Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

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).

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures ← On Wikimedia Commons Featured topics Featured picture tools: Featured picture criteria Featured picture candidates Nomination procedure On Wikimedia Commons Featured picture candidates archive Featured pictures thumbs Picture of the day Picture of the day archive Random featured picture

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 ().

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, .

Current nominations

Panorama of Frederick Henry Bay from Acton Park

Original - Panorama of Frederick Henry Bay in South Eastern Tasmania as seen from Acton Park.

Edit 1 - Leveling, desaturation of blues a bit

Reason

Strong EV, sharp image with sound DOF. Compositionaly strong.

Articles this image appears in

Frederick Henry Bay

Creator

Flying Freddy

• Support as nominator --Flying Freddy (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support, prefer edit one Per nom, lawl at tasmanian wikispam :P. The horizon probably needs a slight leveling though. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Two reasons. First, the point of view is not not the best and the bay is not clearly depicted; second, I don't like the symmetry and the central position of the horizon. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The colours are extremely unrealistic and have obviously being overtly altered. ASPimages (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This is the user's third contribution. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Question: have the colors been altered a lot? I wouldn't expect Noodle Snacks to miss something like that. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There was an original, afaik unaltered version here. I know the person that took the photograph, as far as I am aware it was just a levels adjustment between them. It could probably do with a little bit of desaturation on the blue channel as a result though. Of course I am a bit biased being local etc :)Noodle snacks (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Have uploaded an edit now.
• Weak support. Will change to full support if horizon is corrected. Colours look fairly real for that part of Australia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Colours are very unrealistic and gaudy. The original version shows that this has had quite a lot of saturation, and what looks to me to be poor application of the shadow/highlight tool in Photoshop. The grass on the RHS in particular has turned an awful shade of green --Fir0002 05:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree that the colours are just a little bit overcooked. Has potential and I could offer an edit but it would probably be best to go back to the original files for this. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. Accuracy is important and I'd give full support for toned down colours. I think I was a bit hasty in opposing outright though as the image is still very good. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose edit. The big portions of blown highlights in the clouds detract a lot, since the sky takes up so much of the composition, and although the colors look less gaudy in the edit, I still don't trust them to be very close to accurate, given the amount of color manipulation in the original.--ragesoss (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The electric blue sky I complained about at Commons has been addressed, but the huge bite in the middle still bugs me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a bite in the middle? Or do you mean bight? ;-) In which case, thats the point of the image! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Richmond Bridge

Original - The Richmond Bridge is a heritage listed arch bridge in Richmond, Tasmania, Australia. It is the oldest bridge still in use in Australia.

Restiched - did a restitch ommitting the misfocused frame and a different projection also burned the RHS of the bridge slightly

Reason

High resolution and detailed

Articles this image appears in

Sandstone, Arch bridge, Richmond, Tasmania, Richmond Bridge, Tasmania

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator, prefer restitch --Noodle snacks (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support restitched - Excellent picture -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm wondering about the colouring on the bridge, it appears a bit bright, particularly at the right. I have a number of images of this bridge taken from both sides and even through the spans, and it's consistently considerably darker in relation to the surroundings. I was wondering if you've done some selective brightening to make the bridge stand out? Of course there could be other 'natural' reasons - perhaps it's just the sunlight hitting it at that angle on a cloudy day, perhaps they've cleaned it, who knows. Maybe you've got some other images you could compare it to as a check? I was also wondering about your dates on the image page which should give the date the image was taken - is this really photographed, edited, uploaded and nominated all on the same day, replacing your March/April version? (Along with the image below for that matter; in fact going on the times in the metadata the two images were taken only 1/2 an hour apart, which I suppose may be physically possible, so just wondering whether that's accurate or whether something unusual is happening with the dates/times)? --jjron (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Firstly the date and times are correct, take a look at the geocoding of the two images, they are within 15 minutes drive of each other. I did take a march version with a point and shoot but that was fairly crappy, the colours were wrong and it looked really oversharpened and too bright. I uploaded over the top as the vantage point is the same and it saved replacing the image in a bunch of articles. I deliberately waited until the sun came out before taking the shot (evident by the shadows under the arches) as it makes the sandstone look better. The contrast with this and the cloudy sky is probably what causes the brightness as I haven't done any selective brightening. I took another panorama in about july, but didn't upload it as part of the bridge was in shadow due to strong sunlight. The brightness and colours look realistic to me (and I believe my monitor is well calibrated). There are two reasons you may see the bridge looking darker if you search for images, either the sun wasn't out at the time of the shot, or the photograph was taken from the other side of the bridge, which is pretty much always in shadow. I could probably tweak the levels a little and upload an edit if you like. Noodle snacks (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough re the dates - must have been a busy day :-). The images I was referring to are my own unedited images, not ones I've randomly found on the net, which is why I was asking, and why I commented about the relative brightness compared to the surroundings. Admittedly lighting may not have been ideal when I took mine, but the colouring of the sandstone in them is consistent from both sides of the bridge, despite surrounding features being a similar brightness to yours - probably most similar to the colouring at the side of the lefthand arch. Perhaps they have cleaned the sandstone in the intervening three years. --jjron (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Support restitch only. The colours, etc, seem far more true to life now. --jjron (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Left part is blurry. Maybe you can fix this ? Blieusong (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • In a similar fashion to the current Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pioneertown, California nomination, I think that the softness in those trees is a result of wind. I did take a shot centered at those trees then crop the left off so it isn't because I have caught the edge of my lens. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The extreme LHS looks like it's been stitched from an unfocused image - there is a very strong demarcation line between sharp and blurry. Hence Weak Oppose--Fir0002 05:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Should be fixed now, took the time to do a restitch omitting the guilty frame and adjusting the levels in a different fashion. I also used a different projection and it looks more realistic now, addressing most concerns. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Good job - Support --Fir0002 11:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support restitch - Beautiful. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice, pleasing composition and the image quality and detail is top notch. The main that could improve your shots is if those damn dark clouds would go away. It's sad that I lived in Melbourne for 26 years and never once visited Tasmania. That will have to change at some point. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, its pretty much just this time of year unfortunately, it makes bird photography difficult as well as there is often not enough light, or the light is too soft for a pleasing shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Richmond Bridge Panorama Restitch.jpg MER-C 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mount Pleasant Radio Telescope

Original - The 26m Radio Telescope at Mount Pleasant Radio Observatory is the southern most antenna used in Australia's VLBI network.

Crop

Reason

Clear view of the dish, reciever, rotation mechanism, counter weights etc. Good quality

Articles this image appears in

Mount Pleasant Radio Observatory, Very Long Baseline Interferometry, Radio telescope

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support any (prefer original) as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a quick note to point out that the shot is level, it just looks slightly off due to the angle of the hillside and the telescope. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Wow immediately came to mind. Very well composed and little distortion. Seems pretty good for a shot at 16mm. There is a small sign of noise but nothing major. What does concern me is the dead space to the left. I'll leave that for others to decide. 1/2000s and f/8 this is how pictures should be, I'm tired of seeing f/22. Possibly your best contribution yet! Victorrocha (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW it's taken at 1/640s. --jjron (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just stating the obvious errors many other people make when shooting static subjects.Victorrocha (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know what you meant with "seems pretty good for a shot at 16mm" but if you were talking about low distorsion, this is 16mm on a 1.6 crop body, making it a 26mm in 35mm equiv. and hence the moderate distorsion. Blieusong (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support crop I'm not sure if it's because of the 16mm lens or because of the angle of the machinery behind the dish, but the the dish has a very flat almost 2D appearance. Because of that, and the LHS dead space, I think the composition could be improved --Fir0002 07:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have images further to the front of the dish, but you miss out on the view of the machinery at the back, so the enc is reduced in doing so. A crop is a possibility on the LHS. I would have thought that 16mm would exaggurate perspective, not flatten it (like a telephoto would), interesting though. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah not altogether sure but every time I look at I get the same impression - perhaps the lack of depth comes from the lack of shadows created by the HDR? But I think the main reason is the angle of the supporting machinery - the top and bottom truss work inside the dish align with the machinery behind the dish... Compare Image:KSC radio telescope.jpg which works a lot better in terms of conveying the shape of the dish IMO --Fir0002 05:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support. I feel that in this case, unlike your recent Gordon Dam image, the clouds are detrimental to the image, with the telescope slightly blending into them, as opposed to say a clear blue sky. And agree with Victorrocha and Fir0002 that it appears to have a little too much space at left. Nonetheless a good shot. --jjron (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I was probably thinking of cropping off about half as much as has been done. In that respect the crop possibly loses as much as it gains. --jjron (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, i did fiddle around when i was trying the crop, i found that cutting a little bit made the composition feel off to me. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom and EV. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support Original I agree that the clouds are overcooked. High EV and I like the composition with the space on the left. That's where the telescope is aimed and where all the radio waves are flying into the image. IMO it would feel wrong cropped tighter. Mfield (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Cropped tighter, but i'd probably agree with Mfield, prefering the non cropped version, though the cropped version does look better in thumbnails Noodle snacks (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Depends on the use. From a photographic/artistic point of view the composition of the original is far stronger. From an encyclopedic point of view, the crop wins. I still prefer the original. Mfield (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support cropped version more EV than the original. The original may do better at commons FPC. Muhammad(talk) 18:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support either with preference for edit Muhammad(talk) 12:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support original version I don't think that cropping adds EV. IMO the part of the image that was cropped is not distracting; if anything it adds context. Tokugawapants (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support original, weak oppose crop - I just find the cropped version not as interesting or dramatic, and as one of the purposes of a featured picture is to draw the person in and make them want to learn more, the loss of the dramatic background makes the crop much weaker in regards to that criterion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support original - Considering that the EV is similar in both versions I prefer the aesthetics and dramatism of the first -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support crop technically good, visually appealing image that adds value to the article. I'd imagine that the crop would be the preferred by editors developing the article since the additional background doesn't really add anything in terms of value, just distracting from the subject of the article. Guest9999 (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Mount Pleasant Radio Telescope.jpg MER-C 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie

