Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.
For promoted entries, add {{VPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} to the bottom of the entry, replacing FILENAME.JPG with the file that was promoted.
For entries not promoted, add {{VPCresult|Not promoted| }} to the bottom of the entry.
Do NOT put any other information inside the template. It should be copied and pasted exactly, and only the first one should have FILENAME.JPG replaced with the actual filename.
Support Nice image.
Lorax (
talk) 01:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Composition seems nice -- it's the image quality that's lousy. However still a pretty good close-up of the volcano.
Fletcher (
talk) 02:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support per above. ZooFari 18:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:Augustine Volcano Jan 12 2006 edited-1.jpg --
Intothewoods29 (
talk) 23:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The only image that effecively illustrates the appearance of Frog Cakes, a GA. Without an image like this, the article would be not be able to be described with words only.
Oppose: The wrapper makes it difficult to visualize the base of the frog cake and thus does not give a complete idea of the shape of the frog cake. --
RedtigerxyzTalk 13:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment Not to disrespect the image, creator, or promoter, but isn't the point of VP to have exceptional EV? Wouldn't that imply that an image is used in multiple locations, having many uses? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 23:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Actually, the quasi-consensus view is almost exactly the opposite -- that we want images that are strong in one article (at least), as we've noticed people will sometimes sprinkle an image into a bunch of articles, even though it's not a really compelling image for any of them. You may wish to read
WT:VPC#My next idea - nominator decides on ONE article and add a dissenting view if you disagree.
Fletcher (
talk) 03:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks for that Fletcher. I proposed a new comment after that. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 03:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support I don't think the wrapper is obscuring too much, and the three colors show the different styles it can be made. You don't get to see inside it as much as the "dissected" frog cake also on that page, but you can see inside enough to tell it looks just like cake.
Fletcher (
talk) 03:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose Weak Support I don't see how this image is educational, especially since you lacked description. Valued pictures is not just about beauty, quality, or impressions; it is also about how educational and value it has, not just for the article, but for Wikipedia as well. If this wasn't the case, we would have thousands of nominations already. ZooFari 23:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support I'd possibly prefer to see a wide variety of chocolate snacks, but it works well with the article caption.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 00:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Generally, a very good picture --
Numyht (
talk) 18:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I have uploaded a new version of the file with a blank background in case you might be interested. If you choose this file, re-upload it over the original file, since the original has alot of information that can't be transferred. ZooFari 18:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support, prefer original (at the moment) per above. The alternate isn't very well cut out, particularly near the top of the stack and chops off some of the white chocolate.
MER-C 08:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)reply
IMO, The image is encyclopaedic because 1. The shrine (lingam) is accessible only for a month every year 2. The pilgrimage to Amarnath is 42 km track on foot, through mountaineous terrain. Not many people are going to do that for a photo for wikimedia. 3. In recent years, the lingam is melting quickly due to global warming see
Amarnath_temple#2007_melting_controversy. Also the image is fairly big, complying to Featured pic (>1000 pixels) resolution.
Comment I believe there is another file at commons. Place {{db|reason}} and use the file at commons.
No, I think now that it's a VPC, we need a en:wiki page for keeping the VPC template, etc.
Intothewoods29 (
talk) 17:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I think it's ok now.
Fletcher (
talk) 04:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)reply
It's OK to delete the image on en wikipedia just as VPC
File:Swami Vivekananda-1893-09-signed.jpg was deleted recently. Just add {{VPC|Amarnath}} again to the image description page after deletion of the image itself. --
RedtigerxyzTalk 13:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Large image showing the border crossing from Tijuana, Baja Mexico, into San Diego, California. Notes the volume of traffic seen by
U.S. Customs and Border Protection on a daily basis and also shows some ways in which locals make money from selling trinkets and souvenirs.
Support EV seems most applicable to
border checkpoint, where it has been in the article long enough to be eligible. Seems like it could have the most EV in that article, showing both the checkpoint and the hellish traffic leading up to it.
