Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Miscellaneous Archive
| Featured picture tools |
|---|
Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.
C-17 Globemaster III edit
- Reason
- nice composition and meets criteria
- Articles this image appears in
- C-17 Globemaster III
- Creator
- Government foto
- Nominator
- Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs)
- Support — Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not promoted SpencerT♦C 03:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Chopper under wires close up edit
- Reason
- Because it's so damn cool!
- Articles this image appears in
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter
- Creator
- John Bosomworth
- Nominator
- Aequitas1234
- Support — Aequitas1234 19:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not promoted SpencerT♦C 03:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
"blu sky" edit
- Reason
- This picture shows the people and land vary of a place that a small number of people have ever been exposed too.
- Articles this image appears in
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakoram
- Creator
- Pierre
- Nominator
- Grosscha
- Support — Grosscha 23:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not promoted SpencerT♦C 03:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Tree of Life edit
- Reason
- It's very interesting being able to see all of the animals and by far the best JPG I've ever seen.
- Articles this image appears in
- Disney World, Disney's Animal Kingdom
- Creator
- Disney
- Nominator
- Why1991
- Support — Please look at it in big view before you judge it. :-) Why1991 01:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose it is of Fair use and therefor is ineligible for Featured picture. — Arjun 02:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Union Station at Dusk edit
- Reason
- Go ahead and tear it apart, a 32-piece panorama I'm sure everyone will find a ton of problems with.
- Articles this image appears in
- Union Station (Washington, D.C.)
- Creator
- User:Noclip
- Nominator
- Noclip
- Support — Noclip 05:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- ;-) 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)
- Or bring a ladder :-) --Dschwen 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment It was already downsampled from 14,000 pixels wide. Noclip 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Nomination withdrawn Has no chance succeeding, comments turning in to a circus (my fault). Noclip 18:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not promoted --Julia\talk 19:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Ducks in Sinaloa, Mexico edit
- Reason
- reason for nominating the picture
- Articles this image appears in
- a link to the article this image exists in
- Creator
- Thierry Massihians
- Nominator
- Thierrymassihians
- Support — Thierrymassihians 15:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not promoted --Julia\talk 19:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Grand Canyon- Indian Gardens Morning Smoke edit
- Reason
- The smoke creates a really interesting effect with the morning sunlight and it looks cool.
- Articles this image appears in
- Grand Canyon
- Creator
- Kmd15
- Nominator
- Kmd15
- Support — Kmd15 00:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Not promoted --Julia\talk 19:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Rongbuk Monastery, Tibet edit
- Reason
- A solid, classic representation of the Rongbuk Monastery with Mount Everest as a backdrop
- Articles this image appears in
- Rongbuk_Monastery
- Creator
- Chris Searl
- Nominator
- csearl
- Support — csearl 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sky High in Alp D'Huez edit
- Reason
- 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.
- Articles this image appears in
- {{{articles}}}
- Creator
- Dominic Kenneth Green
- Nominator
- Kaw75
- Support — Kaw75 01:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
{{{title}}} edit
- Reason
- {{{cool picture/game}}}
- Articles this image appears in
- {{{Tremulous}}}
- Creator
- Vector x
- Nominator
- Robin63
- Support — Robin63 02:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Tiger shark teeth edit
- Reason
- This picture looks great. Very encyclopedic.
- Articles this image appears in
- Tiger shark
- Creator
- Wikimedia Commons
- Nominator
- PYMontpetit
- Support — PYMontpetit 03:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
{{subst:FPCnom
| | 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
}}
Baby goats edit
- Reason
- The best picture of two sibling baby Goats I've seen
- Articles this image appears in
- Domestic goat
- Creator
- Fir0002
- Support as nominator — Arad 14:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- UH OH - Thanks for telling that. --Arad 14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This was already nominated further down the page. Please vote there. --Arad 15:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not promoted —Julia\talk 20:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. Julia\talk 20:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
title of the picture edit
- Reason
- reason for nominating the picture
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the articles that use this image
- Creator
- creator of the image
- Support as nominator — AndyDC 21:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Crater Lake, Oregon edit
- Reason
- Just a very beautiful photo I thought, adds great value to the articles its in
- Articles this image appears in
- Crater Lake, Oregon, Crater Lake National Park, Mount Mazama
- Creator
- Zainub / Commons page : [2]
- Support as nominator — Zainub 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please read the nomination procedure requirements more carefully. This nomination does not meet our size requirement. -Andrew c 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Opps, sorry, I'll remove the nomination then. --Zainub 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Starfield Optical Range - sodium laser edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2012 at 20:41:02 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is a very interesting and unique picture,there are not many other pictures like it (Matching its quality) and it is of very good quality.