Original - Woody Guthrie, 8 March 1943.

Reason

Cropped a bit tight, but full of personality. Not just the expression on his face and the tag on the guitar--it's interesting to see that the man who wrote "This Land Is Your Land" played with dirt under his fingernails. Restored version of Image:Woody Guthrie.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Protest song, Woody Guthrie, List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, Singer-songwriter, Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos), Mermaid's Avenue, This Land Is Your Land

Creator

Al Aumuller

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 20:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good restoration of a superb photo. The only thing that concerns me is that the new black point is not as conservative as I would have prefered, but it's trivial compared to this pic's sheer photographic quality. Worth 1000 words indeed. Thegreenj 04:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good restoration, but its more like 1004 words (there are four in the photograph). Noodle snacks (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Much better than the other pic of Guthrie on Woody Guthrie. Just out of curiosity, just how does his guitar kill fascists? :P Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If Tom Lehrer is a reliable source, it's "ready, aim, sing!" Durova^Charge! 20:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Or as Woody's kid said, "If you wanna end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud." Chick Bowen 04:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. What an expression. An excellent image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Such history. — ceranthor ^(strike) 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with original concerns re tight crop, but overall a very good contribution for an influential performance artist. --jjron (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Woody Guthrie 2.jpg MER-C 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Floral Stages of Pancratium zeylanicum

Original - A series of pictures illustrating the floral stages of the Pancratium zeylanicum species over a period of four days.

Edit 1 Reduced image to 9 frames, cropped individual images and changed font

Reason

Image with high encyclopedic value consisting of good quality individual images illustrating the floral stages of the specie.

Articles this image appears in

Pancratium zeylanicum

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose at least in this incarnation; some of the images appear unnecessary. What exactly are the "stages", and are there really a dozen of them? The stub article doesn't tell, and an inquiring mind wants to know... ;-) --Janke | Talk 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I am afraid I am not qualified to answer the question about the stages. I will upload a version with fewer images once I know which images are considered redundant. Muhammad(talk) 12:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - As Janke, I think there are too many frames. Maybe reducing its number to six and enlarging each picture. Two more points: the colour of the background should be similar in all images and the font type is a bit fancy. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The colours are different because the pictures were taken at different times, the openinf of the flowers being early morning. I can reduce the number of pictures but six seems too few. Which frames do you suggest removing? What font is the standard for such images? Muhammad(talk) 12:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I usually stick to a very simple sans serif font such as Arial. To answer the other question I think we'd need to be more clear on what is meant by floral stages. I'm not familiar with the term personally, but if we knew what the key stages were then we could be clearer on which frames, if any, were unnecessary (as a quick gut feeling without close analysis, if you wanted to cut it down to six frames, I'd probably say go 1,2,5,8,10,12). --jjron (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I think I may have misused the words floral stages. I have uploaded an edit of the original image which consists of 9 frames. I have not reduced the frames to six because I want to show the rate at which the flowers opens. Frames 2 and 3 are shots taken more than an hour apart but very little change has taken place, compared to frames 3 and 4 only 7 mins apart. I have changed the fonts to Arial and have cropped all the individual images to enlarge the subject. Muhammad(talk) 15:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I've been thinking about this and I can't help but feel that it's not really clear what this sequence is trying to achieve. Reading what you say above you talk about showing the rate at which the flower opens, but you also have it spread over 4 days showing I guess you could say the 'lifecycle' of the flower. In that sense it seems to be hedging its bets - is it showing the flower blooming and dying over four days, or is it showing how quickly the petals open out on that second day? To me, I'm not sure that trying to show both things in the one sequence is ideal, and I suspect that others are thinking along those lines too, not really being clear on what it's showing. I must also say that that second flower, which is particularly prominent on the first two days, really doesn't help things. I presume you took this sequence with its use here in mind, in which case it probably would have been a good idea to trim off that background flower before you started. FWIW the text alignment in the second version has also got out of whack. Sorry, this is turning into a real PPR response. --jjron (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree with jjron about the sequence: to show the lifecycle of the flower, frames 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 would be enough. I really like the idea, but won't give false hopes on this nomination as there are other issues. First, the size and quality of each picture: I think they are not large enough and sharp enough. Forgive me for showing my own images but this is the level of quality I would expect of a FP. Second (and easier to solve), the size and alignment of the legends: they should be smaller, less conspicuous and perfectly aligned both in the horizontal and the vertical. Please gon on trying! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks you for commenting. I withdraw my nomination to fix the faults. Muhammad(talk) 11:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Tree NP Keys View panorama

Original - Panorama of the view south into Coachella Valley from the popular Keys View in the Little San Bernardino Mountains, Joshua Tree National Park, California, USA. Visible landmarks are the Salton Sea (230ft below sea level) at rear left, along towards the center the Santa Rosa Mountains behind Indio and the San Jacinto Mountains behind Palm Springs. In the valley floor, the San Andreas Fault is clearly visible. At the rear right is the 11,500ft San Gorgonio Mountain

Redux - managed to persuade more vertical angle to stitch. Also addressed some of the other issues/concerns pointed out about Original.

Reason

a sharp high resolution geocoded panorama detailing a number of major geological features that adds value to a number of articles.

Articles this image appears in

San Andreas Fault, Joshua Tree National Park, Coachella Valley, Little San Bernardino Mountains

Creator

Mfield

• Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Weak Support (Prefer Newer Version) is the horizon tilted or is that just a function of the geography? Noodle snacks (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a function of the geography. The original component images, shot vertical, as well as a single frame of the entire scene, exhibit the same tilt of the valley floor from this vantagepoint. If you try it in Google Earth you will observe a tilt as well, maybe it is slightly exaggerated - either psychologically or physically - by the projection of a 150 degree panorama. Mfield (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Changed vote then. In my opinion the histogram could be tweaked a bit (to brighten the lighter part of the image and improve the contrast), and there a few dust splotches? to remove on the right hand sky. Would switch to Support if the edit was done (I may be able to do it after my electrical assignment is done). Noodle snacks (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I have removed the remaining dust spots I missed and also performed slight NR on the sky. I will beg to disagree on the histogram front though. The image feels true to the scene here on both my (calibrated) monitors. Mfield (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
        • That'll do for me then. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
          • You missed a spot. It is directly left of the central vertical axis of the panorama between a cloud and mountaintop. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• I prefer the newer version with the forground. Noodle snacks (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Yup, that's what So-Cal looks like. Good picture, great EV :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Great panorama original, Strong Support new version, beautiful! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Now that's what I call a panorama. Jordan ^Contribs 15:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support per above. Nice photo! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good EV and great WOW! Muhammad(talk) 19:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support redux Even better with the rocks Muhammad(talk) 17:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support.. One small concern (sorry, there's always one!), it looks like you've applied some strong local contrast enhancement to the mountains in the background as the top is significantly darker than the rest, and it just looks a bit funny. Not a deal breaker, but I would have softened it if it were me. It does make it look less hazy than I suspect it was. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no LCE, I think it is probably atmospheric haze in the valley that is not present at the level of the tops of the mountains. The ND grad I used is too soft to have caused that effect either. Mfield (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. So where are the windmills? Durova^Charge! 21:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should mention them, I didn't forget them, I took a 39 image panorama of the entire windfarm from the top of the mountains to the South which I am currently finishing up. Problem is the windfarm does not yet have an article Yes it does, it was just orphaned. I should be uploading the image tomorrowtodaydone. Mfield (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Prefer edit, btw. :) Great work. Durova^Charge! 05:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Amazing panorama. Spinach Dip 22:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support Redux Good detail but I'm not keen on the strong vignette/polariser effects in the sky in the corners - the sky looks too unbalanced/unrealistic. Also the the image looks underexposed - the foreground in particularly looks too murky for a bright sunny day... --Fir0002 08:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting because no polarizer was used - it presumably is natural high altitude polarization - an effect of Rayleigh scattering which is especially visible in the 150 degree angle of the shot, which I guess makes it more natural rather than less. Mfield (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose original - I like the mood, the colours and the detail. But also found the symmetrical composition a bit boring. The sky is posterized, probably due to contrast enhancement or level adjustements -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit1 - Much better now though the symmetry is reinforced with the new foreground - Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the symmetrical composition is kind of innevitable in a 150 degree panorama that has been shot specifically for enc rather than artistic reasons. As for the posterization that you see, I can't see it here, where do you see it? Per my above comments there was no contrast enhancement, the contrast was controlled with an ND grad used when shooting which would not cause posterization. Perhaps the sky graduation would be smoother if I went back and re rendered the TIFFs from RAW in 16 bit Adobe RGB though. I'll give that a go at some point. Mfield (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Alvesgaspar for the symmetric composition, I remember I raised the point on a previous nom of yours (Los Angeles). I don't think it's inevitable. I can understand you shoot symmetrical because you actually try to ensure the level is horizontal, but then you can also shoot a second row below. Maybe something obstructed the view (?). Blieusong (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I did crop some foreground out as I was having difficult persuading it to stitch (partially due to it being shot handheld). I have had a strong word or two with the software so....