Fletcher (
talk) 03:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment The lighting is terrible in this picture. Maybe something could be done with the reflected light of the wall --
Muhammad(talk) 15:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong Support I can overlook the technical flaws for its massive EV within the project. Although a touch up could help. Either way I still support. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 00:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Regretful Oppose If size was the only concern, I would have supported but the lighting is not ideal and as per the discussion on the talk page, IMO this fails to meet the requirement. --
Muhammad(talk) 09:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
All valid points, but don't forget this is used in over 25 articles and has substantial EV, the #1 reason for valued picture status. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 20:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
But if we lower the bar this much, then I'm afraid any picture could be eligible for VP status. IMO the picture should at least look good in thumbnail. --
Muhammad(talk) 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)reply
See my
comment on the talk page. I'm worried that's already the case (though I'm not so worried about quality as much as EV; though that's not to say quality isn't important - but I believe this successfully illustrates the subject)... ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 03:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --ZooFari 19:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I can't support this until there is a referenced mention of this defensive pose somewhere in one of the articles.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 02:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support - Very cool. Would we make this into a valued set? Loses some of its cool if it's not a pair. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Might be our first valued set. Why not?
DurovaCharge! 18:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support I definitly agree with the above statement. It should be a pair or it will lose its "cool" ZooFari 18:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose The stitching is pretty bad on the flickr version distorting the geometry a lot (look at the wavy horizon) and the two don't line up in position or field of view very well. Landmarks are still visible in both though which does make the oppose weak.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 02:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)reply
While I very much respect the opinions of Mr.
NS, I think that VPC is here to offer extraordinary EV such that that while the image may not be a perfect panorama, the jist is given by a lower quality photo and meets the expectations and criteria of VPC. It's also not the exact same vantage point, but the idea gets across remarkably well for this pair of images. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 04:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Noodle snacks and the fact that the match between the photographs could be better. Presumably, the 1911 version was taken from the top of a building or height somewhat closer to the water.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 13:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above. There seems to be an IMO mistaken view that there are no technical standards at VPC. The 'new' one is sloppy, in particular that big downhill slope at right (unless this place has undergone a huge earthquake in the last century causing it to collapse to the right). And the images don't align very well at all, except for the island in the middle. FWIW the arrangement and alignment of the pair in the actual article is also poor. I would be far more inclined to support just the old version by itself. --
jjron (
talk) 15:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support - Never heard of this, but seems to have respectable EV and quality meets expectations since it's SVG. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Not promoted - no quorum. --
jjron (
talk) 12:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The image depicts the
Matrika goddesses on their mounts, their features, weapons and mounts are discussed in the Matrikas article. Also, the legend depicted is described in
Devi Mahatmyam, Matrikas,
Chamunda (one of the Matrikas).
Comment - I know we don't have explicit size requirements, but 640×377 seems a bit low. I can't refute its EV though. Other comments on this? I'd like to read more input. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 00:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Another nomination set: a restored portrait of lyricist
Noble Sissle and a restored period sheet music cover to one of his most famous songs, "
I'm Just Wild About Harry". Noble Sissle was part of a team that broke the color barrier in Broadway theater with the 1921 show Shuffle Along; this was its most popular number and was later selected by President
Harry Truman as his election campaign song in 1948. These two files correspond to the featured sound
File:Eubie Blake - Just Wild about Harry.ogg for the "A recording, a score, and a portrait" series at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Restoration.
Support Good resolution and EV. --
RedtigerxyzTalk 16:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Original. Effective enough photo of the man in question. I can't understand how they form a 'set' though - remove the cover sheet from the article and it doesn't detract from the photo. So just support original. --
jjron (
talk) 15:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Well-known image of the destruction of the German Zeppelin Hindenburg. I don't think it's up to FPC quality, even given its age, so I promoted it here, where I think it's a shoe-in anyway. Happy !voting.
