government. I worked there 3 summers (and I toured the Z Machine a few times, walking on the catwalk in that picture) and can verify that nobody there was allowed to call themselves a federal employee, only an employee of Lockheed Martin. Some national labs do it differently, but Sandia isn't one of them. See the acknowledgement/copyright
here. —
BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-20 00:06Z
Well, that's the key question, innit? Whether the work produced by a government contractor on behalf of the government is the property of the government. The previous nomination just seemed to end in "better safe than sorry" without any real definitive answer. Could be that it depends on the contract. I don't know if I'd trust the blanket copyright statement on the web site; a lot of organizations claim copyright on things they can't. If the license is bad, the image will have to be deleted from Commons and I doubt it can be used here under our EDP either. howcheng {
chat} 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Well if Neal Singer says we have to credit Sandia, then by default that means it isn't public domain, right? --
Uberlemur 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)reply
It doesn't matter what their site does or doesn't explicitly have a copyright notice. The fact is that they are a company producing content. Whether or not they are doing government contracted work doesn't matter. Only works produced by federal employees are public domain, and Sandia employees are not federal employees. This isn't just my opinion; I asked project managers there, and they said they're not government employees. —
BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-20 02:15Z
Do you still have contacts there? Maybe you can clear this up once and for all. If you can, please find out whether or not the federal government owns the work they do or whether they own the copyright to their own work. Thanks.howcheng {
chat} 06:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Support We should keep this nomination separate from the copyright discussion, which should happen on Commons. Assuming this picture is freely licensed, it certainly deserves being put on the front page. ~
trialsanderrors 02:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)reply
That's nonsense. The copyright problem is not just a problem for Commons, it's a problem for any Wikimedia site that displays a copy of the file (all files are stored on upload.wikimedia.org). Just because the file is hosted on Commons doesn't mean that a copy of it on Wikipedia under the same incorrect license is somehow exempt from copyright issues. —
BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-20 03:10Z
Don't be willfully obtuse. The picture is hosted on Commons, so the deletion debate has to be held on Commons. ~
trialsanderrors 03:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment See
previous comments (need to be an adminstrator to see the deleted page). --
Duk 06:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)reply
This is one of my best photos taken during my life. It explains two main concepts in general.
Sydney's night time look and feel and what a particular
lightning strike looks like in
Australia itself. Therefore, I wish to make it a Featured Picture on Wikipedia.
Oppose - It appears to be tilted and it's too small per the
FP criteria. Please read the requirements before nominating pictures here. If you have the original photograph you should upload that at full resolution instead, in order to meet the minimum criteria. --
YFB¿ 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Withdrawl of nomination. Image is too small. Sorry, I didn't notice. Extranet(
Talk |
Contribs) 01:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Plus it's plagiarized like many of his other photo uploads.
Dicklyon 05:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The nomination has been withdrawn and the image licencing issues discussed with the uploader. This nomination is now closed, please do not continue to comment on it. --
YFB¿ 05:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted —
Julia\
talk 12:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
Excellent image of astrounauts working on ISS. The International Space Station (ISS) will be the largest human-made object ever to orbit the Earth. The station is so large that it could not be launched all at once -- it is being built piecemeal with large sections added continually by flights of the Space Shuttle. To function, the ISS needs trusses to keep it rigid and to route electricity and liquid coolants. These trusses are huge, extending over 15 meters long, and with masses over 10,000 kilograms. Pictured above earlier this month, astronauts Robert L. Curbeam (USA) and Christer Fuglesang (Sweden) work to attach a new truss segment to the ISS and begin to upgrade the power grid.
Yeah, that's why I recognized it, from when I went through the April archive adding FPs with the correct ratios to the
wallpaper categories. This one makes a great
widescreen background, by the way. --
Herald Alberich 13:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The other version is identical, just with the white bar cropped out. This version should probably be deleted, in that case. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I've deleted it as orphaned duplicate. This is an invalid nomination as the image isn't used in any articles anyway.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted —
Julia\
talk 12:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)reply
At late night. Suddenly, without making any sense, the electricity was cut off. Candles, after long days were brought in front and lighted. One of them looked incandescent. I took out my lovely camera and snapped it. The picture has its life with it. I think its a great picture.
Articles this image appears in
candles
Creator
Nasif nCCo
Support as nominator —
NCCo 09:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per above. Maybe this should be nominated to show chromatic aberration and blown out highlights in the same picture? Just kidding.