Oh sorry, I thought you shot this with a tripod, set to horizontal level, hence the horizon being in the middle. Blieusong (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There was definitely some posterisation in the sky in the original, but the redux fixed it for the most part. It was minor, but noticable if you look for it (which I did after it was mentioned). I find that my blender sometimes introduces this when blending 8 bit images, but to a much lesser degree when blending 16 bit, for obvious reasons. I don't think that Adobe RGB vs sRGB would make any difference though as I don't think that the wide gamut is needed here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A whole new redux. More foreground for Alves and Blieusong, less posterization in sky, slight contrast change. Mfield (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support new version. I think the foreground adds a lot to the picture. I like the colours and mood ! -- Blieusong (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Redux. Much improved. I like the context of the rocks in the foreground, and the sky is better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support redux. An excellent image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support redux I like the mood. --Base64 (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support redux much better context in edit. --Janke | Talk 15:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support redux Having some foreground gives a sense of scale, and shows some of the plants of the area that can only be barely seen on the more distant hills. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Joshua tree keys view pano more vertical.jpg MER-C 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting that nobody noticed the cloning artifacts / stitching errors in the foreground. The picture is currently under review on the german Wikipedia. --Dschwen 23:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how those slipped by either - I will fix them. Mfield (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Hope it works out. I'll notify the reviewers. --Dschwen 02:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I left a message over there in the nom too just after yours. I'll replace it and leave a comment over there when it is done. Mfield (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, impressive german skills :-) --Dschwen 03:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Aqueduct

Original - Aqueduct in Segovia, Spain

Edit 1 - corrected perspective and removed distracting elements

Reason

Already a FP on Commons and WP:es. I believe it illustrates its subject well, and it also is visually pleasant.

Articles this image appears in

Segovia, Arch bridge, Roman art, Revolt of the Comuneros, Aqueduct of Segovia

Creator

Manuel González Olaechea y Franco

• Support as nominator --Diego_pmc ^Talk 07:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - The only part letting this one down, in my opinion, is the side of a building on the right. Perhaps if this was edited out I wouldn't have any problems with this image.Matthuxtable (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit one. I like how the picture has both old and new (or at least, newer) buildings. I don't really see any problem with the building on the side. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with intothewoods, the building on the right does not cause problems. Spinach Dip 22:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support, Though small issues with noise and sharpness, I enjoy the contrast of the old and new architectural features. Spencer^T♦C 00:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. A little better. Spencer^T♦C 01:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose until the tilting is fixed. If the aquaduct were really leaning to the left this much, the water would all be falling off the other side. I thought it might be an optical illusion caused by the base being wider, but the verticals on the house in the center are leaning left too, so I think the whole thing just needs slight perspective correction. However the entire image is also too soft. Mfield (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose original - As above, until the tilt is fixed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 -- OK. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Tilted, not the best quality and I dislike the ridge at the bottom of the picture. The composition itself is good though. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have uploaded the edited version. Diego_pmc ^Talk 18:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 1 - I think this is a great image, but perhaps slightly more interesting lighting might have improved it even more, as it looks a teensy bit washed out in this light. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral even after edit 1. Frankly I think the picture would be stronger if the houses on the right were removed entirely, or at least lightened so they aren't so distracting. I understand what the picture is currently trying to do, but I don't think they balance the aqueduct enough as is. This picture is about the scale of the aqueduct ... it doesn't need that symmetry, and when you put your hand over the houses you get that massive aqueduct dwarfing the buildings below, which is what I think the photographer wants to show us.
• Done - I have removed the building on the right as well. Diego_pmc ^Talk 17:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - In the future, will you not save an edit over an already uploaded picture? It looks like we all support edit one, when in reality we actually supported your first edit which is not displayed here anymore. I support any of the pictures, but just FYI :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry. I thought it wasn't necessary to upload it separately. Diego_pmc ^Talk 20:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the angle doesn't really help the enc value etc. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Great picture shows exactly what a aqueduct is. Support either one, but edit 1 more. Epson291 (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:AcueductoSegovia edit1.jpg MER-C 06:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Capitol building in Palau

Original - Capitol building in Palau

Reason

Shows the Government House of an independent (but not known) country and I think it meets all requirements.

Articles this image appears in

Palau; Melekeok

Creator

User Binter from German Wikipedia

• Support as nominator --Maru-Spanish (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Heavily compressed file, lacks sharpness, and subject is cut off. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 02:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting subject, and I'd almost say good composition, but poor quality image from a technical POV. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with the above and would also like to point out noise issues. Spencer^T♦C 19:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Pioneertown, California

Original - Saloon, bank, bath house and livery stable fronts on Mane Street in Pioneertown, California, an unincorporated and inhabited town built in 1946 as a movie/tv set by, amongst others, Roy Rogers.

Reason

an image that meets all the technical requirements and portrays the movie set/town that is Pioneertown in a manner that will encite reader/viewer interest

Articles this image appears in

Pioneertown, California

Creator

Mfield

• Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Unusual subject but undeniably high quality and enc. Only minor detraction is the distortion of the leaves in the top right corner of the frame. Did they catch the edge of the ultra-wide lens? I often shoot one extra frame on either side of where I plan to crop, because when stitching it avoids that sort of issue by using the centre of the frame rather than the corner. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is a single shot, not a stitch at all and it is slightly cropped so you aren't seeing the extreme corner anyway. I think the softness on that close branch is due to the extremely high winds that day (and that are a feature of the high desert) rather than the corner of the lens though as it is pretty consistently sharp at f11. Shame I couldn't get any rolling tumbleweed in shot. Mfield (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Great image. I never saw an image of a town like this before. It's kinda funny how much the ones in cartoons look like the real ones. Diego_pmc ^Talk 07:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. per nom. Really unique pic. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good visual value & enc, indeed it looks like a movie set. (PS: houldn't it be UNihabited, or at least -inhabited? ;-) --Janke | Talk 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it really is inhabited. Not these specific buildings but the rest of the town is a functioning town - you should read the article ;-p. Mfield (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Professional quality. The image isn't that big though, while it has been shot with a 5D. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Highly illustrative. Spinach Dip 22:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - There is something unrealistic about this place, maybe for being desert and too clean. But that does not affect the EV and high technical quality. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Wonderful climate of this picture (It looks like the old good times). I appreciate high technical quality. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 21:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Pioneertown california saloon and bath house.jpg MER-C 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Julia set

Original - The Julia set is a fractal first described in 1918 by then 25-year-old French mathematician Gaston Maurice Julia in the French mathematics publication Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées. This image is a visualization of the Julia set (white) and related Fatou set (red/green/blue) for :$f:z\mapsto z-{\frac {g(z)}{g'(z)}}$ with :$g:z\mapsto z^{3}-1$ in the complex plane.