Strong Support Wow, the Hindenberg. Strong support for a picture documenting a significant historical accident. The photo has great encyclopaedic value. Elucidate(
light up) 14:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support. I wonder if the video of this is freely available? I have viewed it on the internet, though not sure of licensing, but if so that could be good for FPC. --
jjron (
talk) 15:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support original Strong oppose Alt- The rainbow doesn't fit in with the picture, especially since it is not raining in the image. The rainbow also appears to come to an end on an exact location, especially the area in which it is clear of clouds. Rainbows don't normally appear like this in the current posture of the view. Additionally, I don't like the perspective of the alt. You can distinguish the smoke from the clouds easier with the original image. ZooFari 23:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
On second thought, this image is not in any article that describes this event. It only says that this is where Pele lives in this crater according to the Legend. ZooFari 00:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)reply
May I please ask you what you mean that rainbows don't normaly appear this way? Sure they do in Hawaii. Here's for example an image by
usgs.gov from
this site.--
Mbz1 (
talk) 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose - Not much EV until it's added to
Halemaumau Crater,
Kīlauea,
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (even if you do just add it to the gallery), and maybe even
pit crater (could replace first image, methinks). I would say withdraw the current nom, place the image in at least some of those articles, then renominate in the beginning of March. Right now, using it solely in Pele isn't good enough. Oh, and while I love the fact that there's a rainbow in the alt (I know how tough it is to get one in any shot), I would only support the original (and should you place it in at least a couple more articles, I will support). I also updated the caption (and would suggest you use the new caption on the file page as the caption for your nom). ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose alternate: Out of place raindow. Original: Not much EV in
Pele (deity). Should be placed in relevant articles then nominated after 1-2 month(s). --
RedtigerxyzTalk 16:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Hi everybody. Thank you for voting and commenting on my images. If I may I'd like to say that a rainbow never is out of place. The image with the rainbow was published in two magazines in India and Germany (both times on the cover),
here's one. It was also published at NASA site
here (scroll down). BTW how about this
rainbow that I photographed from a helicopter, or this one
at Zanzibar are they also out of place? And how about this image of mine ? Out of place again? Thank you.--
Mbz1 (
talk) 05:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose and speedy close It is a rhyme!--
Mbz1 (
talk) 02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - I admit that I just added this photo to
Hollywood Sign. It replaced a much
lower quality image and I expect it will remain there for a long time (unless of course a higher quality image comes in to replace it). That said, I know some will not like this, but in all fairness, the image has already been featured in
Los Angeles,
California,
Southern California, and
United States. These articles are by definition more encyclopedic than
Hollywood Sign, so this image has its EV and has met the time requirement in more encyclopedic articles. I added it to
Hollywood Sign because it obviously belongs there, but it doesn't add much EV in all honesty. So please !vote on its previous EV in the other articles and consider its addition to
Hollywood Sign supplemental. Thanks! ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 21:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Y casts a shadow on W. H is blocked by some bushes. The earlier image in the
Hollywood sign infobox (
File:Hollywoodsign (1).jpg) does not have these problems (but occupies a very small portion of the img), so a better quality photo of the sign from that prospective (angle) can be created.--
RedtigerxyzTalk 16:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I noticed that the filename of this image seems to be the default from the camera. The picture would be more useful, and easily found, if the filename were changed to be descriptive.
Sophus Bie(
talk) 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Effectively illustrates
Tule fog, a special regional kind of fog, in an orchard. Also illustrates Valley fog in
Fog and Climate in
Central Valley (California)
Oppose. Sorry, but to me it doesn't really look that foggy, I have no idea from this photo how this 'tule fog' is different from any other fog (and I'm not really sure if you can show that, but I don't know enough about it to say), and I'm buggered if I can tell where the orchard is - it looks like it's showing a road to me. (Maybe some others can disagree with me, but I'm at least trying to get some voting started on some of these.) --
jjron (
talk) 15:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose To me it looks like any other fog. Actually, It doesn't look like fog in the image. It looks more like an image with low contrast. ZooFari 17:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose This picture doesn't show to me the difference between tule fog and any other fog.
Sophus Bie(
talk) 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose I am afraid I see absolutely no thick ground
fog at the image. IMO the image should be removed from the
fog and
Tule fog articles after the nomination is clossed. Here's how
Tule fog looks
File:Fog at night.jpg. Sorry.--
Mbz1 (
talk) 03:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)reply
An iconic image of the 1970s and one of the more historical images of 20th century American history. Being the only US President to ever resign the office, Nixon waved farewell with his trademark
V-sign even during such a negative moment of his life and US history. Admission is made to its small size, but the historical and encyclopedic value is extraordinary.
Oppose. I was going to support till I looked at it 'fullsize'. I know there's no definite size restrictions here, but I use my basic definition that it has to be big enough to show necessary details, and I don't think this is - maybe about twice this size would do it for me here. I also wonder why if it's copyright free as stated on the image page, why it isn't available at a decent size. --
jjron (
talk) 15:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Newest addition to the campus of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. This is a performance hall that opened in October 2008. It was a controversial move on the part of the administration (cost
$220M) but has some of the best acoustics in any performance hall in the world. Has been nicknamed "The Ark" due to the look of the wood paneling on the exterior of the main concert hall (wood paneling seen in the photo behind glass wall). The building is now one of the most notable edifices on the top of the hill in
Troy, New York.