- Articles in which this image appears
- FP category for this image
- {{{category}}}
- Creator
- Directed Energy Directorate, US Air Force
- Support as nominator --Crazy flying penguin1 11:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Z machine edit
- Reason
- Is this thing cool or what?
- Articles this image appears in
- Electromagnetic pulse, Z-pinch, Z machine, List of fusion experiments
- Creator
- Randy Montoya, Sandia National Laboratories
Support as nominator— howcheng {chat} 18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)- 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)
- Support. Most certainly has that "wow" factor. --Tewy 19:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support — It's way cool. — Zaui (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support — Wow factor indeed. 8thstar 20:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- Never mind. Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE has the answer. howcheng {chat} 06:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- Comment See previous comments (need to be an adminstrator to see the deleted page). --Duk 06:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not PD. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Zmachine.jpg. To keep the image at least, copy back to en: and make a fair use claim. Lupo 06:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Indian Parliament House, New Delhi edit
- Reason
- Its one of the most beautiful of the government buildings in the most pristine part of New Delhi. Its taken from the inside of a slow moving car.
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the articles that use this image
- Creator
- kantravi
- Support as nominator — Kantravi 06:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose since you really can't see the building, and the gardens from this point seem unimpressive. —ScouterSig 15:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
South Falls @ Silver Falls Oregon edit
- Reason
- reason for nominating the picture
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the articles that use this image
- Creator
- Amit Verma
- Support as nominator — Vermaverick 18:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Zmachine edit
- Reason
- Its crisp and of a unique subject. Its also huge
- Articles this image appears in
- Thermodynamic temperature
- Creator
- Photo by Randy Montoya (on behalf of US Government laboratory). Courtesy, Sandia National Laboratories.
- Support as nominator — User:Ahadland1234 12:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Sydney Lightning Strike edit
- Reason
- 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.
- Articles this image appears in
- Sydney, Lightning
- Creator
- User:Extranet
Support as nominator — Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 23:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)- 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)
- Withdrawl of nomination. Image is too small. Sorry, I didn't notice. Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 01:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Plus it's plagiarized like many of his other photo uploads. Dicklyon 05:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
Upgrading the International Space Station edit
- Reason
- 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.
- Articles this image appears in
- International Space Station
- Creator
- preetikapoor0
- Support as nominator — Preetikapoor0 04:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The identical Image:STS-116 spacewalk 1.jpg is already featured. --Herald Alberich 04:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oops! Preetikapoor0 04:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's coming up for POTD next week. ~ trialsanderrors 06:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Not promoted —Julia\talk 12:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
title of the picture edit
- Reason
- reason for nominating the picture
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the articles that use this image
- Creator
- creator of the image
- Support as nominator — TheMonolith 21:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
title of the picture edit
- Reason
- reason for nominating the picture
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the articles that use this image
- Creator
- creator of the image
- Support as nominator — Mr_webbyPlease send me a message 23:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
title of the picture edit
- Reason
- reason for nominating the picture
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the articles that use this image
- Creator
- creator of the image
- Support as nominator — Keoughma 14:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bhaktapur_man_on_steps.jpg
Calvin Johnson (football player) edit
- Reason
- Impressive quality image; well-focused on the subject, good lighting and contrast.