Reason

High resolution, beautiful, amazing colors and detail, and of encyclopedic value for the Julia set article

Articles this image appears in

Julia Set

Creator

User:Georg-Johann

• Support as nominator --AutoGyro (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Question What am I looking at? I thought the Julia set looked like this?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Answer What you linked to is a julia set with seed coordinates (-0.726895347709114071439, 0.188887129043845954792), the FPC is a Julia set for :$f:z\mapsto z-{\frac {g(z)}{g'(z)}}$ with :$g:z\mapsto z^{3}-1$ in the complex plane. As you can see here [1], there are many different visualizations :) --AutoGyro (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I'm assuming good faith that this is a valuable addition to the article, since I know diddly-squat about math stuff like this ;) Good picture though Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Maybe this is not the best realization of the Julia set for the purpose of clearly illustrationg the fractal replication of the patterns in smaller and smaller scales. In my opisnion the image lacks complexity and detail, and the colours are a bit sad thus affecting the expected Wow factor. Looking for example at this FP , which illustrates the Mandelbrot set, I wonder if something similar could be achieved. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Janke | Talk 13:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support. Very eye-catching, but I am not sure of its importance. Spinach Dip 22:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 08:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Brown Spider Monkey

Original - Critically endangered Brown Spider Monkey (Ateles hybridus) with uncommon blue eyes in captivity in Barquisimeto, Venezuela

Edit 1 - Levels adjustment

Edit 2 - Cropped

Reason

Sharp vibrant photo of rare animal with rare features

Articles this image appears in

Brown Spider Monkey

Creator

User:Tomfriedel

• Support as nominator --Tomfriedel (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit2 maybe could benefit from a saturation boost. The caption is a bit fluffy, and the phrase "shot in captivity" is unfortunate... de Bivort 17:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support with preference for edit 2 the caption may need a bit of re-writing. Muhammad(talk) 18:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Caption shortened and speculation removed. Thegreenj 23:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support very nice, very encyclopedic. Cat-five - talk 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• SupportI like all, but edit two is best. Zginder 2008-10-05T00:14Z (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 The original was great, but there was unused space in the histogram, fixed that with a levels adjustment. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support if cropped tighter Capital photographer (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 I support the last edited version, as the tighter crop is a definite improvement. Jordan ^Contribs 15:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support (Edit 1) - I prefer Edit 1. The crop and subsequent zoom on Edit 2 makes the image look too daunting in my opinion. Matthuxtable (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support any. Spinach Dip 22:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support either version. The crop is an improvement. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:BrownSpiderMonkey (edit2).jpg MER-C 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Tulip at Floriade

Original - A cultivated Tulip (from the family Liliaceae) at Floriade, Canberra Australia.

Reason

The image has high encyclopedia, aesthetic and technical quality. I beleive the image is as good as or better than the present FP image of a tulip Image:Tulip - floriade canberra.jpg and is superior given that is depicts a single tulip in detail against a contrasting background rather than several similar tulips.

Articles this image appears in

Tulip

Creator

Capital photographer

• Support as nominator --Capital photographer (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Nice picture but you may need to find another place for it since you removed a FP from the article to replace it with your image. BTW, Good to have you back. Consider uploading your pictures to wikimedia so that they may be available for other wiki projects as well. Muhammad(talk) 16:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The replacement was reverted. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Oops sorry, I didn't know FPs were treated specially with regards to replacement in articles. I have placed the image in the article again in a different place. Capital photographer (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • FPs are given priority in articles not because they are FPs but because they are superior, which the FP designation recognizes. Plus, FPs must be used in articles in order to gain and maintain their status. But don't worry, there's plenty of room.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Low encyclopedic value. It mainly just clutters the article, I think the article is better off without it. Narayanese (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a tulip in an article about tulips and isn't the worst shot in the article by far. Any chance you care to explain that a little more since it seems to me that Image:Pink_tulip2.jpg and Image:Konyatulip.jpg are much worse shots technically and the pink tulip in front of a building shot has absolutely 0 encyclopedic value. Cat-five - talk 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:Konyatulip.jpg shows how you grow tulips. Technical quality does not help if the picture doesn't illustrate anything (and given the great lead picture, this one doesn't). Narayanese (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support While the current FP is sharper, with water droplets clearly visible and and more detail on the background tulips, this one devotes twice (eyeball guesstimate) the screen area to the primary tulip.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral This one is imo definately more useful at thumbnail size than the other image, and clearer, it is soft even when scaled down though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodle snacks (talk • contribs) 07:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Out of focus on petals nearest and furthest away. Appears to have an artificial outline - looks oversharpened at the edges, even if it may not be. The current FP wins, IMO. Easy to shoot a better one, so keep trying... ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose - I just don't like flower-head shots that lack the context of the rest of the plant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Medium oppose - Not perfect background, too dark in the bottom. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 21:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Tasmanian Native-hen

Original - A Tasmanian Native-hen (Gallinula mortierii) grazing in Tasmania, Australia. Although flightless they are capable of running at up to 50 km/h

Reason

Nice lighting, nice quality, typical posture for the bird.

Articles this image appears in

Tasmanian Native-hen, Rallidae

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Start timestamp. MER-C 13:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sorry about that, the creation link seemed to be broken yesterday so copied from a different nomination. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support The focus on the subject is amazing and it is a great shot however only a weak support since as much as I love the shot of the subject (and the technical skill it must have required) I keep being drawn to how distracting the grass and the background are, unfortunately that sometimes can't be helped in photography but it does detract somewhat from the target and from the image in general. Cat-five - talk 00:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The grass is a principle component of the bird's diet, so having that bit in focus probably isn't a bad thing. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Changed from weak to full per the above. Cat-five - talk 01:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I think that, even though the surroundings aren't the most pretty, they have good EV. The main subject is sharp, and that is much more important than a messy background. Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support another great image of a rail. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Lovely image. Aviceda talk 06:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Lovely image. now for the article...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Very nice. Spencer^T♦C 19:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Tasmanian Native-hen.jpg MER-C 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden's first speech after vice-presidential candidacy announcement

Original - Joe Biden's first speech after the announcement of his vice presidential candidacy in Springfield, Illinois

Edit1 - Edit by Mfield to make controversial teleprompter appear transparent (as it actually is in reality when it doesn't have bright sunlight bouncing off it)as they more commonly are

Reason

It's a high quality and relevent image of both Joe Biden and Barack Obama early on in their campaign with good expression and clarity. I recall seeing a very different image of the two of them nominated in the past and I liked that one, but I think this one has a bit more context.