BeefRendang 14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support The inside of the cross section is very sharp, but the skin isn't bad. But as this is a replicable, controlled shot, the standards are extremely high.--
HereToHelp 14:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Support -- I support these studio shots of produce in general. I think it's great for encyclopedicitousnessosity to have a uniform catalog of them. Only weakly supporting since I think the detail on the cut fruit could be better. Trivia question: is this a single shot, or the same apple with two shots stitched together? --TotoBaggins 17:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose I am not impressed. Not much encyclopedic value, doesn't "wow" me. I do not think that this is one of Wikipedia's best photographs.
Wikipediarules2221 21:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)reply
info It's a single shot. --
Benjamint444 08:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment It's encyclopedic and technically sound for the most part, but I'm abstaining, rather than opposing, due to it lacking a third positive attribute. Lighting is far from ideal, hence the lack of texture detail in the cut half and odd shadows on the whole fruit. It wouldn't be an inappropriate FP but it could definitely be improved upon.
mikaultalk 16:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Looks photoshopped (the dark shadow on the apple extends into the background) which is (again) not indicated on the image description page. This and previous incidences led to a complete loss of trust in this user and his works. Sorry! --
Dschwen 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Lighting and shadows do not match - light source is from the left, given the reflection on the whole apple, yet the shadow points to the right!
J Are you green? 20:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Dschwen. Something's definitely not right about the shadows (looks as though it was shot on a greyish background and then cut out), lighting isn't ideal and I don't feel I can trust anything this user says about single shots/lack of photoshopping given past nominations. --
YFB¿ 20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - admittedly, the shadows are confusing, and explanation from the photographer would be appropriate, but I think the image deserves evaluation on its own merits. Let's assume good faith until we have evidence otherwise.
Debivort 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Of course, AGF still applies and there's no reason to oppose a photo purely on the basis of the nominator/creator. My point (and Dschwen's, I expect) is that given the user's past nominations, a little bit of extra scrutiny is required to ensure there's no misrepresentation of the subject; we need a bit more than "it's a single shot" because that turned out not to be the case in the past. Considering this image on its own merits, it doesn't look realistic; my opposition is valid on that basis. I suspect, given the context, that the reason for that lack of realism is that the image has been manipulated. If that's the case then it needs to be stated clearly on the image page.--
YFB¿ 21:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)reply
To be fair, the shadows below the fruit are pretty consistent with a single hard light source, just right/above the camera, overexposing a white paper BG and leaving an underexposed shadow; it looks like a grey BG cut-out but it's not. Probably shot at the same time, too, although in these clinical shots it's no big deal if it's a comp or not, IMO. I'm pretty sure the shadow on the whole apple is an afterthought in Photoshop, probably using the "burn" tool, in an attempt to add back some spherical form to the flat-looking fruit.
mikaultalk 22:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Hmm, I think you're right about the burning but I'm still not 100% convinced about the shadows. EXIF says flash was used, and the popup flash (directly above the lens axis) would place the highlight in about the right place on the whole apple, but in that case I'd expect the shadow to fall more to the right of the subject; here the strong shadow on the whole apple suggests a light source offset slightly to the right. IAN
AA. It's pretty much academic as I can't see this being promoted, but it would be interesting to get Benjamin444's explanation. --
YFB¿ 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I used PS for general image enhansments only. I rotated the cross-section apple a couple of degrees just to get it level but it is a single shot, taken in sunlight with no other light source (no flash), no isolation or cuting and copying. The background was just white paper, which I lightened more toward the edges of the image to make it fade out a bit. I did no dodging or burning and I didn't play around with shadows. apart from lightening the edges I made only global adjustments. see scren dump Why would I bother compositing this and burning shadowns in? no don't worry, just tell me what can be improved and I'll do another. --
Benjamint444 03:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)reply
True, a 16 in the Flash EXIF-tag means Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode[3]. But load the image into any Editing program and yank up the contrast. You'll see that the dark shadow on the right apple extends into the bg at approx 2 o'clock. By the way, why didn't the left half tip over? --
Dschwen 06:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I'd be happy to support FPCs of otherwise uninteresting subject if the image is of high-quality, but in this case the lighting drowns the detail of the cut half and the shadows are less than ideal. Having shadows both on the right side of the right apple and behind both is confusing (especially when you didn't use a flash). -