- Articles this image appears in
- Calvin Johnson (football player), List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni, Detroit Lions
- Creator
- Jamie Howell
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Candle burning edit
- Reason
- 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)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Head Shot of Feral Horse edit
- Reason
- I nominate this photograph because of its vibrant colours and shades. The lighting is right and it has high resolution and quality.
- Articles this image appears in
- Feral horse
- Creator
- Kitkatcrazy
- Support as nominator — Kitkatcrazy 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Several tech problems: Unsharp, blown highlights, etc. --Janke | Talk 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ouch - encyclopaedic subject, but that's some of the worst chromatic aberration I've ever seen, on the ears. --YFB ¿ 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's quite impressive really. We should use it in that article. Debivort 22:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per above. --Tewy 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose' The tip of the snout is blown to white, and the body is cut off, and all above.--HereToHelp 22:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose fuzzy, people above have said it all.. gren グレン 04:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Cut off. ShadowHalo 12:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
Nomination withdrawn per WP:SNOW and to avoid pile-on newbie-biting. --YFB ¿ 14:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Granny Smith Apples edit
|
- Reason
- clear, sharp, informative and seems to be the only image on wikipedia showing a cross section of an apple
- Articles this image appears in
- Creator
- --Benjamint444 09:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support as nominator — Benjamint444 09:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support -- It is a nice image... Booksworm Talk to me! 17:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- info It's a single shot. --Benjamint444 08:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. IANAA. 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)
- 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 dumpWhy 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)
- 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.
- 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. IANAA. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
McCoy Stadium edit
[[Image:
|thumb|200px|McCoy Stadium during a game.]]
- Reason
- It's beauiful, and I think it could make a wonderful Picture of the day.
- Articles this image appears in
- McCoy Stadium, Pawtucket
- Creator
- User:Meegs
- Support as nominator — BigCoop 07:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
River Visual approach edit
- Reason
- 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.
- Articles this image appears in
- Ronald Reagan National Airport
- Creator
- User:Noclip
- Support as nominator — Noclip 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Added edit 1: unsharp masking, levels, curves adjusted. J Are you green? 03:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like Technicolor now. --Dschwen 07:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose, per Diliff and Night Gyr.--Svetovid 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose, Stevage couldn't have said it better. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 03:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
Withdrawn Noclip 01:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Tairona Pendant edit
- Reason
- It might not have the greatest of all qualities but the arts and crafts of this culture did impact me.
- Articles this image appears in
- Tairona Portal:Colombia
- Creator
- Jastrow
- Support as nominator — I am greener than you! (Lima - Charlie - Over) 17:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Cicada illinois summer 2007 edit
- Reason
- the image is very detailed and shows the cicada very well.
- Articles this image appears in
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicada
- Creator
- nickaleck
- Support as nominator — Nickaleck 15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Foreskin2.jpg edit
- Reason
- 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.
- Articles this image appears in
- Foreskin restoration, Foreskin
- Creator
- User:Béatrice
- Support as nominator — TotoBaggins 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
"Hot Jammin' on Icy Nights" edit
- Reason
- contemporary art
- Articles this image appears in
- contemporary art
- Creator
- David Alan Pattison
- Support as nominator — Davepattison 20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Lake Louis Canada edit
- Reason
- reason for nominating the picture
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the articles that use this image
- Creator
- creator of the image
- Support as nominator — t3xt 23:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The Taj Mahal from the river side. (Samuel Bourne 1865). edit
- Reason
- 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.)
