Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fir0002 (talk | contribs) at 04:34, 21 December 2007 (→‎Current nominations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria.

Promoting an image

If you believe an image should be featured, create a subpage (use the "For Nominations" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets.

All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here.

The archive contains all opinions and comments collected for candidate nominations and their nomination results.

If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.

Delisting an image

A featured picture can be nominated for delisting if you feel it no longer lives up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Create a subpage (use the "For Delists" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

For delisting, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures, except that:If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance.

Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December.

  • Note that delisting an image does not mean deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).
Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations.
Step 2:
Create a subpage
For Nominations

To create a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for your nomination, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the field below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.


For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

To create a subpage for your delist, add a title for the image you want to delist/replace in the field below and click the "Create new delist nomination" button.


Step 3:
Transclude and link

Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (direct link).

How to comment for Candidate Images

  • Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional.
  • Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly.
  • You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
  • If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case.
Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.
Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version.

How to comment for Delist Images

  • Write Keep, followed by your reasons for keeping the picture.
  • Write Delist, followed by your reasons for delisting the picture.
  • Write Delist and Replace if you believe the image should be replaced by a better picture.
  • You can weak keep, weak delist or weak delist and replace instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.

You may find the glossary useful when you encounter acronyms or jargon in other voters' comments. You can also link to it by using {{FPCgloss}}.

Editing candidates

If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g., add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (e.g., Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied.

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.

Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting.

On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet (roughly 75–150 cm) away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that the image must be viewed in original size (263 × 68 pixels) - if enlarged or reduced, results are not accurate.

Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended.
To see recent changes, purge the page cache.

Current nominations

Adult Dunlin

Original - An Adult Dunlin, Erolia alpina, in its natural marsh habitat
Reason
Another excellent image from the master of birds, Mdf
Articles this image appears in
Dunlin
Creator
Mdf

Promoted Image:Calidris-alpina-001 edit.jpg --Chris.B (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Elephant Seal Colony

Original - Northern elephant seal colony (Mirounga angustirostris) on a beach near San Simeon, California, USA.
Edit 1 - sharpen, downsample
Reason
Nice encyclopedic picture.
Articles this image appears in
Northern Elephant Seal, Elephant seal
Creator
Helen Filatova
  • Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A fine image. It's only in a gallery in Elephant seal and probably deserves to be moved into the article. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Okay. Could be sharper, but focus set accurate. Enough. Encyclopedic value given. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Image quality is a bit lacking when you view the full image. Inklein (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? MER-C 01:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Looks like excessive noise reduction has reduced the sharpness. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 09:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support original, support edit but I would full support an edited version with sharpness. H92110 (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I uploaded a sharpened edit. CillaИ ♦ XC 03:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit1 Great use of colours, contrast, nice composition etc. Chris.B (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both The edit is problematic because at 100%, the lines just look weird. By lines, I mean areas that, if drawn with a pencil, would be lines (such as the edge of the body of each seal, or the details around the face). In fact, everything seems to have a strange quality of it that looks like its been through one of the photoshop artistic filters. This can especially be seen on the body/fur, which appears "soft". These qualities seem to be inherited from the original. I suspect noise reduction is the culprit.-Andrew c [talk] 15:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original - the edit seems over done to me --Abdominator (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Elephant seal colony edit.jpg MER-C 02:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Queluz National Palace

Original - The façade, gardens and fountains of the Queluz National Palace, Portugal.
Reason
This picture might have what it takes. Sky's clear, no visitors wandering around, great sight of this beautiful palace.
Articles this image appears in
Queluz National Palace
Creator
User:Husond
  • Support as nominator Húsönd 15:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: No. In details it's not sharp enough. It's even no where very sharp. The overall impression: No bad picture, but not enough for FP. Sorry. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Stunning picture! H92110 (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not sharp enough, fringing in a few places. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fénis Castle

Original - Fénis Castle is an Italian fortress that dates back to as early as the 1242 AD. It was constructed under the direction of Prince Challant who ruled over the region of Val d'Aosta at the time. The purpose for the construction of this castle was to control the area's iron trade.
Reason
A view looking up at a famous and beautiful castle in the Val d'Aosta region.
Articles this image appears in
Fénis Castle
Creator
Redmarkviolinist (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to expand? (Or can the size be excused?) Redmarkviolinist (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that is unlikely. Size issues are generally only excused if the photo is impossible or very difficult to reproduce, and as the castle is still standing this doesn't apply here. We can't simply expand the image you have uploaded. The only way for us to get a larger version is for you to provide one. Debivort's reply on your talk page sums it up pretty well. Raven4x4x (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this means it only fails one section. Does this mean it is totally out of the running, or is there any chance it can get approved. I think it could be a featured picture (considering you don't judge against the size). Any advice or response would be greatly appreciated. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Featured pictures must meet all criteria unless there are special circumstances (historic photos), and 1000 px on one side is more or less a bare minimum. Bigger pictures present a greater degree of detail, and so are more encyclopedic. At least IMO. --Malachirality (talk) 03:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even at this tiny size the picture is also low quality - JPG artifacts along almost every edge. That's a second criterion that it fails. The composition isn't that brilliant either. Like Malachirality says, the size is the first criterion which any prospective FP must pass before it gets judged on other aspects, and this one fails at the first hurdle. If you have a bigger version, or a different angle, upload it. The camera it was taken with (Canon PowerShot A70) isn't particularly good (released in 2003, 3.2MP) so the image might not be sufficient quality even at full res, depending on what settings you had on the camera. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not only is it too small, but the lawn sprinklers really distract. Clegs (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Chris.B (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Alter Strom (Old River)