Mgm|
(talk) 10:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)reply
OK, here is a screen shot showing all the layers in the image (luckily I save as TIFF). Hopefully it will clear this up. As I was putting it together I noticed a couple of layers that make quite large changes, So I understand if people think they should have been declared, but in all honesty I think that they are fairly trivial things and I don't believe that it needs a picture retouched tag just for them. Especealy considering the nature of this shot If the general consensus is that basic enhansments need to be detailed in the image description then I will rectify this image and add those details to my future uploads. The image in the top left of the screen dump is the original, complete with grit on the paper and a stick to prop the apple up. I've never done a shot like this before so my editing was fairly rambling because I was just experimenting with it. --
Benjamint444 11:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I just realised what caused the shadow, I took some of the shots with a mirror behind them to direct as much light onto the paper as possible, (experimenting) and that would make a shadow on both sides. --
Benjamint444 11:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC) anyway, I've uploaded the screenshot. The left half was propped with twigs (the whole image was a mess from the start)reply
It looks more likely to have come from the active curves adjustment layer which lightened the apple in the centre but not the edges. In any case, I wouldn't be discouraged by the negative votes here if I were you, just take on the comments and have another go. Maybe diffuse the light with paper or a bedsheet or whatever. Try lighting more from the side for better form and detail. White backgrounds are ok for this kind of shot but far from obligatory (black? a darker green?) and apples fit into a number of simple, everyday backgrounds without being overpowered by them. You cetainly seem keen enough and know how to use a camera, so why not go for it? In the main, spend more time setting up the original shot, and less in photoshop, and you'll get 100% better results straight away.
mikaultalk 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Good visual representation of an aircraft flying a challenging approach into DCA. No "subject cut off" comments please as the Lincoln Memorial isn't intended to be the main subject.
Support as nominator —
Noclip 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Added edit 1: unsharp masking, levels, curves adjusted.
J Are you green? 03:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Looks like Technicolor now. --
Dschwen 07:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Apart from thinking it could use a little more headroom on the top I find it aesthetically pleasing. However as there is no indication of an airport in the pic I don't see how it represents the visual approach or how it documents it being difficult. There is a lot of space in the picture, which from a compositional standpoint is invested very well, but the enc return seems little to me. Convince me otherwise ;-) --
Dschwen 07:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Yeah I agree with Dschwen again. I'm not convinced it offers enough to the article. I look at the image and don't really learn anything about the airport or the River Visual approach other than its vaguely nearby the Lincoln Monument and a road.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 16:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)reply
oppose, this image doesn't tell me anything about the approach or its challenge level except that it's over DC (which is pretty obvious).
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 16:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, per Diliff and Night Gyr.--
Svetovid 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, I really don't like the distortion on the monument. To be honest, the image looks like a panorama of the monument, that happened to include passing plane by accident. Making this a FP about the plane is stretching it.
Stevage 02:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, Stevage couldn't have said it better. --
Phoenix2(
talk,
review) 03:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, there must be an angle in DC which shows how close the airport is to the city without... not showing the airport at all.
grenグレン 19:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
It's undoubtedly a foreskin, could hardly be more enc., and is a foreskin beyond repute! A little
purple fringing, but excellent detail in the foreground.
Historic photograph of the Taj Mahal from an unusual angle.
Samuel Bourne, one of the earliest photographers of British India, lived and photographed widely in India from 1863 to 1869. Along with
Charles Shepherd, one of the pioneers of albumin printing, he founded the Bourne and Shephard studios in
Simla,
Calcutta, and
Bombay. The studios continues to operate in Calcutta (Kolkata) today. Note that the river today does not flow as close to the Taj; from this angle today all you will see is the grass and sand of a "park." (See third photo, for comparison.) (See: Sampson, Gary D. 2000. "Photographer of the Picturesque: Samuel Bourne," in Vidya Deheja (ed.), India through the Lens. Photography 1840-1911. Washington, D. C., Smithsonian Institution, pp. 163-197. Also, Gordon, Sophie. 2000. The Imperial Gaze. The Photography of Samuel Bourne (1863-1870). New York, Sepia International.)