Oppose: I can not comprehend the EV of a corner of the building. Isn't an entrance a more recognizable representation of a building. Also, I see a car parked at the bottom of the photo, which is an eyesore. --
RedtigerxyzTalk 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I'll just point out that this is the iconic view of the building. Have a look at the
gallery. The entrance isn't much to really note and other angles don't show much. It's a weird architectural design in that way. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Iconic, it is. But I still see the car as an eyesore. --
RedtigerxyzTalk 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. I like the shot and I'm not too worried about the vehicle, but isn't building cutoff at the right? Obviously I don't know the place, and can't see anything in the gallery to clarify, but isn't it possible to actually get the whole building? --
jjron (
talk) 15:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I guess that's a fair point and hadn't thought of that.
File:EMPAC SW Face.JPG shows the building from the other end. I cut it off essentially because that's not the iconic part of the building. The "Ark" as it's known is the main performance hall and that's what I was trying to capture. !vote as you will with this new info. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 16:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)reply
OK, there's not that much of interest there where it's cutoff - I wouldn't particularly expect a shot from this angle to capture the whole stone wall along the bottom say. But it does concern me that we can't see the edge of the building. Hmmm - I'm probably tending towards a weak oppose for that reason. Is this a place that's easy for you to get back to and rephotograph? --
jjron (
talk) 13:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, in fact I intend to replace this image by summer with one I take with my new camera. But getting that stone wall in the photo is near impossible (even if it makes it, it will be barely identifiable; I was about 100m from where the other photo was taken.). ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Good image and good caption--
Mbz1 (
talk) 03:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Note - Needs more !votes before archive or promotion... thanks.
Ceran→//forge 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose per my comments and discussion above. Would support the proposed new version that doesn't cut off the building. And FWIW if an image doesn't get enough 'votes' it ultimately means it's not promoted, it doesn't wait indefinitely for them to come. --
jjron (
talk) 12:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)reply
No consensus=Not promoted --
Ceran→//forge 12:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Very clear and educational. As of Updated Nomination- This image taken by a graphical scanner (which tends to implement better details and somewhat easier to shadow in), shows great detail of the toepads and skin of the downward side of a Mediterranean house gecko. Second attempt for VP, as earlier nomination hadn't had a one-month elapse.
Support as nominator --ZooFari 03:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Previous comments
Comment Why is it in black and white? You need a scientific name in the caption and image description page too. I'd also ask you too add it to the right category at commons too (scientific name).
Noodle snacks (
talk) 06:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)reply
(per below as well) The scientific name is Hemidactylus turcicus (Mediterranean house gecko)(which I will add to that article as well). It is in black and white because I used it to better implement the shapes, textures, and shades for the lizard. These geckos are white-peach from underneath and didn't display the details I wanted when I scanned it. Therefor, I scanned it in black and white using a graphical high quality scanner (per below). ZooFari 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. You say it's a 'scan' - I'm not actually sure what you mean and the image page doesn't clarify. Have you stood this gecko on a simple document scanner and just scanned from below, or have you used some more hi-tech scanning process? Additionally it has only just gone into
gecko and was removed from
house gecko back
in August after having been in the article for only a couple of months, and has only just gone back in the last day or so. For these reasons I would say is not eligible under the 'one month' rule - vandalism or not it's been out of the article longer than it's been in it. FWIW, frankly it's far too big and prominent in that article for what it is and what it's illustrating, and perhaps that's why it was removed, and is really a bit big and awkward in gecko too. --
jjron (
talk) 08:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I described some of the comments you brought up on the above discussion. Also, I have now fixed the image in the articles to be more article-friendly. ZooFari 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment/Possible Speedy close - Before Zoofari added the image to
house gecko, it had been removed since August 27th. As for
gecko, it looks like it's only been in that article for a short amount of time. Thus, the question is: do we still allow the image to go through because it was in the house gecko article for a month a while ago, or do we speedy close it because it has not been in the article since a month ago?
Intothewoods29 (
talk) 22:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)reply
This is something we should consider, that way we can add it to the criteria page. We should discuss this on the discussion page soon... ZooFari 22:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy close per author of image. ZooFari 22:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Adding nom again - the above comments were for a different nomination.