- Articles this image appears in
- potentially India and Taj Mahal
- Creator
- Samuel Bourne
- Support as nominator — Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
- This may need to be sorted out at the Wikipedia Powers-that-be Level. See discussion here for similar problems at Getty Museum I don't know if the Morven there is the Morven of Wikipedia, but I'll ask him. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Strong support A great picture. --Ba'Gamnan | Talk 08:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- oppose - bad compression artifacts (49k file!) A better scan might succeed. Debivort 06:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- What wonders would that be?--Svetovid 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean by your comment? Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- What exactly do you mean by your comment? Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
*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)
- 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 comparisonBleh999 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Yes, please do. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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. Jumping cheese 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose low res scan of old picture does not make a featured picture. Stefan 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- We are waiting for the high res version. See Mick Stephenson's (Mikaul) post above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- SUPPORT - an excellent picture considering the time the pic was taken.. dtj 02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose In short: this is not WP's best. Puddyglum 18:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Stars4Peace By TJ Colatrella and Robert Allan Shear
title of the picture edit
- Reason
- reason for nominating the picture
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the articles that use this image
- Creator
- creator of the image
- Support as nominator — TJColatrella 23:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Scene from "The Happy Land" at the Court Theatre edit
- Reason
- A very graphic portrayal of one of the more interesting little scandals in the Victorian theatre. Plus, seeing a fairy Gladstone makes me smile.
- Articles this image appears in
- Censorship, William Gladstone, The Realm of Joy, W. S. Gilbert, The Happy Land, Censorship in the UK
- Creator
- D. H. Friston
- Support as nominator — Adam Cuerden talk 22:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 Cuerden talk 04:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator pending better version/confirmation of appearance of original Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
BAX Global Douglas DC-8-71(F) edit
- Reason
- 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 nominator Kc0abh 08:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Anthers and Stigma of Hibiscus edit
- Reason
- 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.
- Articles this image appears in
- Hibiscus
- Creator
- Nikhil N.
- Oppose Poor DOF. --TotoBaggins 16:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- weak oppose focus, and low contrast between orange petals and orange anthers. Debivort 16:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Focus. 8thstar 17:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above.--HereToHelp 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Solar Glory, the Spectre of the Brocken and Fog Bow edit
- Reason
- 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.
- Articles this image appears in
- Fog Bow,Brocken Spectre,Glory
- Creator
- Mbz1
- Support as nominator — Mbz1 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see the Brocken. —ScouterSig 15:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Spaceship Earth With Fantasia Wand edit
- Reason
- 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.
- Articles this image appears in
- Epcot
- Creator
- Mam693
- Support as nominator — 01kkk 23:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
title of the picture edit
- Reason
- reason for nominating the picture
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the articles that use this image
- Creator
- creator of the image
- Support as nominator — Brent Ward 15:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Coal tower, Erie Railroad, Meadville, Pa. edit
[[Image:{{{image}}}|thumb|200px|Original]]
- Reason
- just wanted to share a favorite photograph that captures a wonderful time of youth
- Proposed caption
- Last remanant of a time since passed
- Articles this image appears in
- {{{articles}}}
- Creator
- John W Lee. Odessa Images
- Support as nominator luke 05:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Cimiez Monastery edit
- Reason
- I'm pretty happy with especially considering that it pretty difficult to find a point view.
- Proposed caption
- The Monastery of Cimiez in Nice,France.
- Articles this image appears in
- Cimiez
- Creator
- self-nom
- Support as nominator Ericd 21:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- For sure someone can come with a better photo than mine, but obviously you never spent a full hour walking around a building and to find a good point of view. I suggest a Google test : http://images.google.fr/images?hl=fr&q=Monast%C3%A8re%20de%20cimiez&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wiEricd 22:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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:
- For sure someone can come with a better photo than mine, but obviously you never spent a full hour walking around a building and to find a good point of view. I suggest a Google test : http://images.google.fr/images?hl=fr&q=Monast%C3%A8re%20de%20cimiez&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wiEricd 22:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
_Nanga_Parbat.jpg){kind=link}
_Nanga_Parbat.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Nanga_Parbat.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Union_Station_at_Dusk_4K_Edit_Fcb981.jpg){kind=link}
- Withdrawn my nomination - Uploaded new and higher resolution version at Media:Cimiez-new.jpg
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Napoleon's invasion of Russia edit
- Reason
- 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."
- Articles this image appears in
- Information design, Scientific visualization, French invasion of Russia (1812), Information graphics, Victory disease, Russian Winter, Battle of Berezina, Charles Joseph Minard
- Creator
- Charles Joseph Minard
- Support as nominator Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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 Cuerden talk 08:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Silver Star Summit edit
- Reason
- 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.