Original - The picturesque canal Alter Strom, located in the sea resort of Warnemünde
Reason
A beautiful scene taken in near perfect lighting.
Articles this image appears in
Canal and Warnemünde
Creator
Alabama
  • Support as nominator Fir0002 23:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment is this actualy a canal rather than a canalised river?Geni 01:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Very nice shot. Cat-five - talk 04:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Visually pleasing, and with the large diversity of canal traffic high on WP:ENC as well. Pedro :  Chat  10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very appealing, pretty picture. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Merry Christmas!) 01:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great colours. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 12:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all above H92110 (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 09:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Gorgeous, though the composition seems off to me. I would probably prefer to have most of the foreground (forewater?) cropped out to make the pic closer to ~700 pix high. Matt Deres (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great shot. - Darwinek (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Alter Strom.jpg MER-C 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Skyline Frankfurt am Main.jpg

Original
Reason
Excellent image: Sharp, very well exposure, high encyclopedic value. Also featured on commons.
Articles this image appears in
Economy of Germany, Metropolis, Skyline, Frankfurt Rhein-Main Region, List of tallest buildings in Germany
Creator
Nicolas17

regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted Image:Skyline Frankfurt am Main.jpg MER-C 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alhambra2001.jpg

Original
Edit 1 by Fir0002
Edit 2. Perhaps this sky has more 'wow'?
Reason
Excellent image - well done. Sharp, good exposure, encyclopedical relevant.
Articles this image appears in
Creator

regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • You've now voted twice. It's better to vote "Support both" in one place so that the closer counts your support once, not twice. --Malachirality (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Doesn't edit 1 represent overediting of an image? →AzaToth 02:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think so, because the actual subject remains unchanged. That is now has clouds is pretty irrelevant to subject of the picture. --Fir0002 04:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The perspective on the clouds is wrong, seeing the very tops of cumulus columns as we do in the edit would put the base on the ground, they look fake. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bear in mind cumulus clouds often do look like they're touching the ground so the perspective is fine. In fact the image I got those clouds from had a hillside just below where the roofline is. Not all cumulus clouds make thundering columns in the sky ;) See also Image:Roman Baths in Bath Spa, England - July 2006 edit3.jpg which has a cumulus cloud peaking from behind the roofline - taking at a lower angle (as this image seems to be) there'd be even more clouds. Another example is this: Image:Tower bridge London Twilight - November 2006.jpg which looks like the cumulus will touch the ground. So I'm 99.25% :) confident that the cumulus in this cloud is possible. And you've always got Edit 2 if you want something more realistic! ;-) --Fir0002 05:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • LOL (and Edit2's picking up a bit of support).. --jjron (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still on the fence about the edit. I agree rationally with Fir that the focus is on the building, not the sky - but emotionally, I cannot get past the addition of the sky, and it's hard for me not to see flaws in the addition of the sky or otherwise even focus on the rest of the image. de Bivort 06:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1 @Fir0002, so did you recover clouds from a RAW file or something or just paste random ones in? Tokugawapants (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Random clouds --Fir0002 05:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, sorry, nothing strikes me as so wow to allow for that "smallish" size. --gren グレン 13:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you write the vote that you intended? -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I just ended up canceling out my own 'vote'... but, thanks for pointing that out, I had meant oppose :| --gren グレン 14:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose original, weak oppose edit 1 ...and LOL on edit 2 overexposed sky, and would prefer symmetry in an architecture shot like this. The edit and the size are also small concerns. --Malachirality (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all A blown sky is a blow sky. The perspective on the clouds is wrong as we are seeing the tops of cumulus columns where we shouldn't be able to. Even if the sky job was perfect (it isn't) I would still have trouble offering my support. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 21:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 2 - sundogs at the acropolis!? wow! Kaldari (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it looks brilliant now! :-) --Fir0002 05:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I must say that edit 1 is the best, but the clouds look fake. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Merry Christmas!) 01:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about edit 2. I didn't know the acropolis was in southwestern Minnesota, hehe ;) Axda0002 (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't know that the acropolis was located in southern spain. This is the Palace of Charles V. NOT the acropolis. ; ) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose Blown sky. I am not willing to consider the faked edits in any way. Sorry. Matt Deres (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Michael Schumacher Ferrari 2004

Original
Reason
Excellent image: A very well done Motion blur: as it must be. Encyclopedical relevant, too. Brilliant.
Articles this image appears in
Creator
Rdikeman

regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Okay, but size is not the highest precept. At least in my opinion. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why we have documented criteria, instead of everyone coming up with their own. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose too small. Looks like it's on a hill. de Bivort 21:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're nice! But here's some punctuation in case that was the confusing issue. de Bivort 05:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose too small, the slant does make it look on a hill but thats not really a problem. Chris_huhtalk 21:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, far, far too small. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, does not meet criteria #2. Cacophony (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too small; slanted. --Malachirality (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I dont mind the slant but the size is indeed too small. Minimum requirements 1000 px. H92110 (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Bombing of Hamburg in World War II