Intothewoods29 (
talk) 02:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support--
Mbz1 (
talk) 05:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Interesting subject and technique. Good EV. Elucidate(
light up) 14:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak Support - while this is very detailed I am not convinced that it shows the subject as well as
File:Hemidactylus turcicus on a wall in Greece.jpg so perhaps it may not pass criteria 2. -
Peripitus(Talk) 02:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC) - changing after some consideration. This is the only picture I can see that gives such quality to the toepads and underside.... The toes in particular an important part of the animal -
Peripitus(Talk) 05:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Actually, the image was ment to show only details of the underside belly, tail, and (especially) toepads. I read many information on geckos that describe the toepads, but it was a shame that there were no photographs that showed good details of it as this one. So I figured I should add this to VPC ;) ZooFari 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:House gecko scan.JPG --ZooFari 19:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Unspeakable EV, but way too low res to be FP. Also well illustrates that she was blind and deaf, that she was looking away from the camera. Let's hope that here, Helen Keller will conquer again. (quote about her)
Comment I just uploaded a higher-res image. Now potentially could be FP, though the quality still isn't the best.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 16:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Actually, I just found an even higher-res pic and uploaded it separately
here. This is probably the best Keller pic we have, probably FA quality too. Needs to have the lower-right label removed, though.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 18:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Alt 1. The original nom was very poor quality, it's updated version is a bit better, but quality is still weak. The alt version is pretty good quality though, even with the writing at the bottom, and what looks like a bit harsh lighting. Given it's essentially just a better version of the nommed image, I'm not concerned about the 'time in the article' as I believe that is satisfied. --
jjron (
talk) 11:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Best demonstration of this type of 19th Century heavy artillery I can see. Only one showing the gun crew, period uniforms, size of the weapon, firing action and (if you look closely) the friction tube type fuze flying through the air. I am not convinced that the lighting is sufficient (even with tweaking) to get near FP but heaps of EV from a very lucky shot. I processed the file as best as I could to give max detail given that the uniforms are black and the helmets white - slight blown area on the gun barrel from bright sunlight.
Support I agree with the nominator. This has great EV.
Sophus Bie(
talk) 22:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support per nominator ZooFari 03:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support --
Mbz1 (
talk) 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support though a version with more on the right to show all the smoke would be preferable.
Time3000 (
talk) 13:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)reply
You take your lumps with situations like this - my plan was to capture the gun and gun crew....just very lucky that the gun firing and shutter closing coincided -
Peripitus(Talk) 23:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:64 pounder gun firing - fort glanville.jpg --ZooFari 02:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment Whole thing needed a rewrite, so I did; and transcribed it to the image page at Commons. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support - Not very flattering; looks a bit like a
death photo. But good quality and high EV nonetheless. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support highly encyclopedic.
DurovaCharge! 05:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support quite a haunting image. --➨♀♂CandlewickeST# :) 17:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support A timeless black and white image. --
Leoboudv (
talk) 01:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
Mbz1 (
talk) 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support very good and highly educational. ZooFari 05:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support. I probably would have gone a little lower to put more of the cross in the sky, and a little further back to get the edge of the depression at right, and perhaps a little more 'head on', but all up it's a pretty good illustration of the place adding value to the article. --
jjron (
talk) 16:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Mostly I agree with Jjron :) Lower would have been better (with hindsight) however "head on" was not an option as the background would have not been sky at all then so the cross would not have been as visible. I guess it is one that I consider ok so Support & thanks. --
Herbytalk thyme 13:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I was wondering what other background there was, i.e., if there was a reason you'd gone for this angle rather than more head on. --
jjron (
talk) 08:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The ground rises steeply if the cross had been face on looking one way - in the other direction there would have been waaay too much sky. As with so much a compromise seemed the best answer! Cheers --
Herbytalk thyme 09:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The highest resolution image at WMF of one of the
Dead Sea scrolls. Already a valued image at Wikimedia Commons. Hebrew transcription included. English translation available
here.
Support per nominator.--
Mbz1 (
talk) 20:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose This isn't even the main image of the page. I don't think it passes the EV test if that's not the case. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Not promoted - no quorum. --
jjron (
talk) 13:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)reply
U.S. President
Barack Obama shakes the hand of
Beverly Eckert, the wife of a 9/11 victim. Eckert died in the
Continental Connection Flight 3407 crash one week after this photo was taken. As a non-American, the many ironies of this image struck me. The obvious airplane collides with building connection. The handshake from the new President Obama immediately prior to her death and the fact that 9/11 happened so early in G.W. Bush's Presidency. The image seems to capture the human fatal tragic reality of 9/11 and links it to this, what I suppose could be termed a comparatively much more minor but nonetheless horrific, incident as well as involving arguably the most important political figure in the world today.