- Articles this image appears in
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Star_Mountain
- Creator
- Patrick McGranaghan
- Support as nominator Petrarch1603 02:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Snowberry Moth edit
- Reason
- Large & detailed. Beautiful snowberry moth in mid flight. Great image for article.
- Proposed caption
- A Snowberry Moth, photographed hovering over henbit flowers in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. As you can see, the Moth resembles a large bumblebee.
- Articles this image appears in
- Hemaris diffinis
- Creator
- Premier Tom Mayfair
- 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)
- 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)
- Strong oppose and recommend speedy close. Not close. Matt Deres 00:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
Speedy not promoted: please read the Featured Picture Criteria (in particular the examples of common technical problems) carefully before making further nominations. --YFB ¿ 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Storm Pacifica edit
- Reason
- I found the various juxtapositions striking and the very image extremely beuitiful and unique
- Proposed caption
- The beach at Pacifica, California during a storm with great waves causing a rainbow with the view of beachside and hillside houses and a blue sky
- Articles this image appears in
- Pacifica, California
- Creator
- Mila Zinkova
- Support as nominator CholgatalK! 21:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
title of the picture edit
- Reason
- reason for nominating the picture
- Proposed caption
- the extended caption of the image, providing adequate context, with prose suitable for display on the Main Page
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the articles that use this image
- Creator
- creator of the image
- Support as nominator Joshua052 09:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
{{subst:FPCnom
| | title =Red-veined darter (Sympetrum fonscolombii)
| image =
| caption =A Red-veined darter (Sympetrum fonscolombii) pic taken near Călineşti-Oaş Lake 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
}}
George W. Bush edit
- Reason
- 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!
- Proposed caption
- 43rd President of the United States of America
- Articles this image appears in
- George W. Bush, President of the United States
- Creator
- Eric Draper (white house photo)
- Support as nominator frotht 04:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- This picture was unsuccessfully nominated earlier this month. It actually closed barely a week ago. Raven4x4x 04:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
title of the picture edit
- Reason
- reason for nominating the picture
- Proposed caption
- the extended caption of the image, providing adequate context, with prose suitable for display on the Main Page
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the articles that use this image
- Creator
- creator of the image
- Support as nominator Lethal Haircut 08:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Aldabra Giant Tortoise edit
- Reason
- Large number of huge tortoises, seen by very few around the world, in one place.
- Proposed caption
- Self taken image while on holiday August 2006. Taken at Botanical Gardens, Mahe.
- Articles this image appears in
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldabra_Giant_Tortoise
- Creator
- Alexander Mussard
- Support as nominator Tribalninja 18:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Golden Eagle edit
- Reason
- This is a very sharp image, and it looks great.
- Proposed caption
- 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.
- Articles this image appears in
- http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Eagle
- Creator
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Richard_Bartz
- Support as nominator Potatomasterr 18:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Diptyque vieux livres (Ragged old book) edit
- Reason
- It is an interesting old book, a little bit of where'n'tear, got character, is interesting, obviously well read.
- Proposed caption
- A interesting, old, bound book.
- Articles this image appears in
- Bookbinding
- Creator
- User:Korrigan
- Support as nominator (BeeTz)TuneNZ 04:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Ceiling of the Great Hall of People edit
- Reason
- Stunning, interesting design, beautiful colours and designs.
- Proposed caption
- The ceiling of the main auditorium of the Great Hall of the People
- Articles this image appears in
- Great Hall of People, Ten Great Buildings
- Creator
- Forezt
- Support as nominator Adam Wang 21:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Paralympics Opening Ceremony edit
- Reason
- Beautiful colors. I believe that it meets featured picture criteria.
- Proposed caption
- A picture of the opening ceremony og the 2004 Athens paralympic games
- Articles this image appears in
- 2004 Summer Paralympics
- Creator
- Alexignatiou
- Support as nominator User:Tos 9:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Physical and Political World Map edit
- Reason
- 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.