Original - During World War II, and especially in 1943, Hamburg, Germany was severely damaged by aerial bombardment, with some 55,000 people killed. Clip from the Motion Picture Division of the U.S. National Archives.
Reason
Another wartime propaganda film, with combat footage and some scans of the damaged city and damaged aircraft.
Articles this image appears in
Bombing of Hamburg in World War II
Creator
Motion Picture Division of the U.S. National Archives.
  • Support as nominator Spikebrennan (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's amazing to me that these videos were released sincerely during the war. They seem so ironic now. de Bivort 18:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Such pictures are per se featured due to the colossal encyclopedic value. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Now that's some encyclopedic stuff. bibliomaniac15 00:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I just do not think all encyclopedic war videos and images are worth being featured. Sorry. H92110 (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which criterion is that?--Svetovid (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • # 3 says "...among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer..." now how can all war videos be the best wiki has to offer? H92110 (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does your objection relate specifically to the nominated film? Spikebrennan (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oh yeah, this clip is definitely FP material. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As a piece of propaganda it's not very interesting. As archival footage, it's overly dramatic, and not very informative. The quality also isn't very impressive. I'm sure better could be found. —Pengo 05:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Per above --Fir0002 23:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bombing of Hamburg.ogv MER-C 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Pilgrims at Arafat

Original - Muslim pilgrims at the Plains of Arafat, wearing the ihram clothing and supplicating as part of the Hajj on the Day of Arafat
Reason
Good, encyclopedic image. No other image of this kind on wiki.
Articles this image appears in
Mount Arafat, Hajj, Ihram clothing
Creator
Self made
  • Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-- Me not being a Muslim, I am not familiar with the Day of Arafat practices. What exactly is it that these boys are doing, and how is it different than what they might do on a different day, or at a different place? Spikebrennan (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The boys are "praying". There are several supplications that are recited asking for forgiveness, increase in sustenance, etc. These boys are reciting one of them. The Hajj comprises several practices and not all of them include praying and supplicating. Repentance and supplication is mostly done in Arafat on Arafat, whilst other activities are done during the other times. Hence what these boys are doing can not be done effectively during another time or place as Arafat is the designated place. For more info please read the article. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My question is, are they praying in any way that is visually distinct from the way that they would pray at annother time or at another place? Since this image is being offered as encyclopedic of Mount Arafat and Hajj, I am trying to understand how this image is encyclopedic specifically in reference to those topics. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The image is different as it shows these boys wearing two pieces of clothes which would not be worn except during Hajj. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: What's special on that averagely image? Nothing. Just averagely, not more. Even not very sharp, exposure not the best. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is special is what the image shows. The image may not be the best quality but I believe it is encyclopedic. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Just looking at the size, I was wondering if this was a crop or just a downsize? If it's a crop, you don't have one with the lefthand guy's foot and a bit more at the bottom do you? It's a good and useful image, but I'm not sure it's FP quality - other than being unique on wiki, is this something that is very rarely photographed or hard to photograph for some reason, and that may excuse some of the issues? --jjron (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its not a crop, just downsize. It is rarely photographed because this event occurs just once a year. Also because when one goes to Arafat, one has to spend the night there and do a lot of walking the next day, hence luggage is also kept to a minimum. Most people have cameras on their phones and consider taking another camera a burden. Hence the few good images.
  • Oppose, I don't think that really captures the size of hajj or the villages on the plains of Arafat, etc. Sorry. In any case, Happy Eid (late). gren グレン 13:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The pictures of the tents are good and as you say, "really captures the size of hajj" but I believe pictures like these too illustrate Hajj. I mean, how often do you see youths praying :)? Thanks for the Eid greetings. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Taking into consideration the rarity of this image, I think it satisfies all of Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Please check the criteria one by one with thispicture and let me know where this picture fails. Thanks Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and above comments. H92110 (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While encyclopedic, this picture has too many technical flaws, and doesn't have the wow factor to outway them. The contrast is messed up, especially with some of the white on the robes glowing, almost to the point of vignetting, and some goofiness with the man on the left sticking out from the background. If these problems could be rectified, I would change to support. Clegs (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Aston Martin DBR9 qualifying at the 24 Hours of Le Mans.

Original - An Aston Martin DBR9 qualifying at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. The DBR9 is the race-ready version of the road going Aston Martin DB9. First built in 2005, the DBR9 name is derived from the original 24 Hours of Le Mans-winning DBR1 car, named for then-owner David Brown.
Reason
Not too much background or frontal clutter, the shot shows a nearly full side with some front sheetmetal and grille area, and shows the DBR9 in it's "natural" element, which is in a professional racing format like the Le Mans.
Articles this image appears in
Aston Martin DBR9
Creator
Thurfin
  • Support as nominator 293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the car racing up a hill? Spikebrennan (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Oppose due to tilt.Spikebrennan (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I figured the photographer shot it an an angle. The description page on Commons is extremely vague (no location.)--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: Has nothing to do with a well done Motion blur (like here). Just a bad, blurred, unsharp image - Nothing for FP; even no averagely image. Sorry. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It looks like the car is driving up a hill - unencyclopedic. de Bivort 21:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Debivort. Cacophony (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yosemite Park

Original - A scenic view in Yosemite Park with characteristic granite cliffs and woodlands. Taken in September 2007
Edit 1 by Fir0002
Reason
A well composed view of one of the most iconic National Parks in the world. The original doesn't have great technical quality and is only provided here so that people can have the opportunity's to make their own edits as they see fit - but these concerns are addressed (IMO) in the edit.
Articles this image appears in
National park, Yosemite National Park
Creator
AngMoKio
  • Support Edit 1 only Fir0002 05:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose A bit too common tourist snapshot, an image without any special features (got a few myself). A superstitched 10,000 px image would be something else... --Janke | Talk 08:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per Janke. Gatoclass (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per Janke. Nothing special. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sun dogs