SupportWeak Support One of the precious and historical photographs. Low Resolution should not be considered as factor due to historical significance as per Point 2 of Featured pictures criteria. I will prefer copyright issues to be resolved without any ambiguity. Collect Britain web page give hints that it could be copyrighted--
Indianstar 03:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Awful photograph! But
they say it is copyrighted. Bad that a photo 147 years old should still be copyrighted. How did you remove that copyright tag? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
59.91.253.39 (
talk •
contribs). at 03:04, 4 June 2007
I downloaded it in November 2005, when there was no British Library tag on it! I don't think they are copyrighted. All they have done is to scan a Bourne image. In 2006, I wrote to BL asking them if I could put the picture on Wikipedia, but they never replied.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)reply
PS I can't imagine it could be copyrighted, since there were many prints made and sold by Bourne and Shephard Studios in the 19th century, and the British Library has only one of those prints (from which it made the scans).
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong support A great picture. --
Ba'Gamnan |
Talk 08:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)reply
oppose - bad compression artifacts (49k file!) A better scan might succeed.
Debivort 06:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I didn't realize that in cleaning up the picture, I compressed it further. I have now included the original scanned version with the orginal marks and blemishes.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Super strong SUPPORT: It is an excellent detailed picture of the historical Taj Mahal (one of the seven wonders of the world). Also, instead of the usual front view of the architectural structure, it shows a different yet equally amazing view of the marvelous building. Also, in terms of imagery, it has a good resolution and everything else. Universe=atom•
Talk•
Contributions• 16:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)reply
What wonders would that be?--
Svetovid 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)reply
He probably was noting that the Taj Mahal is not one of the definitive seven wonders of the ancient world: the Pyramid of Giza, Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Temple of Artemis, Statue of Zeus, tomb of Mausolus, Colossus of Rhodes, and Lighthouse of Alexandria.
J Are you green? 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)reply
No, it is not one of the seven ancient wonders (and it can't be one either because it was built around the sixteenth century, which is way after what ancient is), but it is one of the seven tourist travel wonders of the world. Universe=atom•
Talk•
Contributions• 11:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Haven't heard that one, but I doubt a difinitive list of ultimate tourist destinations exists, and if it does, my guess is that it's a gimmick.
J Are you green? 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - cant see anything special in this photograph except that its claimed to be very old. And the 'historic' pitch is moot because this photo doesnt show anything about the Taj that we cant see today.
Sarvagnya 22:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: What is special about this picture is that it shows a different yet equally beautiful view of the Taj, one that is different from the normal cliched one. Also, in this view, the picture is taken from a distance which also reveals the beauty of the nature (e.g. the river, soil, etc.) around the Taj while still succeeding in maintaining the focus on the Taj. Also, its historical value should be appreciated. Universe=atom•
Talk•
Contributions• 12:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)reply
*Oppose *weak supportprobably a low quality digitization of the original, and actual building hasn't been destroyed, damaged or changed much since this photograph was taken
Bleh999 00:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I change my vote to weak support of edit .02 in light of the information about the river, also I removed the color image of the taj mahal, because it's not a fair comparison
Bleh999 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The river doesn't flow as close to the Taj any more. From this angle today, all you will see is the grass and sand of a "park." See third photograph above for comparison.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment An unnecessarily poor version of a beautiful photograph. At first I thought the worst of it was the fogged upper half of the original print, but the scan is just too small to proprly appreciate the image in almost any respect. You get an idea of the exquisite detail of the original print
here, where the "zoom" facility lets you see a small portion at a time of what appears to be the print at 100%. Stunning. The below-par submission here should not be promoted without a proper attempt to acquire a better scan.
mikaultalk 10:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose until a better version is uploaded. I'd be happy to attempt to contact the source and get hold of it, assuming no-one has recently done so of course.
mikaultalk 10:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, Mick Stephenson did hear from them. He is currently talking to the BL people to work some kind of an arrangement for the image.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Some kind of arrangement? Mike is not gonna have to pay for them to scan a high res copy is he? The license seems alright, so I'm assuming you don't need permission to use a high res version. Jumpingcheese 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: Neutral about the candidacy, but the
OR about the changing distance between
Yamuna and the
Taj Mahal doesn't make much sense given the overwhelming temporal non-uniformness of precipitation in the Indian subcontinent -- On an average 90-odd days of flood and practically no rain for the remaining 275 days in the year. If you go there often in different seasons, you'll know that the "distance" depends upon the time of the year. A good rain for a couple of days, that the river comes all the way on the Taj.
deeptrivia (
talk) 01:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose The quality of the picture (both the photograph and this version) is just not good enough. Sure it's old, and what can you expect, but I don't think this should be featured.