- Articles this image appears in
- World Map, Eye
- Creator
- IMtheEyeInTheSky
- Support as nominator IMtheEyeInTheSky 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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. de Bivort 22:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Snail edit
- Reason
- Clear picture even though the picture was taken during a rainy day
- Proposed caption
- Close up of snail taken in the hills of torna Pune Maharashtra.
- Articles this image appears in
- zoology
- Creator
- cj.samson
- Support as nominator Cj.samson 14:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment While it looks good, it would be nice if you could upload a higher resolution version. Phgao 08:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Tank Man edit
- 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.
- Articles this image appears in
- Tank Man Tiananmen Square Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
- Creator
- Jeff Widener
- Support as nominator Ginga123 00:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Oklahoma City National Memorial edit
- Reason
- 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.
- Proposed caption
- The Oklahoma City National Memorial is a 3.3 acre (13,000 m²) complex that honors the victims, survivors, and rescuers of the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995. It is located on the former site of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City. It was established in 1997 by President Bill Clinton and was formally dedicated on April 19, 2000, exactly five years after the bombing. The memorial features, among other things, a museum, a reflecting pool, and The Field of Empty Chairs.
- Articles this image appears in
- Oklahoma City bombing, Oklahoma City National Memorial
- Creator
- Kralizec!
- Support as nominator — Noah¢s (Talk) 20:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Please, submit this to picture peer review instead. Quality needs sorting out first. --mikaultalk 20:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Quality aside both images seem poorly oriented, I cannot tell how large the chairs are. I think we need a 3rd image. -- Cat chi? 11:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not promoted —Julia\talk 21:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Sky Shot edit
- Reason
- I think this shot is beautiful, it has vibrant colours, amazing contrast, and astounding quality.
- Proposed caption
- The sky from above the clouds.
- Articles this image appears in
- Sky
User:Mrbsball825
User:Omniii - Creator
- User:Omniii
- Support as nominator Asenine (talk)(contribs) 17:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Trevone Beach edit
- Reason
- It illustrates the description of the beach (cleanliness); It is an image of a high quality; It is a beautiful image
- Proposed caption
- Trevone beach, Cornwall
- Articles this image appears in
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevone
- Creator
- Frankie Evans
- Support as nominator Evans1551 16:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Apollo Moonwalk edit
- Reason
- It captures the dreams of humanity, one to be on the moon.
- Articles this image appears in
- Human, Space Suit, Apollo/Skylab A7L, Portal:Space exploration/Picture/Week 26 2007
- Creator
- NASA
- Support as nominator AntiVanMan (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Jose N. Rodriguez Memorial Hospital edit
- Reason
- This is an image of one of the buildings of Dr. Jose N. Rodriguez Memorial Hospital in Caloocan City, Philippines. The hospital is the main referral center for Hansen's Disease or leprosy patients in the region of Luzon in the country.
- Proposed caption
- The Dr. Jose N. Rodriguez Memorial Hospital, formerly Central Luzon Sanitarium established in 1940 in the Philippines.
- Articles this image appears in
- Dr. Jose N. Rodriguez Memorial Hospital
- Creator
- Aldrinv
- Support as nominator Aldrinv (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose because of size and recommend speedy close. Please read the criteria before nominating. Cacophony (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Dislike the quality and picture. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Far Eastern University - Institute of Nursing building edit
- Reason
- this is one of a few photos taken which are related to the said article linked to it.
- Proposed caption
- Far Eastern University Nursing Building in Manila, Philippines, which houses university nursing faculty and students and its hospital simulation laboratory
- Articles this image appears in
- Far Eastern University Institute of Nursing
- Creator
- Aldrinv
- Support as nominator Aldrinv (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose because of size and recommend speedy close. Please read the criteria before nominating. Cacophony (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Florence Nightingale in Crimean War edit
- Reason
- 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
- Articles this image appears in
- Nightingale's Environmental Theory
- Creator
- Aldrinv
- Support as nominator Aldrinv (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose because of size and recommend speedy close. Please read the criteria before nominating. Cacophony (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Map of the Olmec heartland edit
- Reason
- 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).