Original - Pronounced sun dogs on both sides of a setting sun in New Ulm, Minnesota. Note the halo arcs passing through each sun dog.
Reason
An amazing photo of this peculiar phenomenon. Quality may not be perfect, but given the conditions, etc, it's reasonably good, and to me any minor issues are far outweighed by the other virtues of the image and encyclopaedic value.
Articles this image appears in
Sun dog
Wars of the Roses
Creator
Axda0002
  • Support as nominator jjron (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom--Mbz1 (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very nice. --Golbez (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - amazing! Gatoclass (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Remarkable, especially if this phenomenon is as rare as the Sun dog article suggests. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sun dog article describes them as "common", and I see them pretty frequently (at least several times a year, and more frequently than, say, rainbows). I've found them to be fairly common both in the Mojave Desert and in western Pennsylvania, which have very different climates. I don't say this as criticism—I just don't want people thinking they're very rare. I think most people just don't notice them—my wife doesn't, unless I point them out. The photograph is better than I could usually do when I see sun dogs—most of the time, I only see one of the two, or one is much brighter than the other. The photograph also has a nice, clean, low horizon that does not obstruct the sun dogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coneslayer (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It gets my vote and the bbc apears to have used it was well! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7150156.stm 62.173.86.208 (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as photographer. It takes my breath away. Axda0002 (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: quality not excellent, but high encyclpedic value. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Whoa... 8thstar 22:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Neat picture...clearly shows what a sundog is. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Merry Christmas!) 01:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great picture. I've never heard of a 'sun dog' before, more people should ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (contribs) 10:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is what FP is about! I had never heard of a sun dog before let alone seeing one. H92110 (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sundogs - New Ulm-Edit1.JPG MER-C 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mercedes SLR C199

Original - A Mercedes SLR C199, the only Supercar Mercedes produces, in motion. Photographed at the 2007 Stars and Cars event
Edit 1 by Fir0002
Edit 2 by Dschwen
Reason
The well controlled slow shutter speed gives this image the kind of motion blur essential in photographing a supercar in an interesting way. Good enc and technical quality.
Articles this image appears in
Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren
Creator
AngMoKio
  • Support Edit 1 Fir0002 02:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, this might look like WP:POINT, but seriously that edit1 is totally unbalanced. Weak support edit2, Oppose all edit1. --Dschwen 02:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...totally unbalanced"; can you elaborate? I don't get what you mean. --jjron (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • sure, I thought the change in my edit was evident. Edit1 shows too much street, the car is too far up in the frame with its wheels being centered horizontally. I shifted the crop upwards. --Dschwen 04:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, OK. The road does detract quite a bit. I thought perhaps you were referring to the smaller tilt correction in yours. --jjron (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • ..."with its wheels being centered horizontally" - you are quite incorrect Dschwen. I had only used my eye for this crop, and so it is quite vindicating to see I nailed it pretty well dead centre --Fir0002 05:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry I actually meant vertical and them being centered is a bad thing. To me the optical center of the car is a bit further up. --Dschwen 12:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. Agree with general sentiments in the nomination, but the awkward, unappealing background does it in for me. Additionally, for best encyclopaedic value, a car photo should be done at an angle so that you can see (preferably) the front and one side, not just be directly side-on. I personally think there's better photos for encyclopaedic value, not just possible, but currently in the article. --jjron (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. Might have required some skill to take, but ultimately it's just a car photo. A nice photo certainly, just not exceptional in any way. Gatoclass (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose lacks wow, messy bg. --Janke | Talk 08:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Better than the other one, but not good enough. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Parthenon XL

Original
Reason
Excellent image - sensational. Sharp, good exposure, encyclopedical relevant, everything fine.
Articles this image appears in
Parthenon
Creator
Thermos

regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support reasons see above —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What's so special about that part of Parthenon? where is the caption? →AzaToth 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point 5 and point 7. →AzaToth 18:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, you may be right, but I think the (technical-)quality of the picture is even more important than these points. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the criteria must be met for an image to be promoted. It also fails WP:WIAFP 1c - good composition - as this is a seemingly random corner of the much larger building which is the subject of the article. de Bivort 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent architectural detail photo. The kinds of stone and the orientation are visible. Shows a lot that an overall view cannot, and shows it attractively. Fg2 (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nice sharp image, but ordinary subject matter. Oscar (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Sorry. Clouds are not clean. There are green and pink dusts. Laitche (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Neutral I changed my mind. --Laitche (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Shows too little of building. There is no way to tell this is the parthenon and not some other ruined temple. Compare to this photo of the Colosseum. de Bivort 22:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sure it's nice enough, but given this recent rather contentious FP promotion of a similar image of the same place by the same photographer at possibly the same time, I'd tend to think not. Plus agree with above reasons about being too cut off; the other one's already been promoted with that issue in mind. --jjron (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jjron--Mbz1 (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jjron H92110 (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per AzaToth Clegs (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A capybara at the Hattiesburg Zoo

Original - A capybara at the Hattiesburg Zoo in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.
Reason
Excellent high-resolution image that does a great job of illustrating an aspect of its article subject.
Articles this image appears in
Capybara
Creator
User:VigilancePrime
  • Support as nominator Videmus Omnia Talk 01:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The reflection from what I assume is glass between the capybara and the photographer and the unfocused rear of the capybara in the water together damage the overall quality too much. -Enuja (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Glass effects mentioned, and poor DOF. --Sean 02:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Today's lesson in photography...) The "reflection" is around Capy, similar to "framing" a subject. There is/was no glass. The depth-of-field is intentionally narrow to draw your focus to the Capy's face; the rear is just outside the focus field on purpose and the face/head extremely crisp. That's how real cameras work, rather than the "everything in the frame is in focus" of a disposable camera. (Not sure how much of this was known or would be known to future readers/voters; please do not take offense to this as I'm not intending to talk down to someone who does know while at the same time inform someone who may not.) Personally, I have my own nitpicks that have nothing to do with the focus (which is excellent!). Anyway, all in good fun; I didn't expect one of my photos would end up here ever anyway! :-) VigilancePrime (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC) :-)[reply]
  • Oppose Blown-out highlights in fur, too shallow DOF. --Janke | Talk 06:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Janke. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking; Thank you VO for the nomination. I agree with the decision (though for different reasons). I'm flattered that one was deemed good enough to be looked at at least! Thanks to all who contributed thoughts! VigilancePrime (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iguaçu Falls