Althepal 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose low res scan of old picture does not make a featured picture.
Stefan 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
We are waiting for the high res version. See Mick Stephenson's (Mikaul) post above.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - In all fairness, I think we've waited long enough and I think this nom ought to be closed. Mikaul should re-nom it if and whewhen he is able to get permission for the hi res version.
Sarvagnya 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm ok with that, assuming the original nominator is too. I had hoped to have a result by now, but these things seem to take time :o/
mikaultalk 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)reply
No, I am not OK with it. Mick Stephenson (Mikaul), a professional photographer, has made a big effort to talk to the people at British Library. There is no reason why we can't wait, since Mick's chances of success are quite good, and his effort promises other bounties for Wikipedia. Besides the wait doesn't involve any active effort on anyone else's part. Mick can certainly take over as the nominator when the high res image arrives, but I'd prefer to have the history of the nomination in one place rather than two.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)reply
SUPPORT - an excellent picture considering the time the pic was taken..
dtj 02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I think this should be closed, anyway we have this
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sambourneagra1860s.jpg on commons, which is a much higher resolution and better photo of the Taj Mahal by Samuel Bourne even if it doesn't show the river, the related problem is that this image doesn't even appear in any articles
Bleh999 07:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Reply to comment: The reason why it hadn't been added to the
Taj Mahal page and the
Samuel Bourne page is that I was waiting for the better version from Mick. I have now added the image to both pages. As for the other image, the reason why we are waiting for Mick to get the high-res version is that it is much better (both in composition and resolution) than the image you mention above. I wonder if Mick has any comments. Did you hear anything else from BL, Mick?
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't want to prejudice anything, but the British Library have made noises to the effect that they might be "interested in working with Wikipedia" with regard to some of their photographic collection(s). Release of a high-res version of the Bourne image, which was my original line of inquiry, is kind of tied up in these negotiations, which in turn have been hampered somewhat by the BL's need to do things by conventional mail. I'm still on the case, as it were, and optimistic though I am, it will probably take a while longer before I can shed any light on the Bourne image. If/when we get a suitable license, I'm hopeful it will open up access to more quality historical images, so it's kind of worth being patient a little while longer.
mikaultalk 09:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Digital images and snail mail! Now there's a new one, but par for the course for libraries, who (it seems) have been dragged kicking and screaming into internet age. Thanks for pursuing this, Mick. I know it is slow and frustrating work, but as you said yourself somewhere, the payoff could be substantial. As for this nomination, I'm happy to wait; if, however, at any time in the future, you feel that the nomination is "stuck" and it is time to pull the plug, please let us know. You are pretty much calling the shots on this. Thanks again,
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose In short: this is not WP's best.
Puddyglum 18:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Why are we using an old black and white from the 1800s? Isn't the Taj Mahal still standing? --
ffroth 19:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)reply
See the nom, and the additional image uploaded to illustrate. The river no longer runs alongside. I actually think it has wider enc value, but it looks as if it'll have to wait until a future nomination anyway. I'm still hopeful of a high res version but if nothing transpires by the end of next week I'm going to suggest a close on this one, it's been around way too long. --
mikaultalk 19:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Withdraw the nomination Since I heard from Mick Stephenson that the British Library is not coming through on this, in spite of his more than a dozen attempts (see
here), I am now formally withdrawing the nomination. I am sure other lovers of the Bourne image will agree that Mick has done a stalwart job and deserves our collective thanks.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment what's up with the dots at 100%? I don't believe there were any printing methods back in 1873 that created dots like that. Maybe there was a weird texture on the paper? Or maybe the scanner was set for the wrong setting (like maybe it was set to scan halftone)?-
Andrew c 04:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Drat, you're right. I think something happened in the photocopying process (can't take archives out of a library) that messed it up. I'll withdraw the nomination, and get a clean, fresh copy. or, at least, confirm that the original looks like that.
Adam Cuerdentalk 04:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn by nominator pending better version/confirmation of appearance of originalNot promoted --
Makeemlighter (
talk) 03:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Higher quality image than many others used in aviation articles, and illustrates the engine swap described in the Super Seventy series section of the DC-8 Article.
Proposed caption
N829BX, a BAX Global DC-8-71(F), taxis for takeoff at Boeing Field in Seattle. Note the high-bypass CFM-56 engines unique to the Super Seventy series.