Support as re-nominator This has now met its time requirement and I feel still merits a run here at VPC. Previous !votes can be found in the collapsed box below. This nom is exactly the same as it was during its previous run through here (when it was nominated by
Candlewicke). ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Thought this was a striking picture when I saw it in the crash article.
Fletcher (
talk) 11:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Support as original nominator. For all the reasons I've already given. --candle•wicke 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment Previous !votes have no weight on this iteration of nomination. If you !voted before, please consider !voting again. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 04:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Exceptional, one-off picture
Tphi (
talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Support I still stand by my origional support !vote :). All the Best,
Mifter (
talk) 02:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Support, highly encyclopedic and valuable.
J Milburn (
talk) 19:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Support - How horrible this circumstance was... on the flip side, highly encyclopedic and striking.
VX!talk 20:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Previous Votes
Support as nominator --➨♀♂CandlewickeST# :) 02:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong Support My God, talk about irony. How terrible. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 19:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong support per above.
Tphi (
talk) 21:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support--
Mbz1 (
talk) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong SupportMifter (
talk) 23:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose - not eligible. For starters both articles this was in are around a week old. The photo itself was taken on February 6, 2009, making it less than two weeks old. So it doesn't jump the first hurdle of having been in an article for at least a month. Honestly, there's been grumbles about the limited extent of the criteria at VPC already, and even those are just being totally ignored. Please! --
jjron (
talk) 05:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Good catch, John!--
Mbz1 (
talk) 15:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Actually, I would suggest that exceptional circumstances should be allowed. See my question on the
talk page. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose Probably should just speedy close it until it is eligible.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 13:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Not promoted - not eligible --
jjron (
talk) 13:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose: I see clouds in the sky and weeds in the front, New Norfolk is not clearly visible. A better pic without the weeds in the front is needed.--
RedtigerxyzTalk 09:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Weeds in the sense of "unwanted plants" in the pic. --
RedtigerxyzTalk 06:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose It would have been better if you would have captured the image a few feet closer to prevent the river from being obscured by the cliff ground. ZooFari 16:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose I also question the EV of this image. Add some content to the article and I may reconsider. :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Not promoted --
jjron (
talk) 13:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)reply
A high quality, striking and informative image of a significant fungi. Already featured on Commons and the Turkish Wikipedia, recently
failed a nomination here by a whisker.
This is a really interesting photo of one the most famous players in the history of cricket, though on the small side - will be interested in what people make of that. But, as we've said before, these type of photos are hard to source outside the US, and I believe you can see what you need to here. Has been in the infobox of
W. G. Grace for over a year (where oddly enough it was placed
by me, even though I have no recollection of having edited this article and can't remember why I did so :-) ).
Articles this image appears in
W. G. Grace is the obvious one, but about a dozen others
Creator
Unknown (1883)
Support as nominator --
jjron (
talk) 17:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support - best and most encyclopedic image of him we have - meets all the criteria -
Peripitus(Talk) 11:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Agree with Peripitus.--
Mbz1 (
talk) 20:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:WGGrace.jpg (I don't like promoting my own nom, but clear consensus, and no one else is closing.) --
jjron (
talk) 13:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Decent quality and good detail with good composition. Has been prominently featured in two articles for over 2½ years. Hard to get an image of this without heaps of tourists. Failed an FPC nom about 2 years back mainly due to some complaints about the sky at image left. Also a somewhat historical photo as this was taken about a month after the place opened. The architects who designed the gardens liked this image so much they bought it off me after seeing it on Wikipedia.
Support as nominator --
jjron (
talk) 15:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support very nice image and great EV.--
Mbz1 (
talk) 00:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support What is the source of uneven sky? Polariser?