Original - Iguaçu Falls
Reason
I think its a great picture. There might be a little contrast problem, but if I could get some support to fix it, or anyone be interested in seeing other photos I have of Iguazu Falls and choose the best one, I will put them up
Articles this image appears in
Iguazu Falls
Creator
myself
  • Support as nominator Mitchipr (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might I suggest picture peer review? Upload all your pics, post them there and we'll have a look at them without the formality of a featured picture candidacy. MER-C 13:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Due to composition. There are several more encyclopedic photos on the Iguazu Falls page. This one only shows a small fraction of the falls. Cacophony (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope you know that Iguazu Falls is a long stretch of falls, and the one in the article is the "devil's neck". My picture is different one. --Mitchipr (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Exposure bad, resolution not high enough, not sharp, boring. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It certainly isnt boring! Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right - It's more than that. Just because of the worst quality. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please stay civil. Saying an image is of the worst quality is not helpful to any and doesn't justify your points. Anyhow this image does meet the resolution requirements, so that's not a valid reason on its own, and boring is a very vague and subjective comment. thegreen J Are you green? 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow, I don't know what your problem is Aitias, I'm just trying to be friendly and thought it'll be a nice picture to see. If you want to complain that it's boring and all, why don't you go ahead and take an image of it yourself? Muhammad Mahdi Karim and Thegreen, thank you for your kind comments :) --Mitchipr (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice image. Mitchipr, please do not take it personally with αἰτίας. He/she likes to go with strong opposes :)--Mbz1 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL: He is just saying his opinion straightly. Its just my humble opinion, that an image must be more than just nice to be a FP. It has to meet some criterias which lift it up. This image doesn't fit in such criterias - It's an averagely image: That's not enough for a FP. Sorry. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, and don't you think one opinion is enough? Why are you spamming this page now? All I need is one vote/opinion from one person, now you're just trying to make everyone agree with you and pushing your opinion. --Mitchipr (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would "spamming the page" include commenting on every single opposition vote? Please don't take it personally when someone is critical of your image, nominating an image for FP is an invitation for criticism. No need to reply to every single comment. Cacophony (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is my picture and I do want people to know how I feel about it. If they reply positive, I thank them, if nagative, I thank them but yes, you are right, I kind of took Aitias personal. But I still think its nice to comment on every comment. For now, I'll put it on picture peer review. Note that I did not take your comment personal, and replied generally, --Mitchipr (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aqwis, thank you for putting it nicely :) Aitias, I already heard your opinion. --Mitchipr (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Champ de Mars

Original - Champ de Mars from the Eiffel Tower. In the distance is Tour Montparnasse and the dome on the left is Les Invalides.
Edit 1, by Fir0002
Edit 2, by AzaToth
No fog, by AzaToth
Reason
Spectacular view and very well taken. The gradation between top down perspective and side on perspective is a bit odd, but IMO doesn't detract from this fine image
Articles this image appears in
Eiffel Tower and Champ de Mars
Creator
Diliff
  • Support as nominator Fir0002 07:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original needs to be cropped at the bottom (un electable this way) Oppose original. The edits seem to have done that, but they also made the image bluer. Care to comment on what you edited instead of just putting two new images there? It would help. --Dschwen 13:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose edit1. Downsampleed to far, oversharpened, overcontrasted. edit2 does a helpful rotation but the contrast enhancement makes it unnatural looking too Weak oppose edit2. --Dschwen 13:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong oppose edit3. If a nomination needs this many edits maybe PPR would be a better place. I'd probably weak support a slightly rotated original with the black pano-void cropped off though. --Dschwen 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which would be Edit4 ;-). BTW, what's an Alternative and what's an Edit? People are voting on edits, but I only see alternatives. Why aren't these being named according to convention? An Edit is a modification of the original, an Alternative is a different, but similar, picture. I assume these are really all edits, but none have been called that. --jjron (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry about that - my mistake --Fir0002 21:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ooops, that was pretty sloppy editing on my behalf. Never noticed that before. The issue of warm vs cool is a difficult one. On one hand, I know that from being there at the time, there was a slightly warm tinge due to the atmospheric pollution (I'm yet to see Paris on a crisp clear day!), but you can simulate a slightly clearer day by cooling the colour balance which is what has happened in the edits. To what degree do we require absolute commitment to the view on that particular day? I admit that the edits are more aesthetically pleasing without significantly losing accuracy of the subject matter. My vote is a Weak support edit 2, but its not one of my most impressive photos. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1, I think it's very impressive. I also prefer the what you call "overcontrasted" look of that version. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I've tried to "remove" the fog, but perhaps it looks somewhat unatural. →AzaToth 00:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support orig I don't see why this is getting tweaked with so much, the image is great. de Bivort 05:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main thing is that I did a poor job of cropping the bottom of the frame and there is some leftover blackness from the stitch. ;-) Other than that, its all much of a muchness really. Someone should (or me when I get the chance) just overwrite the existing image with one that crops a few pixels height off the bottom but otherwise leave it alone. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original and Edit 1, Oppose Edit 2 and three ("no fog"). —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have not specified a reason for your opposes, which is required. thegreen J Are you green? 21:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct. I haven't. “All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that can be addressed.” Should(!) means: Nothing required, not a must. Just an advice, nothing more. Am I right? —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. :) This is a wiki, not a dictatorship, so no one will ever "force" you to write something. It is, however, considered poor etiquette to oppose and not provide a rationale. Such votes will, furthermore, bear less weight when it comes to closing the nomination. Chris.B (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support edit 1 I like edit one the best, I agree with AzaToth, some fog is needed to make the pictures look good, but too much fog doesn't help the picture either. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Merry Christmas!) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1. It looks the best, revolutionary picture indeed. - Darwinek (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Champ de Mars from the Eiffel Tower - July 2006 edit.jpg MER-C 02:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Red-capped plover chick