Articles this image appears in
Douglas DC-8
Creator
Frederick Gay
Support as nominatorKc0abh 08:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)reply
A high resolution image of the anthers and stigmas. Anthers and Stigma are part of the essential whorls of a flower. Anthers form the male reproductive organs, Stamens. Whereas stigma are part of the carpels which are the female reproductive organs.
The hairy outgrowths on the surface of the stigma are resolved to a great extent. These aid in successful pollination.
The picture shows three beautiful
Atmospheric Optical Phenomena It is quite rare to see even one of these phenomena. It is much more rarer to see the three of them together. The picture also shows an interesting
Fog, which, as you could see, formed below the Bridge, leaving the Bridge alone. Please notice that the picture was taken in such a way that the North Tower of Golden Gate Bridge is seen, that gives a viewer a prospective view of the phenomena against the Bridge.
Highly deatailed, high resolution picture of EPCOT Center's landmark. Subject is centered and the Leave A Legcay granite stones have a nice foreground shot to lead up to the main subject. Lighting highlights wand and left-hand hand side of the item, without removing too much light from the right-hand side.
Support as nominatorEricd 21:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the nomination: I'd be pleased with the photo too but I'm afraid it doesn't meet FP standards, which are extremely high for reproducible photographs. To have a chance of passing, it would need to feature the whole building—cropping of the main subject will fail an FP nomination every time. Also (sorry to pile up the criticisms), it's a bit unsharp at full resolution and the noise would make increasing the
acutance problematic. ~
Veledan •
T 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm a bit surprised that FP standards are asking for something impossible. See the alternate picture. Also please notice that it's not noise, it's grain. Yes film has grain however the picture is sharp enough for a full magazine page.
Ericd 22:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Can you get a head on shot? The angle and the tree kind of kills it. Not a bad pic, but I sure a better one can be taken. Jumpingcheese 22:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)reply
FP standards do frequently require the impossible—if it really is impossible to photograph the building without cropping it, then there is quite simply no possible FP of Cimiez monastery. But mine is just one opinion of course, others may feel differently. I didn't vote because I didn't think the issue was in doubt, but if it is I have to Oppose. But when you consider what competition you're up against for architectural pictures, you shouldn't take that too hard! Have a look at these at full size: ~
Veledan •
T 22:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Basically, need more building. Either get down the side, or get those cars out of the way to get the right shot, methinks.
Unschool 01:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)reply
And come at nigth with a metal saw to get rid of that barrier. Wear your basket shoes to run fast when the cops will come ;-).
Ericd 01:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn my nomination - Uploaded new and higher resolution version at
Media:Cimiez-new.jpg
I was surprised to see that this image had never been nominated before, considering that it is a classic in the field of information design, and Tufte's assessment. I first came across this image years ago in Tufte's book, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, and it has stuck in my mind ever since. He says on p. 40 of the book, "Minard's graphic tells a rich, coherent story with its multivariate data, far more enlightening than just a single number bouncing along over time. Six variables are plotted: the size of the army, its location on a two-dimensional surface, direction of the army's movement, and temperature on various dates during the retreat from Moscow".
Proposed caption
This
1861 diagram by
Charles Joseph Minard illustrates the
advance and retreat of Napoleon's army in Russia from 1812 to 1813. The thickness of the line indicates the size of the army. From left to right, the thick line on top shows the army crossing the
Neman River with 422,000 men, advancing into Russian territory and stopping in
Moscow with just 100,000 men. From right to left, the lower line shows the army returning west, including the disasterous
crossing of the Berezina River. Only a small fraction of Napoleon's army, approximately 20,000 men, survived. The lower portion of the graph shows the temperature during the army's retreat, in degrees below freezing on the
Réaumur scale. In his book, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, statistician and
information graphics designer
Edward Tufte says this map "may well be the best statistical graphic ever drawn."
Oppose The graphic is, of course, worthy of an FP. But this scan is small and extremely hard to read. I think we could reasonably expect to get a better copy of it.
Adam Cuerdentalk 08:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose because the writing is in French and we're running an English encyclopedia, also as Adam noted the writing is very small --
Hadseys 13:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)reply
I have found sharper versions but I need to make sure that there are no copyright problems. I'm going to move this to the Suspended Noms section while I investigate.