Articles this image appears in

Joe Biden and Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2008

Creator

User:Dschwen

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The stand (i'm not 100% sure what that is), is too distracting. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Umm. Its just a dark, wooden, innocuous stand/podium, how does it distract you? Its an important part of the stage where Joe Biden is speaking and is relevent to the composition. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I think s/he's referring to the white thing between them, which I agree is unfortunate. Good picture but I need to think a bit more about it before supporting. Sidenote: Obama looks a bit like a doofus here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Is it a teleprompter? This one that Bush is using looks pretty advanced (no doubt our best tech is needed to make him barely coherent). Biden seems to be looking its way. I agree it's a little distracting, but it's a shot of a public speech, not a portrait, so it's to be expected there is some junk in the frame... ditto with the water bottle. Fletcher (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes it is. The transparent teleprompters don't work so well in bright sunshine. --Dschwen 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Diego_pmc ^Talk 18:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Strong Support Obama is a little bit blurred. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • True, but if you look at the FPC title, and the articles that it is in, the image is not about Obama. It is more about Joe Biden in relation to the presidential campaign, so in this sense, it is probably preferable for Obama to be slightly out of focus as he is present, but not speaking. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support despite teleprompter, blurry Obama, and color-splotched wood.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Intothewoods29 (below) had a good point: It depicts an event, rather than a face, and the teleprompter has to be there because Biden is "not entitled to look more authentic than he is" (Fletcher). Removing the teleprompter is unrealistic and POV.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support encyclopedic value and decent technical quality Thisglad (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Has EV, but lacks the photographic merit of the Obama FP we already have. Durova^Charge! 05:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • And yet the Obama FP we already have shows a stunning lack of Joe Biden and his first speach on the campaign. --Dschwen 12:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The photo is in the Biden presidential campaign article, not the Obama campaign article. EV seems lacking in that respect. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-10-03 15:43Z
      • What does this comment refer to? It makes no sense to me. --Dschwen 20:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I think he was replying to my comment below. It still makes no sense even then, though. I think the fact that the image is in the Joe Biden article makes it perfectly encyclopaedic for that article. Just because it also exists in other articles as a major or minor image, it does not discount the image as a FP. It only needs one article in which it provides enc. The rest is just a bonus. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
          • The Obama FP we already have is a fine piece of photography by any standard. As important as this photograph is (and yes I'm glad we have it), the two principal figures are divided by a teleprompter. If the photographer had been standing to the left so the background were more consistent and the teleprompter less intrusive, and if the photo had been taking while the two men were smiling at each other (or better still, shaking hands) then I would probably support. I realize it is very difficult to get this type of shot at all, much less get it to order. But (at least theoretically) there are four more weeks for Wikipedians to get photographs of the presidential campaigns. Durova^Charge! 23:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
            • four more weeks for Wikipedians to get photographs of the the announcment event of his vicepresidency and their first joint appearance in the campaign. Sure. --Dschwen 23:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
            • And what you didn't realize: there is a second teleprompter off to the left (check Image:Obama_Biden_rally_4.jpg), getting a picture without a teleprompter without a tight closeup is just not possible, they are always there. --Dschwen 12:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
              • I am all too aware of the limitations when one tries to get featured material out of political events. Several months back I nominated Abraham Lincoln's first inauguration after having spent about 15 hours restoring it. It lost out on technical merits too. Durova^Charge! 23:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Durova -- mcshadypl ^TC 06:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Its an encyclopedic image but I prefer this image as it shows better details about Biden with a background Obama illustrating their partnership. Muhammad(talk) 15:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose EV not really there. Note that it's used in the Biden presidential campaign article. White stand is also pretty distracting. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-10-03 15:43Z
  • Yes, it is in the presidential campaign article, and while the image itself is not of his campaign for presidentcy, it is still relevent as it is in the Aftermath section where it relates to his vice-presidency. And it is also in the Joe Biden article, where it has plenty of EV IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry but this one just doesn't do it for me. Oppose as per above. Jordan ^Contribs 17:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I think this "action shot" provides a valuable example of what these guys do, something a pic of their heads would not have. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - the supposed main subject is not the actual main focus of the photo.--Avala (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• There are pretty much no pictures related to the democratic ticket of even comparable quality used in article and made by Wikipedians. (The current Obama FP is only half an exception, as it it a) only used in a subarticle now and b) the uploader didn't ever contribute anything else). So, yes, you guessed it, I find it very frustrating how people stack on one made up reason after another. Supposed main subject is not the actual main focus of the photo, what?! Explain please. this one just doesn't do it for me, can this be qualified in terms of the criteria? EV not really there, huh?! It is first event in their joint campaign. I think this is a pretty important moment for Joe Biden, hence it is in his article. lacks the photographic merit of the Obama FP we already have, how would an existing Obama FP be relevant here? The honorable nominator has also produced numerous high resolution panos which exceed the photographic merit of most images on this page (including pretty much every single Durova-nomination), does this mean we cannot promote those?! Geez, it wasn't like I could set up a tripod in that dense crowd! I was standing in the scorching sun for 5 hours at that time. People were fainting left and right of me. So pardon that my hand wasn't all that steady anymore. I shot about 500 pictures that day. Most of them with the camera held high above my head. It seems like some people here don't realize what it took to get this (and the other pic in the series) --Dschwen 21:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally sympathize with you Daniel. I complained about this earlier on commons, since I kept hitting the same wall. The same is currently the case with my picture of the red-light district. I completely understand why it is being opposed here by the way(good arguments are given), but it will probably not make on commons, due to vague arguments like 'not interesting' (though it is a very good picture except for the EV). But don't let it get to you, or else you will lose fun in being on Wikipedia. There will always be people judging your work negatively based on the wrong arguments, but so what..it isn't a matter of life and death. As long as you know that it is a good picture, which you can be proud of partly due to the effort you put in to it. P.S. Diliff nominated it, so that has got to count for something. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is crazy. It's not about how much effort Dschwen put into it, or about who nominated it. It's about the picture, people! Fletcher (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point I think he meant to make, this picture is easily as good as most professional photographers sell to stock photography agencies but he released it on wikipedia, some people are judging the image quite harshly considering it's considerable encyclopedic value and acceptable technical quality (who expects every face in an image to be in sharp focus?) Thisglad (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I thought I might oppose for the teleprompter, which lessens the authenticity of Biden's oration, but I realized he's not entitled to look more authentic than he is. The teleprompter simply depicts reality. Some viewers are evidently confused or distracted by it, so it might be noted in the caption somehow. And although I prefer the close-up shot Muhammad pointed to, the subject photo is still among Wikipedia's best work. Surprised it doesn't have more competition.. Fletcher (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I'd crop a bit off the right side though. de Bivort 05:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Despite what the nitpickers say about the teleprompter being in the image overall I think it's still a good shot and still meets the criteria. Cat-five - talk 00:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The teleprompter detracts from the picture's enc., there are also some focus issues (especially looking at Obama) and noise (look at the Obama/Biden sign for some of it). Changed to Weak support Spencer^T♦C 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • NO IT DOESN'T. I've just about had it! There are teleprompters at public speeches. If you don't believe it, go to one your self. it is not Wikipedias mission to beautify reality, and create the illusion that these people can speak freely for hours. Geez! This is an encyclopedia, if don't wan images that depict reality as it is, then go to flicker, or deviant art or where ever. --Dschwen 20:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • While Dschwen has tackled the issue of the teleprompter, let me clarify a few more points. This image depicts Joe Biden giving the speech and is in articles relating to Joe Biden and as such, the focus is on Joe Biden. Therefore it is completely unrealistic to expect the background to be tack-sharp, particularly Obama who is incidental, but a bonus to the composition. Also, the amount of noise visible on the sign is absolutely insignificant. We've featured hundreds of photos with more noise (including many of mine). Yes, the criteria mentions technical quality such as noise, but be fair. You should compare it to existing FPs rather than a theoretical ideal of zero noise. Sorry to come down hard on you but to be honest, you have more than come down hard on this image without due justification IMO! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, thanks for clarifying. Also per the comment below: "The teleprompter is a crucial device and omitting it would distort the account of the event." by Dschwen. Changing vote to weak support. (Question though: Could the teleprompter not have separated Biden and Obama, or have been in the center? i.e., if it could have been taken from an angle where it was on the side, or a bit lower.) Spencer^T♦C 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Very illustrative, high enc, well done. As for the teleprompter, that's part of a politician giving a speech in his natural environment. Mfield (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - could do without the big white square in the middle of the image --T-rex 21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but do people read the previous course of discussion before they cast their vote?! --Dschwen 22:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • So go retake the picture without the big white square in the middle. As long as it is there this is not featured picture quality --T-rex 22:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • As he already explained, there are two teleprompters very near the stage that Joe Biden used during the speech. No angle could possibly avoid the teleprompter while providing any significant environmental context to the speech. It is of complete relevance to the composition. Why do you insist it must be absent??? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I'd go even further, even if there would have been a way to take this without the teleprompter, I'd still include it. The teleprompter is a crucial device and omitting it would distort the account of the event. The suggestion to go retake the picture without the big white square isn't really helpful and makes me wonder if the user is even remotely interested in a serious discussion. --Dschwen 23:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I am completely serious. We don't need a picture of a white square. I am sure there are better times and better angles from which to get a picture of Obama and Biden together. However due to the junk in the middle of the picture this is clearly not featured quality. --T-rex 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
            • T-Rex, please explain if you would what brought you here today to place such vehement opposition to this image, on what from not recognizing your username and from a quick glance back though your contributions appears to be your first day of contributions at FP? Did you just happen upon this or was it brought to your attention somehow. I am interested. If it is your first time contributing here you would do well to familiarize yourself with the criteria and procedures before throwing such explanations and language like 'junk' around. Mfield (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Oh, no, not... dare I say (and even then not in regards to the image): "Junk". Wow, even my the profanity filters at my schools computers didn't allow that one! I had to manually hack J-U-N and K together. ;-) Look, guys, he's opposing due to composition. Leave it at that. He isn't a new user (New to FPC perhaps but not new) he wasn't calling the image "j*nk". Only the teleprompter. If this image doesn't stand up to the spirit and/or the letter of the criteria for this voter. Leave it at that. This has gone beyond the usual "perhaps you didn't consider this technical limitation" dialogue. Relax. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
                • No this is not my first time with featured picture candidates, but it has been a long while since I last was here. My opinions on the pictures also are different from the majority here, as I focus on angle and extreamness, rather than technical aspects. And if you are accusing me of having a political motivation for this, then you really haven't looked at my contributions. You really don't think I couldn't find a better venue to push political ideas? I just think that the white square takes away from the subject of the image, and therefore leaves it at less then featured quality. --T-rex 01:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • Sorry if imy comment seemed a touch accusatory, it just seemed that this particular image had attracted a bunch of voting from new or non regular contributors which seemed a bit unusual. Mfield (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
                • Well, none of us can argue persuasively about composition since it is a subjective element of every photo but to be honest it just sounds like he is opposing a fundamental and necessary part of the scene. It is a bit like opposing an image of a cat because the cat has whiskers and they're distracting/ugly/whatever. Thats just what cats have, and it would be unfair to oppose on those grounds. If it were even possible to take a photo of a cat that avoided showing its whiskers, would that be appropriate to do? I would argue that no, a good FP shows all elements relevant to the composition clearly. Anyway, regarding the issue of new, I would say that while everyone that shows some thoughtfulness deserves equal suffrage, we should still make sure they're doing so within the bounds of the criteria and not creating their own criteria to support their position. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • So whenever Joe Biden and Barack Obama get together a white square always just magically appears between them? --T-rex 13:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
                    • This image doesn't depict Biden and Obama 'getting together'. This is Biden's and the Democratic Party ticket's first election run speech and as such, the composition contains speech related items such as a teleprompter. You're being obtuse. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support It's a well known fact that Obama is incapable of giving a coherent speech without a teleprompter anyway, so having it within the shot is completely encyclopedic. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • While I agree with you that it is encyclopaedic, I do note that it isn't actually Obama giving the speech here... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support. It is actually nice that a support vote is the first that shows clearly how the discussion is not just about the picture, but obviously tainted by party politics. People editing Wikipedia should know better than this. --Dschwen 00:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately they don't. MER-C 08:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Geez, some people just can't take a joke can they? (PS: I'm well aware of the fact that Obama wasn't speaking at that exact moment, but given the fact that it is his campaign rally I don't see how that would make a difference in regard to the teleprompter) -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I should support this as well. As an eyewitness to the event I can testify to the pictures authenticity and (as far as possible) NPOVness. As I iterated above, getting this quality under the circumstances was already quite a challenge, and in fact of the several hundred pictures I took, only a handful came out this well. In terms of quality and encyclopedic value/relevance this image fulfills the criteria in my opinion. Yes, I took the picture, but I'm quite aware of that, and certainly would not argue this strongly for any arbitrary pic of mine. --Dschwen 16:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I appreciate the work that went into this, and acknowledge that it is a good shot of this particular event. However, the EV of having the two on stage at this particular event is not high enough for me to support this as a Featured Picture, given how offputting the visual clutter of the pillars is for me. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to point out, that these are not the paper-mâché columns from the democratic national convention, but the authentic columns from the Old State House in Springfield, where Obama (and incidently Abraham Lincoln) announced his bid for the Presidency. It doesn't look cluttered to me in the enlarged version. The thumb doesn't do it justice. --Dschwen 21:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - nice picture. When I looked on them I saw peculiar situation. It's not easy to take interesting picture during politcal speech - but this time it has been done. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 21:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Composition-wise, this just doesn't meet FP standards in my view.--ragesoss (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mostlyharmless and Ragesoss. In my view, the composition is just not up to FP snuff, and the event isn't important enough to mitigate that. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose based solely on the lack of photographic merit (composition, sharpness, etc.) expected from featured images. As spectacular and unique as Barack Obama is, this photo is not. As an aside- and not at all affecting my !vote in the matter- I find some of the behavior of Dschwen and Difill in this discussion completely unacceptable. To assume someone is making their decision based on politics- with no proof whatsoever- is deplorable, and the photographer and nominator are both attempting to claim that encyclopedic value is simply a fact (as if it was just conferred on the image based on who's in it and when it was taken) as opposed to a matter of opinion. Regardless of their actions, and regardless of my extremely liberal political values (I work for a local Democratic committee, for god's sake), I still don't think this image is worthy of being featured. -- Mike (Kicking222) 18:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm surprised this nomination is still active actually, given that the recent votes have pushed consensus away from a promotion and it is well overdue for closure. Firstly, I accept genuine compositional reasons as grounds for opposition. I only protested against unjustifiable votes that completely misinterpreted the point of the nomination. Many people were arguing (and it appears you have too), for example, that this image is about Barack Obama. It isn't, it is in articles relating to Joe Biden. Also, I never assumed that someone made their decisions based on politics. I suspected it on occasion, but never involved that in the discussion, given the obvious lack of proof and it was never a factor in my arguments. However, given that numerous opposing votes were cast by people with poor justification and a distinct lack of prior involvement in FPC, I don't think it is wrong to at least be aware of the possibility of political bias being a factor. We can assume good faith to an extent, but it is counterproductive when the odds suggest otherwise, even when absolute proof is unattainable. As for the technical photographic merit of the image, the sharpness is absolutely top notch when compared to the vast majority of existing FPs (remember, Obama is not the focus of the shot, so the sharpness of him is not critical). Composition, as I have always argued here, is subjective and cannot be discussed in absolute terms, so I won't even attempt to disagree on that one. I just think you should read carefully what I've said before you call my actions deplorable. I deny that I did what you're accusing me of! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Opposition I oppose only because of the controversy. I could very well be wrong, but I think a featured pictures should be a picture that can be universally(more or less) appreciated. However, I could be persuaded that this much controversy makes a good featured picture. Unfortunately, the controversy seems to be on the pictures merits(composition, focus, etc.) rather than on politics. LCpl Stephen Bolin, USMC (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I think you are somewhat wrong about featured pictures being universally appreciated. What we're looking for is images that are of great value to articles and are of high technical standard, as per the criteria. It doesn't say anything about being universally appreciated by viewers. It seems like you're only politicising the nomination/image more (not in the US election sense of political but wikipedia political sense) by opposing 'because of the controversy'. I think it should be the case that either you believe the image meets the criteria set, or you don't. Your opinion on the discussion should not be a factor in your vote at all! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, ok, now I've seen it all! An oppose that is only based on the fact that some other people opposed. In light of this so called controversy being a complete farce (let me just say floating white square), this makes this vote... ...ah well, I better stop typing here. --Dschwen 14:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Due to the distracting teleprompter. Great images get tossed all the time because of some distracting element, I see no reason to make an exception. It also looks a lot like a snapshot, which also get tossed all the time. The most interesting thing to note here IMHO is the label removed from the water bottle. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Added Edit1 just to see if that removes any of the teleprompter objections and leaves only the political opposes in place ;) Also croped a little background out. Mfield (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the effort, but the teleprompter was not transparent, as I explained above. --Dschwen 04:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm, i missed that bit in the long winded and often irrelevant discussion. Although that would be the first non transparent teleprompter I have ever seen so I just assumed it was a reflection of the sky. Unless the monitor they are using is incredibly dim there should be no reason not to use a transparent one so that's quite unusual in itself. They obviously didn't get the memo from FP voters that non use of a transparent one would risk them not being featured ;) Mfield (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Nice photoshop work though, but I agree with Dschwen. We can't just change what existed in the scene because we don't like the aesthetics. If people can't accept the scene as it is, so be it. Shame though, as it helps to describe the event IMO, not detract from it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
        • It was mostly as a matter of interest thing to see what the reaction would be, after all people have been arguing that it is distracting and not important and shouldn't be there. Plenty of FPs have had distracting background elements removed before they were passed, so I was interested to see whether it would change any votes/remove any of the objections that were solely based on the teleprompter. I happen to agree with you and Dschwen and have no problem with the original myself. Mfield (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Very cool Mfield! What did you use to fill in the white space? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Basically some layer masking tricks and the miracle of the clone tool. Mfield (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The column behind the teleprompter looks a little shifted to the right (intentional?) but it looks good. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Random section break