Original - A Red-capped plover chick, Charadrius ruficapillus, adopting a camouflaged pose that helps it avoid detection by predators such as gulls and crows.
Reason
Good quality, enc value.
Articles this image appears in
Red-capped Plover
Creator
Benjamint
  • Support as nominator Benjamint 04:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - lovely, crisp and clear. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose The quality is not bad - really. But the way the focuse was set is really confusing, too. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Works for me - good feather detail --Fir0002 05:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It appears as though there is some aberration along the bottom edges of the frame. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking at the out of focus sand ? Just looks like appropriate DOF to me - Peripitus (Talk) 03:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Red-capped plover chick444.jpg MER-C 02:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Northern Mockingbird

Original - Northern Mockingbird, Mimus polyglottos, Humber Bay Park (West), Toronto, Canada
Reason
As usual from Mdf, this is an excellent bird shot - great sharpness, composition and light
Articles this image appears in
Northern Mockingbird
Creator
Mdf
  • Support as nominator Fir0002 01:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I particularly like the use of depth of field. A little blurry on the tail, but understandable. DurovaCharge! 01:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good. --Sharkface217 22:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I wish it was slightly larger, but it's a very nice photograph indeed. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support A brilliant picture, very very well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Laitche (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per aitias H92110 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yees, nice one. - Darwinek (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mimus-polyglottos-002 edit.jpg --Chris.B (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fishing Spider - Autotomy

Original
Reason
I was initially shooting this spider simply as an illustration of a fishing spider - the example of autotomy coming as a unexpected bonus. I wasn't sure if this was an example of autotomy or of a less voluntary "ripping off" amputation, but I had this confirmed by Martyn Robinson a naturalist at the Australian Museum. The picture is of high technically quality (sharp, nice lighting, nice composition showing the spider's ability to walk on water) and is of an interesting subject.
Caption
A fishing spider in the family Pisauridae and genus Dolomedes which has jettisoned two of its legs - most likely as a response to being attacked by a predator
Articles this image appears in
Autotomy
Creator
Fir0002
  • Support as nominator Fir0002 00:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is a really interesting shot. The places, where his legs used to be look as eyes, which IMO could prevent him from feature attacks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I like the picture, really nice composition and light, and if it is a confirmed illustration of autotomy, then all the better. I wonder if it couldn't go in some other articles as well. PS. Nice nomination :-). --jjron (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wow, that's fascinating. Aside from the biology freak in me wanting to examine that up close, the shot is very well done. Master of Puppets Care to share? 07:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support GREAT!!! Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Interesting, high enc, good quality as well. --Janke | Talk 09:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but the caption needs to be improved.--Svetovid (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nice shot. Rt. 15:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Don't want to rain on your parade but check this journal article out: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/109914633/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 . It's from the Journal of Morphology, published in 2005, and says they concluded that autotomy does not exist in arachnids. Mangostar (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, perhaps you should disregard this. I'm not sure what's going on with this article, but you can see that it says (C)1926 even though the publishing date is 2005. In web of science this article is cited to 1926. The author published most of her other work in the 20s and 30s and according to the site of some B&B in her old house, she is now (predictably) dead. Other recent articles say this is in fact a real phenomenon, e.g. Brueseke MA, Rypstra AL, Walker SE, et al. Leg autotomy in the wolf spider Pardosa milvina: A common phenomenon with few apparent costs . AMERICAN MIDLAND NATURALIST 146 (1): 153-160 JUL 2001; Guffey C. Costs associated with leg autotomy in the harvestmen Leiobunum nigripes and Leiobunum vittatum (Arachnida : Opiliones), CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE ZOOLOGIE 77 (5): 824-830 MAY 1999; Guffey C. Leg autotomy and its potential fitness costs for two species of harvestmen (Arachnida, Opiliones) . JOURNAL OF ARACHNOLOGY 26 (3): 296-302 1998. Mangostar (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Rt. 15:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Long story short: it looked like there was a 2005 article saying this phenomenon didn't occur in spiders. But somehow that article is actually from 1926, not 2005, and autotomy has been documented in at least several other species of spiders in recent journal articles. Mangostar (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -Sharkface217 22:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Gruesomely enc. Fir, you live in one freaky part of the world. --Sean 22:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ` Great Interesting picture, and having no leg is just an added bonus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenio (talk • contribs) 03:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Yes, well done. Although I hate spiders ;) —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I really think you should upload the bigger version, Peter. H92110 (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Fishing spider autotomy.jpg MER-C 08:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