Kla’quot (
talk |
contribs) 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)reply
OK, sorry folks, I got so excited about this picture that I rushed to nominate it. I'm realizing now that the original includes some colour, and I can't find a high-quality colour version on Google so it will take me some time to get hold of one. I'll re-nominate then.
Kla’quot (
talk |
contribs) 06:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)reply
This picture might be of interest to people that use wikipedia to explore and learn about natural history.
Proposed caption
The summit of
Silver Star Mountain (1,338 Meters, 4,390 feet) an extinct volcano near
Battle Ground, Washington.
Mt St. Helens is in the background. This is near the location where
D. B. Cooper parachuted with a $200,000 ransom from the back of a Boeing 727 on Novermber 24, 1971.
Support as nominator Premier Tom Mayfair 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Support - Great image, excellent colors. Just like it overall. -
Enzo Aquarius 23:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Please read carefully the guidelines before nominating a picture, specially the first part about technical quality. The image is blurry and pixelated probably due to upsampling. -
Alvesgaspar 00:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose and recommend speedy close. Not close.
Matt Deres 00:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Sorry, I just can't afford a good camera. Is the picture really that bad? And I was so proud of my picture. :( Premier Tom Mayfair 01:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC) 01:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
| caption =A
Red-veined darter (Sympetrum fonscolombii) pic taken near
Călineşti-OaşLake in
Romania
| articles =
Dragonfly,
Insect,
Epiprocta
| creator =[[user:Mario1987|Mario1987]
| reason =It is a quality close up showing clearly the head and the body of the dragonfly
}}
Not promoted
Malformed. Expired.
Julia\
talk 18:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Seeing
the outdoor pic of Edwards promoted earlier, I had to find a better famous-person photo. The Edwards shot was outdoors in harsh lighting, he has shadows all over him, he's not centered in the image, his mouth is awkwardly open, the background is disgustingly blurry wasted space, and a microphone is covering his face. I saw a comment that we desperately need more pictures of famous people, so I figured a high profile person like the president would have a quality portrait, and I was right! The president's very high resolution, centered, traditional portrait shot isn't featured. I was shocked when I noticed. If you think it's too grainy maybe someone can downsample it a bit. Remember, this isn't politics people, it's about the image. Hope the FP cabal isn't anti-republican (probably are with
all your exotic pornographic fetishes D:).. just kidding! Please don't
WP:SNOWBALL me into oblivion!
Support as nominatorfrotht 04:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral; I take no sides when it comes to issues regarding Mr. Bush, and that includes this image. Yes, it is a very nice shot, no doubts about that, and it is large enough to qualify, but image quality is just terrible. If
Fir was here, he might be able to do something about it. --
AltirisHeliosExeunt 04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)reply
The Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is one of the best known birds of prey in the Northern Hemisphere. Like all eagles, it belongs to the family Accipitridae. Once distributed across North America, Europe and Asia, it has disappeared from many of the more heavily populated areas. It has a wingspan averaging over 2 m (7 ft) and up to 1m (3 ft) in body length. The Golden Eagle is one of twelve species of large eagles in the genus Aquila found worldwide. Latest research indicates it forms a worldwide superspecies with Verreaux's Eagle, Gurney's Eagle and the Wedge-tailed Eagle.
High Resolution World Map Of Large-Format Print Quality
Proposed caption
This is a composite of the Physical and the Political World Maps from the CIA World Factbook website surrounded by images of constellations and a stary background from NASA.
Oppose reluctantly - it looks like the classic map, but there are a lot of unnecessary border elements, the png format would be better as a jpg and mostly the smallest text is not legible at full rez.
deBivort 22:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted —
Julia\
talk 21:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)reply
A woderful piece of international photography, influencial and powerful in its message.
Proposed caption
The incident took place just a minute away from Tiananmen on Chang'an Avenue, which leads into the
Forbidden City,
Beijing, on 5 June 1989, the day after the Chinese government began cracking down violently on the protests in
Tiananmen Square. The man stood alone in the middle of the road as the tanks approached. He held two bags, one in each hand. As the tanks came to a stop, he appeared to be trying to wave them away. In response, the front tank attempted to drive around the man, but the man repeatedly stepped into the path of the tank in a show of
nonviolent action. This photo was taken from the sixth floor of the Beijing Hotel, about half a mile away, through a 400mm lens.
Shows a memorial of an
historic event and adds significant to wikipedia. When I first saw this, I was surprised this wasn't already a featured picture.