Noodle snacks (
talk) 04:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Setting sun. No polariser, this was taken with my A95 compact, and back then I wasn't that comfortable with manual control, so I may well have taken the originals in auto. This was taken late afternoon (when the place was about to shut, so most visitors had left) and in mid-winter so the sun was pretty low in the west (image left). That lighting actually helps with some shadow and depth detail in the garden, but not so good for the sky. I intend to get back there sometime and try for better light in the sky, but not sure when would be a suitable time of year. Thanks all for votes. --
jjron (
talk) 16:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Don't know what it'd do to the gardens, but after sunset is a possibility. Moonlight exposed for long enough can still give you colour too (but it'd take hours to stitch the pano, and its difficult to focus).
Noodle snacks (
talk) 01:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)reply
And you'd have to break in to get the pic ;-). The Australian Garden is fenced off and you have to pay to get in, closing at I think 5pm. The rest of the Cranbourne gardens may stay open longer, though I seem to remember it being gated, so it may close as well before nightfall - regardless of that, you can only get a photo like this from inside the Australian Garden. --
jjron (
talk) 13:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Heh, I've been locked inside the Hobart botanical gardens on a number of occasions when I have lost track of time. It is pretty straightforward to leave or exit at any time of day if you know where. It would be difficult to go unnoticed in that environment though.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 06:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Oh yeah, this is a different setup from most botanic gardens. I really think you'd have to get locked in on purpose. To do so you'd have to prepare well in advance. This is in the back end of the (big) Cranbourne gardens themselves (really more like a nature reserve than a normal botanic gardens), so you'd probably have to ride your treddly in rather than driving or they'd see your car there in the Aust Gardens carpark. Then you may have to hide the bike outside, then find somewhere to hide around closing time inside in order to get locked in. It'd be quite an 'accident' ;-). --
jjron (
talk) 05:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:RedSandGarden-Pano-RBG-CranbourneVIC.jpg (I don't like promoting my own nom, but clear consensus, and no one else is closing.) --
jjron (
talk) 13:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Very good macro and IMO the image is fine with all the criterias.--
Mbz1 (
talk) 15:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose Sorry, limited EV. Not well used in Anthomyiidae, and Muscoidea is only one line long (save for the infobox). ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Not promoted - no quorum. --
jjron (
talk) 13:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Good idea :), I'll go open a
Picture Peer Review to see if other editors think this has a shot at being a FP :). All the Best,
Mifter (
talk) 23:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment: Is this not being ever so slightly biased? --➨♀♂CandlewickeST# :) 21:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm neutral about promoting this image to VP or FP, but I don't see how it can be interpreted as bias. The only connection is that he founded the project, which shouldn't necessarily preclude featured content relating to him. PeterSymonds (
talk) 01:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Not promoted - no quorum. --
jjron (
talk) 13:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Pretty high quality panorama of downtown Miami, Florida. Doesn't really meet FPC requirements. Sits nicely in three articles, therefore has reasonable EV.
Support, however, with a restitch I think you could just about get a FP out of this. Take a similar approach to the other miami image to correct the verticals. In advanced mode you can then go to "image parameters", adjust the exposure offset for each image until they match up, that should get rid of the banding in the sky. I'd sharpen it a bit afterwards. Try and darken the brighter segments rather than lighten the darker ones in order to avoid blown highlights.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 04:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I didn't notice anything relating to exposure under the Image Parameters. The help pages didn't seem to mention anything about exposure not relating to HDR. Am I missing something? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)reply
here is where to find it. The adjustment is in stops. It won't save you for HDR but if you accidentally leave a camera in Av or something then its pretty useful.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 01:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, weird; I don't have any of those columns. Is it a difference between regular and Pro? I don't have pro. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 02:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)reply
It may be, I don't really know. You could adjust the exposures in an external program (particularly easy if you have RAWs to work from), but it'd be more time consuming to get them to match. If PTgui won't do it then I know hugin (generally not as good) will output a panorama in such a format that each image is a separate layer in photoshop, you can then adjust it there.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 04:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Doesn't seem to be worth my time unfortunately. This is still up for vote here at VPC. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Not promoted - no quorum. --
jjron (
talk) 13:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - This was nominated earlier, but it was withdrawn because it didn't meet the time requirement in the article it has the most EV in. It passed the month requirement having been
added to
United States Capitol Rotunda on 11 January. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 23:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Not promoted - no quorum. --
jjron (
talk) 13:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)reply
High quality image that is already featured on Commons. Has been used as an illustration for the species article, Amanita caesarea since 2005 and has been used on
volva (mycology) since 2007. The picture is probably a little too blurry to be featured here, but it is certainly valued.