First aerial refueling

Original
Reason
Obvious historical value and nice size/quality. Incredibly whimsical, but also demonstrates the ability and determination of aviators in the early 20th century, a time when the industry was just getting off the ground.
Caption
Capt. Lowell H. Smith and Lt. John P. Richter performing the first aerial refueling on 27 June 1923. The DH-4B biplane remained aloft over the skies of Rockwell Field in San Diego, California, for 37 hours.
Articles this image appears in
Aerial refueling
Creator
Unknown photographer, US Military
  • Support as nominator Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per nom--Mbz1 (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wonderful picture, well shot Inklein (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom-- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 04:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. OK, this is pretty good; but, I wonder if the image description couldn't be improved because at the moment it's high on interest but low on information. Unlike the caption here, it doesn't even mention the pilots, much less what the planes are, why they're doing this, where it's happening, what the outcome was, etc. Full support if those encyclopaedic considerations can be improved. --jjron (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a bit to the caption here and will copy everything over to the image description page. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Would be very useful in portraying how the technique has both evolved and stayed the same. However, some more background information would be useful. Master of Puppets Care to share? 07:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Encyclopedic. -Sharkface217 22:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Magnificent. Spikebrennan (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent historical photo. I think a wikilink to aerial refueling would be useful/appropriate in the caption. — BQZip01 — talk 16:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.44.121.252 (talk) [reply]
    • Pretty superfluous given that that's the article it's in. --jjron (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great Historic Picture Tenio (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support High encyclopedic value. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Refueling, 1923.jpg MER-C 08:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Basic components of a gas turbine engine

Original
SVG
Reason
High quality, public domain illustration. Contributes a lot to the article content.
Caption
In a typical jet engine, air is drawn in and compressed, which feeds the combustion chambers. As fuel is burned in the compressed air, the heated gas expands and is expelled out throught the exhaust, which drives the turbines. The turbines are responsible for driving the vanes in the compressor section.
Articles this image appears in
Jet engine
Creator
User:Dhaluza raster by FAA, vector by Jeff Dahl
  • Support vector version I'm way ahead of you on this one. At the risk of turning FPC into the graphics lab, I drew a vector version of this image. Big machines are awesome! Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 07:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is it just me, but would this make more sense with the intake at the right and the exhaust at the left? I know ultimately it's the same information, but it just seems to be the way images are normally shown. --jjron (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • About half or more of the images in jet engine have the intake on the left, and I sort of like it better this way. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 07:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SVG -Sharkface217 22:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SVG, oppose raster version - nice work, Jeff Dahl! --Sean 22:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SVG very well done. I prefer it left to right (maybe because I'm right handed?). Cacophony (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SVG; Oppose Original. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both, but I'll support the SVG version if you reduce the stroke width on the compressor fan blades. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 04:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Jet engine.svg MER-C 08:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Star formation in Orion

Original
Reason
Star formation in the Orion constellation. This high quality image has scientific value and esthetic merit.
Caption
This image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope shows infant stars "hatching" in the head of the hunter constellation, Orion. Astronomers suspect that shockwaves from a supernova explosion in Orion's head, nearly three million years ago, may have initiated this newfound birth.
The region featured in this Spitzer image is called Barnard 30. It is located approximately 1,300 light-years away and sits on the right side of Orion's head, just north of the massive star Lambda Orionis.
Wisps of red in the cloud are organic molecules called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs are formed anytime carbon-based materials are burned incompletely. On Earth, they can be found in the sooty exhaust from automobile and airplane engines. They also coat the grills where charcoal-broiled meats are cooked.
This image shows infrared light captured by Spitzer's infrared array camera. Light with wavelengths of 8 and 5.8 microns (red and orange) comes mainly from dust that has been heated by starlight. Light of 4.5 microns (green) shows hot gas and dust; and light of 3.6 microns (blue) is from starlight.
Articles this image appears in
Orion (constellation)
Creator
NASA Spitzer Space Telescope

Not promoted MER-C 08:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Battlescarred Baby

Original
Reason
When I first saw this image it was very disturbed by it, and it moved my very much. If it can move me then I am sure it will move others to, so that why it is here. I will state right of the bat that this image falls short of the required size standards, but I will ask that in this case some historical consideration be given to the vote — oops, I mean the the "consensus" :)
Caption
This terrified baby was almost the only human being left alive in Shanghai's South Station after brutal Japanese bombing.
Articles this image appears in
Shanghai, Second Sino-Japanese War, Battle of Shanghai
Creator
Unknown (listed as PD-USgov)
  • Support as nominator TomStar81 (Talk) 09:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A shocking image for sure, but the quality (even for a historic photo) is way too low. There sure is a better scan somewhere... --Janke | Talk 13:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose by Janke. —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The image is poor quality albeit shocking and perhaps relevant to certain articles but not quite FP standard. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per above points. --Sharkface217 22:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As above points. Dunfermline Scholar (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for its historical illustration of the war's atrocities, and its rarity. I'm willing to excuse the size. There are smaller FP's on Wikipedia.-DMCer (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Indianapolis Motor Speedway's Pagoda Tower

Original
Reason
I went looking for a picture of this control tower after seeing a program on the National Geographic Channel about the rebuild of the tower specifically and the track generally. I did not find much about the rebuild, but I did find this picture of the control tower, and figured it was unique enough to warrent a shot at FP status.
Caption
The Pagoda Control Tower at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. The tower's current look came as the result of an extensive overhaul at the speedway, which included a rebuilding of the control tower and the addition of a Grand Prix track used by Formula One.
Articles this image appears in
Indianapolis Motor Speedway
Creator
Rdsmith4

Not promoted MER-C 04:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dar es Salaam Panorama