Support as nominator—
Noah¢s(
Talk) 20:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Please, submit this to
picture peer review instead. Quality needs sorting out first. --
mikaultalk 20:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Quality aside both images seem poorly oriented, I cannot tell how large the chairs are. I think we need a 3rd image. --
Catchi? 11:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted —
Julia\
talk 21:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)reply
This image depicts
Florence Nightingale, considered the founder of
nursing, giving aide to the victims of the
Crimean War along with her company of volunteer nurses. There are quite a few images that display Nightingale's actual provision of care to her
patients. Linked to this image is the article
Nightingale's Environmental Theory which is one her first theories and still the basis of nursing practice today.
Proposed caption
Florence Nightingale, also known as the Lady with the Lamp, providing care to wounded and ill soldiers during the
Crimean War
This map is not only beautiful, it provides an thorough overview of the geography of the Olmec Heartland, the locations and relative size of the major Olmec sites, and the locations of other important Olmec finds. I wish all my maps did such a fine job of combining elegance and utility.
Proposed caption
Map of the Olmec heartland showing the major cities and towns (in yellow), and archaeological finds unassociated with settlements (in red).
Oppose Unappealing lighting (no texture in camera front or lens - almost totally dark), cut-off neckstrap distracts. --
Janke |
Talk 19:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Janke. No caption. What does Perfectly exempted mean?
deBivort 20:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose ack Janke. Would have needed more diffuse light from the front and the neckstrap should have been draped around the back of the camera to avoid cut-off. --
Dschwen 20:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose because of composition, as mentioned, and because the lens shield and reflection on lens are blurred/have grain. I'll defer to Dschwen as to why.
Enuja(talk) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Poor cropping, tilted, strap cut off, generally uninspired and uninspiring. --
mikaultalk 11:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Knee-jerk oppose The cut-off strap is an instant killer.
Samsara (
talk •
contribs) 12:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. For different reasons than the ones mentioned. The most prominent objects in the image are the lens and flash rather than the camera, which the image is supposed to be representing. The ideal image would be of the camera with no lens attached, or at the least with a minimally distracting 50mm lens on it, or something similar. Perhaps a kit lens if not.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 12:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I mainly made the image for the Nikon article - and therefore its probably OK to take a nikon camera with a nikon lens and a nikon flash. --
83.151.18.245 (
talk) 12:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Not promoted --
Dusty777 17:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)reply
A nice picture of an interesting member of the South American wildlife. A quite difficult picture to take, considering the impassible behavior of that animal.
A dramatic photograph taken at some personal risk: a major fire rages quite close to the rooftop where this was shot 102 years ago when camera equipment was heavy and required a tripod. If the wind had shifted in the photographer's direction a swift evacuation would have been difficult. This event was one of the worst natural disasters in United States history.
Original Photographer: Chadwick, H. D. (US Gov War Department. Office of the Chief Signal Officer.) Edits by
Durova (scratch and artifact removal, rotation). Original unretouched upload available at
Image:Sfearthquake3.jpg
High-quality image. Balance is excellent as the building and flag compliment each other along a diagonal plane. The left side, dominated by the light of the building, is offset as the flag reflects light above the shadowed side of the building, which retreats from prominence gradually. The flag, nearly perfectly flying in the breeze, clearly shows the name “Oklahoma” exactly opposite to the building’s “State of Oklahoma”.
Oppose Image is noisy, the flag is cut off and obstructs the view of the building (which is also cut off).
CillaИ ♦ XC 23:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose noisy and unencyclopedic composition.
Clegs (
talk) 04:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose - way too noisy, JPG compression artifacts. —
Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above. Cut off, tilted, non-encyclopedic composition.
Spikebrennan (
talk) 14:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Unless there is support within a day I will go ahead and retract this nomination.
Okiefromoklaquestions? 19:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately it most likely won't gather any support because of its very narrow illustrative value; the visual context is just too narrow. It would do much better over at Commons, where encyclopedic value isn't a criterion and artistic merit can come forward. If you have any more up your sleeve, it's always a good idea to pre-nominate prospective wikipedia FPs at
Picture Peer Review, gives you a chance to iron out annoying technicalities like these first. --
mikaultalk 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Apart from fulfilling FPC requirements, this photograph is unique in sense that to my knowledge there is no photograph on the web showing a Dandelion in this state