I can has feedback on edit 1 plz. MER-C 05:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose It still looks like a rather unremarkable snapshot, though the translucent teleprompter is a big improvement. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose edit - distorts reality... Nicely done, though! ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The distracting telepromoter was the main sticking point, but the attempt to fix this was opposed. I'm not sure whether the event was important enough to offset this, so No consensus seems the obvious outcome. MER-C 11:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange isn't it. I think it may just have become too buried down the page, or the discussion may have become too political and long winded for it to attract any further attention from previous voters. Mfield (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh, sweet, it's Nov 5th, official results are in, and I'm sitting on the Florida Keys. IN YOUR FACE!!! ;-) --Dschwen 02:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• And did you happen to be drinking a few pina coladas at the time you wrote this? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • And for that matter, why weren't you in Chicago taking photos for FPC on the night of the election??? They had transparent teleprompters there!! How could you miss that opportunity!?! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I swear I was at most chewing a Pina Colada Starburst.. ..wait, no matter how I answer it doesn't make me look good. Well the vacation was tied to a conference, and in retrospect I much preffered sunny Florida over waiting in chilling Chicago. --Dschwen 21:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a photo of a nice blue sky. If only the teleprompter hadn't been there... --Para (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fantastic photography. It's quite humbling seeing what the pro's shoot. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed it is. I'll keep those angles in mind for the next campaign. --Dschwen 21:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Araneus Heroine