- Articles this image appears in
- Olmec heartland, Olmec, Olmec influences on Mesoamerican cultures, El Manatí, La Venta, Mesoamerican chronology, San Andrés (Mesoamerican site), and Las Limas Monument 1.
- Creator
- User:Madman2001
- Support as self-nominator Madman 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Dusty777 17:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Microscope edit
- Reason
- The picture is usefull to all teachers teaching biology
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the articles that use this image
- Creator
- Tommy Nielsen
- Support as nominator Tommy nielsen (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Dusty777 17:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Nikon D200 front (aka) edit
.jpg)
- Reason
- Excellent image - Perfectly exempted.
- Articles this image appears in
- Nikon D200
- Creator
- Aka
—αἰτίας •discussion• 19:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support reasons s. above —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose per Janke. No caption. What does Perfectly exempted mean? de Bivort 20:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Comment yawn. -- carol 02:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)
- 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)
- Oppose Poor cropping, tilted, strap cut off, generally uninspired and uninspiring. --mikaultalk 11:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Knee-jerk oppose The cut-off strap is an instant killer. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Not promoted --Dusty777 17:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Pigeon Point Lighthouse edit
- Reason
- Stunning beauty.
- Proposed caption
- Pigeon Point Lighthouse
- Articles this image appears in
- Pigeon Point Light Station
- Creator
- MumbleyJoe
- Support as nominator Root Beers (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --Dusty777 17:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Original source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mumbleyjoe/2043508173/
Image:Western wall jerusalem night edit
- Reason
- It is a nice picture of an important Jewish site.
- Caption
- The Western Wall in Jerusalem is a remnant of the wall encircling the Second Temple. The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism.
- Articles this image appears in
- Judaism Western WallTemple Mount [Second Temple]]
- Creator
- Wayne McLean
Not promoted
White-fronted Capuchin Monkey edit
- Reason
- 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.
- Articles this image appears in
- White-fronted Capuchin Monkey
- Creator
- Whaldener Endo
Not promoted
Cetaceans edit
- Reason
- Very simple, yet informative.
- Articles this image appears in
- Cetacea, Evolution of cetaceans
- Creator
- User:Chris huh
- Support as nominator Nnfolz (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- comment i don't know why the image is not displayed, here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cetaceans.svg
Not promoted
- Expired, re-created by nominator as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cetaceans. Julia\talk 17:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Albert park and lake edit
- Reason
- Caption of beautiful landscape in the lake of Albert Park and Melbourne city skylines in the background.
- Articles this image appears in
- Albert Park and Lake
- Creator
- Donaldtong
- Support as nominator Donaldtong (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted
Joseph Strauss Statue edit
- Reason
- It just looks stunning with the stars and the Golden Gate Bridge in the Background. The colour of the statue looks brilliant too.
- Articles this image appears in
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Joseph_Strauss.JPG
- Creator
- Michel Fonfara
- Support as nominator Michael Fonfara (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted
510.jpg edit
- Reason
- Nice colors has focus on trains.
- Articles this image appears in
- Kensington Station,
- Creator
- Plyhmrp
Not promoted
- Reason
- 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.
- Articles this image appears in
- 1906 San Francisco earthquake.
- Creator
- 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
Not promoted
Springwood Waterfall edit
- Reason
- This picutre captures 1 of many unseen waterfall in the Springwood rainforest
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the articles that use this image
- Creator
- Mitch 10 02 (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support as nominator Mitch 10 02 (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted
NASA Scramjet edit
- Reason
- This is a beautiful image, not blurry at all, shows a good combination of colors of the NASA scramjet.
- Articles this image appears in
- Scramjet
- Creator
- NASA (uploaded by - Ohmpandya We need to talk... ♦ contribs 18:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC))
- Support as nominator - Ohmpandya We need to talk... ♦ contribs 18:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy close far too small - please read the criteria before nominating more images. de Bivort 18:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted Julia\talk 17:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Castle Geyser eruption, edit
- Reason
- This is a very nice right timed shot taken of Castle Geyser eruption in Yellowstone National Park.