Original
Reason
The DSM article does not have any FPs. This image, is of the few good images available of Tanzania and the only panorama. The image shows one of Dar es Salaams most expensive residential apartments, Elia Complex and the Muslim graveyard.
Caption
Dar es Salaam is the largest city in Tanzania. With a population estimated around 2,500,000, it is also the country's richest city and a regionally important economic centre. It has undergone much recent development with demolition of two storey buildings and replacement of taller ones. Much of the greenery, is however preserved.
Articles this image appears in
Dar es Salaam
Creator
Muhammad Mahdi Karim
  • Support as nominator Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Is there something particularly significant about what is illustrated in this picture? From what I can tell, this could be anywhere—the subject is a very small portion of the city, and the rest is largely out of view, so unless there's something about the Elia Complex or the graveyard that is unique to Dar es Salaam, I'm not seeing the encyclopedic value of this picture. thegreen J Are you green? 21:16, 14 December 2007
  • Oppose. A cemetery and a parking lot? Sure there are better ways of illustrating Dar es Salaam? --Janke | Talk 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not very sharp and representative of the city (or so I hope).--Svetovid (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose by thegreenj. —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While boring, it does illustrate the city. -Sharkface217 22:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True but merely illustrating an article is the absolute minimum to be used at all, the FP criteria are a bit more demanding. --Dschwen 14:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice photo, good technically and illustrated the city --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Molecular gyroscope

Original
Reason
Clear, colorful, and nicely illustrates a supramolecular complex of cucurbituril macrocycles in three dimensions, which is crucial to understand their chemical properties. It was generated from the actual X-ray crystal structure data and is used to illustrate the difficulty faced in isolating the pure form of cucurbit[10]uril. The complex particularly interesting since it resembles a gyroscope, but is only about 2 nanometers wide. To my knowledge it would be the first featured picture of real molecules.
Caption
Molecular inclusion complex composed of two different sizes of cucurbiturils and a chloride ion that mimic a gyroscope.
Articles this image appears in
cucurbituril and supramolecular chemistry
Creator
M_stone
  • Support as nominator M stone (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Well done, good for the articles, but lacks the "wow" I expect from a FP. --Janke | Talk 13:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - E6T7A4. The edges of the model are heavily aliased (jaggy) at full size. There is also no information in the image itself as to what we are looking at. If the reader is a student of molecular chemistry they would probably know exactly what the image means without much of a caption (or at least only a caption that says it's a picture of cucurbituril macrocycles), but anyone else would be quite confused by what it's supposed to portray. There's no scale in the image (would be helpful) and nothing to tell people why the atoms are modelled as tubes and nodes. There's also nothing in the image that 'illustrate[s] the difficulty faced in isolating the pure form of cucurbit[10]uril' whatsoever - what's the difficulty, and how can this be seen from the image? Is it just that it's small? Is it hard to get the atoms in three layers like that? I dunno. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I'm sure you're going to put this and this image and every other molecule illustration on FPC too, right? --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was only planning to nominate this image. I thought it might be interesting since I had not seen featured pictures like this before. M stone (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if that's the reason for opposing, it's invalid. You can't oppose an image just because the nominator may be going to nominate other pictures in the future. --jjron (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for opposing was that there is nothing about this picture that makes it better, more interesting or more informative than the rest of the molecule illustrations on Wikipedia. If this picture is FP'ed, the rest should be too! --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 10:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. This image went up on PPR here, where the author tried to explain that he thought this was the best of them. --jjron (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]




Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!

Nominations in this category are older than seven days and are soon to be closed. Votes will still be accepted until closing of the nomination.

Older nominations requiring additional input from voters

These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.

Closing procedure

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    • {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~ [[Category:Ended featured picture nominations]]
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the June archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  3. Remove the {{FPC}} tag from the image and any other suggested versions. If any of those images were on Commons, be sure to tag the description pages with {{missing image}}.

When promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~ [[Category:Ended featured picture nominations]]
    • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
    Promoted Image:FILENAME.JPG
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the June archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  3. Add the image to Template:Announcements/New featured pages - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 10 are listed at all times
  4. Add the image to Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom
  5. Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
    Don't forget to update the count too.
  6. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian) - newest on bottom
    The caption should for a Wikipedian should read "Description at Article, by Photographer". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the photographer (or organization) does not have an article, use an external link. Additionally, the description is optional -- if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Photographer". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
  7. Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top
  8. Update the picture's tag, replacing {{FPC}} with {{FeaturedPicture |image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/image_name), and remove {{FPC}} from alternatives of the promoted image. If the alternatives were on Commons, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
  9. If an alternate version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
  10. Notify the nominator by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|Image:file_name.xxx}} on the nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}
  11. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|Image:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}

Nomination for delisting

Shortcut

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

For delisting, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis.

  • Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s.

Use the tool below to nominate for delisting.

  • Please use Keep, Delist, or Delist and Replace to summarise your opinion.

Bald Eagle Closeup

original nom is from October 2004
File:Bald.eagle.closeup.arp-sh.750pixEdit1.jpg
Edit 1 for possible replacement
Reason
artifacted; anyone want to try downsampling?
Nominator
Malachirality (talk)
  • Delist — Malachirality (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep either preference to edit 1. I ran some minor noise reduction to clean up the image, I would support keeping the original even then. This is a great bird portrait. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fcb. --jjron (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above --Janke | Talk 23:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Fir0002 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to meet all featured picture criteria. - auburnpilot talk 07:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Fcb. The delist vote was a bit premature IMHO.-DMCer (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fcb- one of the best eagle portraits I have seen. Clegs (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 08:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended nominations

This section is for Featured Picture candidatures whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=179332614"