Original - An adult male Araneus Heroine

Reason

Clear, technically sound and enc image of an interesting spider

Articles this image appears in

Araneus

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Very nice macro. I do think that for animals such as this, it would be great (probably a bit much to ask?) if we could get a series of two or three images from different angles that we could feature together. For example, from above, from the side, and looking head on near ground level. I know this angle is ideal from a DOF perspective, but it is much harder to get a feel for what it looks like in three dimensions. As it is, though, I think it is still worthy of FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm that's an interesting idea and something I'll bear in mind for future studio work, but haven't got a front view of this spider - only got a side view (which I can add if you think it's worth it) --Fir0002 05:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support This image suggests it could be bigger and have a more inclusive DOF.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually this specimen (and quite possibly the entire species) didn't lend itself to focus bracketing as it moves to much. After taking it out of the freezer it's all curled up and not very photogenic, and once it warms up enough to stretch its legs it starts walking (this shot is taken mid stride). So this is as good as it gets. --Fir0002 05:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • For some reason (probably the similarity to the image linked above) I thought it was a focus bracket of a dead/stunned specimen. For a single shot of a live one, this is excellent.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 05:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support ewww you have spiders in your freezer? *checks chocolate ice cream for cobwebs* Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support--Avala (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom, I do prefer natural backgrounds though. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support quality work that meets criteria Capital photographer (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support I hate to sound like a raving fir fanboy but another great macro shot Fir. Great encyclopedic quality and a high quality shot. Cat-five - talk 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Heh, heh. I love your macros, or all of your photos, Fir. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. < 2mpix really shows here (just look at how much of the picture is occupied by the body). I miss the taken away pixels and "instinctively" want to magnify the picture. I also find the lighting a bit harsh. Blieusong (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you are confusing commons with en:fpc - you're looking at this pic from the wrong perspective. What you should be thinking is great, it's way above 1mpix - not that it is <2mpix as 2mpix is not a guideline at en:fpc. As for the lighting there's nothing I can say other than I'm surprised - the subject is well lit and the shadows are soft, what were you hoping for? --Fir0002 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I know en:fpc hasn't the same rules. But I maintain the picture isn't big enough to me to show all the details the bug deserves. Maybe lighting isn't harsh. but flat ? (excuse my poor english). Blieusong (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Agree with you on the lighting, harsh, but not flat. It's very high contrast, but it's not really directional at all; the purely top-down lighting makes it seem somehow sterile and untextured to me. It's not a big enough problem for me to oppose, but I do think it is there. Thegreenj 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose as Blieusong. Muhammad(talk) 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Blieusong and after some thought. Two other things I don't like are the unnatural background and the top view. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Just to straighten the record in terms of the "unnatural" background this spider was found in web in the corner of the inside of a building - photographing it there would have simply changed the background to cream rather than white and produced long, deep, shadows. 'Natural' backgrounds do not always entail lush greenery. --Fir0002 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Question How big was it? Noodle snacks (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The distance between the the longest pair of legs is approx 4cm --Fir0002 06:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Cute spider. Spinach Dip 22:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Araneus heroine.jpg MER-C 10:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Japanese calligraphy

Original - Cry for noble Saichō (哭最澄上人), written by Emperor Saga of Japan upon the death of the Buddhist monk Saichō in the 9th century. The influence of Chinese calligraphic styles had weakened after the Heian period, with this text as one of the few examples of the transformation to a native Japanese style.

Not for voting - For comparison purposes, this is Chinese calligraphy from the 7th century, and you can see the stylistic differences between the Japanese style above and the cursive Chinese style (2nd and 4th columns, counting from the right).

Reason

Beautiful example of Japanese calligraphy and an important historical document, as it shows the development of a Japanese style, transitioning away from the Chinese style that had heretofore dominated.

Articles this image appears in

Japanese calligraphy, Emperor Saga

Creator

Emperor Saga

• Support as nominator --howcheng {chat} 04:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - a little obscure to Westerners, but definitely worth having as a featured picture. We don't do systemic bias here =) Any chance of a transcription? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That could be a toughie. I might try at the Japanese Wikipedia, but I'm certainly not capable of it. howcheng {chat} 16:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I asked User:Laitche who is Japanese and he says that this is really old Japanese or possibly Chinese, but in either case it's beyond him. It may only be readable by scholars of this stuff. howcheng {chat} 21:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Transcription request, Sushiya passed along the following from the Japanese Wikipedia:

"釈文:（香煙は）像爐に（続く）　蒼生橋梁に少なく　緇侶（しりょ）律儀疎（うと）し　法軆何ぞ久しく住（とど）まらん　塵心傷みて餘り有り". So, the pictured text should be: "像爐蒼生橋梁 / 少緇侶律儀疎 / 法軆何久住塵 / 心傷有餘". --Sushiya (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Fg2 (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Everything a text FP ought to be. Durova^Charge! 07:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I see several little dots and spots around-are these supposed to be part of the calligraphy or are they on the paper itself?-in which case would it be better to remove them? Lemon martini (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • They're not part of the calligraphy; they might be ink drops, or they might be scanning/printing artifacts, but I'd be hard pressed to determine which. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. That's pretty crazy awesome to have a pic created by an emperor. My guess would be that the black dots are just ink drops like Howcheng said. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Koku Saitcho shounin.jpg MER-C 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Migrant family of the Great Depression

Original - A migrant family in California's agricultural region, March 1935. Photo by Dorothea Lange.

Reason

Dorothea Lange knew how to capture the Great Depression.

Articles this image appears in

American Agricultural Economy in the 1920s-1940, Migrant worker, Working poor

Creator

Dorothea Lange

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 21:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

* Comment Good picture, but I don't see a need for keeping the photo print border Thisglad (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Support Would make a good picture for the front page as well Thisglad (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

* Question: it's a good pic, but I've never really liked borders. Is there a good reason to keep the border on this? Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Okay, I've removed the border. It's a minor enough change that I've uploaded over the previous image. Durova^Charge! 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support now. Good EV. I like the look on the face of the kid with the comics. haha Intothewoods29 (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent EV and great retouching. Amphy (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Langechildren2.jpg MER-C 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh, yeah this page sucks. No help at all.

Missing Square Puzzle

Original - The Missing square puzzle. This is an alternative of the well-known "missing square paradox", popularized by Sam Loyd in the beginning of the 20th century. When the four quadrilaterals rotate about their centres, they fill the space occupied by the small red square. However the total area of the figure remains apparently unchanged during the process. Look better!

Reason

highly pedagogic and funny geometrical illusion which doesn't call for any special mathematical or geometrical skills and motivates the reader to go through the detailed explanation in the article.

Articles this image appears in

Missing square puzzle

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Info - Also a second try (see here), with some minor improvements. I made this puzzle more than twenty years ago (in wood) and haven't found yet any written reference to it. However, and because its principle is quite simple, it might be hidden is some old puzzle book. The aim of the animation is to puzzle the reader and defy him to find the explanation, which is quite simple and doesn't call for any special mathematical or geometrical skills. For a full description see the article.
• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question According to the article, the apparent paradox is resolved because the 4 quadrilaterals + square combination is slightly larger than the four quadrilaterals alone. But the animation makes them the same size. Should the larger square be a pixel larger or something? Or does the documentation in the article need to be expanded and made more comprehensive? (I'm pretty sure it does.)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The size of the big square in the animation does change slightly between the two arrangements.--ragesoss (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • By golly it does! It's just undetectable in the thumbnail.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I can see it in the thumbnail. Pick a corner, stare for a moment, and it'll move a couple of pixels. Durova^Charge! 10:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh yes...I must have been blind when I wrote the first comment.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting. I fixed a small spelling error in the caption. Amphy (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support it appeals to my inner geek. Durova^Charge! 03:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, but is the graphic demonstrating the problem, or answering it. I think that if lines showing the size change are included, it would increase the image's value, especially because the size difference appears so minimal in the thumbnail. Spencer^T♦C 03:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Good idea, but the lines would be so close together they'd be hard to discern. By increasing the size of the orange square, we increase (exaggerate) the disparity between the two figure allowing the difference to be wider (clearer).--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Info -- Three small mistakes were corrected in frames 2, 11 and 12. Now I think it is pretty clear, in the transition from one frame to the next, that the area in being increased (or decreased) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I like the sense of questionability and mathematics behind this image. Matthuxtable (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work. Spinach Dip 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Missing square edit.gif MER-C 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Feeding Australian Painted Lady Closeup

Original - A close up image of an Australian Painted Lady with its proboscis extended whilst feeding