- Articles this image appears in
- Castle Geyser
- Creator
- Flicka, nominated by - Ohmpandya We need to talk... ♦ contribs 02:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support as nominator - Ohmpandya We need to talk... ♦ contribs 02:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy close already nominated twice in the last 5 months, and not promoted both times. de Bivort 03:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted Julia\talk 17:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wilma 2005-10-19 1640Z.jpg
Warsaw Ghetto Uprising edit
- Reason
- Incredibly encyclopedic and historical image.
- Articles this image appears in
- Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
- Creator
- user:Durova
- Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The unrestored version of this image is already a featured picture. DurovaCharge! 23:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted
Lake Mashu edit
- Reason
- A beautiful & scenic panoramic view of crater lake, Lake Mashu, captured in panorama style.
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the articles that use this image
- Creator
- Jonathan Ang
- Support as nominator Jonathanang (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted
Oklahoma Capitol with Flag edit
- Reason
- 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”.
- Articles this image appears in
- Oklahoma, Flag of Oklahoma.
- Creator
- User:Okiefromokla
- Support as nominator Okiefromokla questions? 23:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose noisy and unencyclopedic composition. Clegs (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - way too noisy, JPG compression artifacts. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)- Oppose per above. Cut off, tilted, non-encyclopedic composition. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Unless there is support within a day I will go ahead and retract this nomination. Okiefromokla questions? 19:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
Not promoted Julia\talk 18:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
title of the picture edit
Roman Coloseum Original - the caption of the image, A view of the Roman Coliseum during the springtime.
- Reason
- I believe it is a good shot of the Roman Coliseum.
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the articles that use this image
- Creator
- Matt
- Support as nominator Romancoliseumgoer12 (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted
J58 Afterburner edit
- Reason
- It's a nice photo that links to a few pages describing various aspects of Ram Jet technology
- Articles this image appears in
- 'Afterburner', 'Pratt & Whitney J58', and 'Shock diamond'
- Creator
- NASA
Not promoted
sant jarnail singh ji khalsa bhindrawale edit
- Reason
- He is one of the spirtual man on this earth .if picture of every personality is here then why not his? He was a diamond of the sikh panth.
- Articles this image appears in
- bluestar
- Creator
Not promoted
Silicagel...in candle light edit
- Reason
- i think it is good....
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the articles that use this image
- Creator
- creator of the image
Not promoted
Wilma in cozumel island edit
- Reason
- shows how large a hurricane can get to a landmass
- Articles this image appears in
- Cozumel,Hurricane Wilma
- Creator
- NOAA
Not promoted
edit
- Reason
- Historicly intruiging aesthetically pleasing
- Articles this image appears in
- Bugle (instrument)
- Creator
- the creator of the image, where possible using the format Moverton
- Support as nominator KingstonJr (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted
a title for the picture edit
- Reason
- why you think it meets the FPC criteria and should be featured (check criteria first)
- Articles this image appears in
- links to the article/s that use this image
- Creator
- the creator of the image, where possible using the format wikiuser
- Support as nominator Explicit mysterium (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted
An American Alligator edit
- Reason
- This picture should be featured because it is detailed, is clearly focused on the subject, and the subject is clearly looking straight at the camera.
- Articles this image appears in
- Alligator
- Creator
- the creator of the image, where possible using the format Sidious1701
- Support as nominator –Sidious1701(talk • email) 03:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- SupportRyan shell (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted
Male Mallard Headshot edit
- Reason
- Saw it. Looked beautiful, uncommon (in spite of the commonality of a mallard duck)
- Articles this image appears in
- Mallard
- Creator
- JDiPierro
Not promoted
Half dispersed Dandelion edit
- Reason
- 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
- Articles this image appears in
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Dispersing_Dandelion.jpg
- Creator
- rmanish
Not promoted