Reason

Technically sound and good EV

Articles this image appears in

Australian painted lady, Insect mouthparts, Nectar, Nectarivore and Pollinator

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - An excellent and beautiful picture but with dubious EV. Butterflies are not, as far as I know, effective pollinators. Thus the insertion of the picture in Pollinator is questionable. Also, it doesn't seem that this is the best depiction of Insect mouthparts or of Nectar. An obvious candidate to Commons FP though -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support very nice Muhammad(talk) 12:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Really good pic. I think it has plenty of EV for Insect mouthparts and for Nectar, particularly the Extrafloral nectaries section. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The image shows floral nectaries, though. mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Do you have an ID on the flower? It's not particularly important, but since it's there in full, it might be worth identifying. Some sort of strawberry, perhaps? Thegreenj 20:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like some Viburnum sp. (V. tinus ?). But it is difficult to say with so little information -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It is feeding on the flowers of Cotoneaster glaucophyllus --Fir0002 23:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. AshLin (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The only problem I have is that the pupil of the eye is a little blurry but that's probably just how the eye is, not a problem with the image. Amphy (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per my comments above. In none of the articles the picture has a relevant EV. It should be removed from Pollinator for being misleading: butterflies are not effective pollinators. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The Nectar article talks about how predators feed on nectar, indeed describing it as the purpose of external nectar. In depicting this vital process the image might not be the best depiction of nectar itself but it still depicts the process very well and surely adds value to the article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The butterflies are not predators and they do not feed, as far as I know, on the extraforal nectaries (it is not doing that on the picture, for sure). In my opinion this picture should not be kept in the nectar artcicle, where it misleads the reader, less yet be promoted to FP for his extraordinary EV on the subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's illustrative of extraforal nectaries, but rather compliments the second sentence of the second paragraph. --Fir0002 23:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
      • You mean this one: [...] so that pollinators are made to brush the flower's reproductive structures, the anthers and pistil, while accessing the nectar ? Well, the picture doesn't show the brushing, it is not mentioned in its caption and this is not the pollinator article. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
      • No this one: It is also useful in agriculture and horticulture because the adult stages of many predatory insects, as well as hummingbirds and butterflies, feed on nectar. Also from the Butterfly article: Butterflies play an important ecological role as pollinators. --Fir0002 23:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
        • That's an unreferenced statement in the article. I've marked it as such. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry for any inaccuracy in my above statement, it's been a while since I studied in the area and obviously I need to brush up on things before trying to inform others. Guest9999 (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
      • No need to apologize!  :) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Is the efficacy of butterflies as pollinators the issue and its appropriateness for the wiki on Pollinator or whether the image has artistic merit to qualify as a Featured? AshLin (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The encyclopaedic value prevails over the artistic merit. Please check criterium 5 here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
        • As I mentioned above the butterfly article pretty clearly states that butterflies are important pollinators --Fir0002 00:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• (reset indent) Yes, that is stated in the butterfly article, which is not illustrated by this picture. Anyway I still contest that butterflies are, in general, "important" pollinators. Due to their long legs and proboscis, they stay away from the anthers while feeding. That is why we never see a butterfly covered with pollen, like bees and hoverflies. This fact is clearly written in the pollinator article: Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) also pollinate to a small degree. They are not major pollinators of our food crops, but various moths are important for some wildflowers, or other commercial crops such as tobacco. Let me say it again: this is a beautiful picture but lacks enough EV for being featured, as it doesn't add significant value to the articles. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar. I think Fir's other painted lady photo shows virtually everything this one does, while also showing more of the insect itself. Matt Deres (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar and Matt Deres. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Commment I can't believe the "no EV" argument is picking up so much momentum - this image is a great illustration for five articles making EV on of it's strong points. It's clearly a pollinator: Pollinator, Pollination syndrome, [2] [3] [4] [5]. It clearly feeds on Nectar (fact 5) making it a good illustration for Nectarivore. Finally, and probably most significantly, the image shows a good close up of a butterfly's proboscis in action making it a perfect illustration of the relevant section of Insect mouthparts. Anyway I'll leave at that as I've got to concentrate on preparing for exams now and trust in MER-C's judgement on the matter --Fir0002 12:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Are we invoking the grand dictator again? I'm afraid that it is not MERC's role to go against community consensus (or perhaps, an absence thereof). The reason it doesn't have EV in insect mouthparts is that it shows only the proboscis, and even so, only partially (that is,one out of five mouthparts that insects have). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

MWA HA HA HA HA HA. No consensus for now, but if someone can be bothered writing a section on Australian painted lady about it's feeding habits, then I'd say you have it. MER-C 05:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support for featuring. Reason: the decisive impression made by those labial palps (labial palp, Britannica).

It just so happens I'm in the process of making a List of Australian butterflies. It will take a long time for me to get around to writing up each currently absent species. However, this image would be outstanding as an illustration for a glossary of anatomical names of features related to the head. The labial palps are wonderfully distinct, and the eye is outstanding (literally ;)—doesn't she follow you around the room?

Since Wiki would not lose the image by moving it to Commons, why not do that?

If the image is not relevant to pollinator etc., by all means discuss removing it from those articles. However, for Vanessa kershawi it is obviously an excellent close-up. If that article doesn't have text illustrated by the picture as yet, that is a deficiency of the text, not of the picture.

But why not leave the picture, it makes up for a thousand missing words. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

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. Please close nominations from the bottom up.

L'Innocence

Original - Bouguereau's Innocence

[[<joke image -'man.jpg' - deleted>|thumb|250px|Alternate 1 - An innocent man having his hat blown off. Huge, simply tremendous EV, very nice piece of art, illustrates the subject well. ]]

Reason

A beautiful image of cultural and historic value. Well known and pleasing to the eye. Good use in articles.

Articles this image appears in

Innocence

Creator

William-Adolphe Bouguereau

• Support as nominator, Oppose Alternative --Jordan ^Contribs 18:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not a large enough image, given the size and level of detail in the painting itself.--ragesoss (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question How big is the real painting?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 39 1/4 x 20 5/8 inches, according to the Art Renewal Center (which is probably the source of the image, as well, although it's marked as unknown source)--ragesoss (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak support ...Which means that it has about a 1:2 ratio with the original. I'd like it to be bigger, but take it out of Good and Evil and it will do.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment--I'm wondering about the encyclopedic value of this image. It's use in Good and evil is kind of dubious, given that "good" and "innocence" are two distinct philosophical concepts and this is explicitly only one of them. Isn't there another image somewhere that illustrates "good" more directly? Chick Bowen 01:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

For example, I think I'll suggest Image:Good Samaritan (Watts).jpg at the talk page there. Chick Bowen 01:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Chick Bowen. Art needs to stand on it's own, these abstract concepts of "innocence" and "good" can not be used to add EV to it. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I does add a lot of EV to the otherwise unillustratable (?) article Innocence (the painting is named L'Innocence, for crying out loud), but unfortunately there is a problem with its placement in Good and Evil. Might I suggest removing it from that article? It might have more of a chance only in Innocence. But that's just my opinion. Good picture nonetheless. You can even see some of the canvas fibers. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Response The image has been removed from the article Good and Evil, as per apparent consensus. Jordan ^Contribs 18:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I think it has good EV in Innocence. We'd be hard-pressed to come up with another image that illustrates a philosophical concept like that so well. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I see a frantic looking woman stealing a lamb and a child, far from innocent. Thats the cool thing about art and abstract concepts: anything can be accurate as it is all up to the interpretation of the reader. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Rambling discussion on subjectivity and French grammar

::"Alas that such a travesty could be allowed to occurr unchecked. Oh, cruel fate!" That's the problem with subjectivity: it's all based on perception. However, allowing that the viewer believes that the picture represents innocence and not some jumped up kidnapper cum livestock thief, then it might indeed do a fair job of representing the concept of innocence. So, either the woman is running off with Mary's little lamb, or she's the anthropomorphic personification of a vaguely abstract virtue. But which? Now, that is the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.4.41.216 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Ha ha ha that was the funniest thing I've read at FPC in a long time! But really, I think the fact that it's named "L'Innocence" and not "Le Voleur de moutons" implies the meaning of the painting, but everyone's entitled to his or her own opinion. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Wouldn't that be "La Vouleuse d'un mouton et un enfant"?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Not if this "woman" is less innocent than even Uncle.Bungle suspected! Thegreenj 03:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Oh! Scandalous! Maybe she's a cannibal!? LOL :P Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Forgive me my previous comment. I made it whilst logged out. I am glad to see that my fellow Wikipedians do possess what might be termed a sense of humour. I was starting to get worried. However, I doubt that cannibalism is her plan... I suspect that Innocence is far from what her name implies. I am sure that she has ulterior motives. Likely, the child will be sold to an Eastern sweatshop, where she will make Nike shoes for the rest of her existence, and the lamb will suffer the same fate as most delectable-looking livestock. Rather unfortunate, if you ask me. Even more unfortunate is the fact that this page is supposed to be the home of serious, image related discussion. I suspect that we might get told off for this. Well, it was worth the laugh. And now, off to more serious matters... Jordan Contribs 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Haha yeah. I think this has been the longest and most pointless FPC conversation ever. We should get "Idiot Wikipedian" barnstars. :P Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Isn't L'Innocence idiot in French? I'm not sure, this being the English wikipedia and all. In all seriousness, I apologize for kicking off such a disruption in the FPC process. I can say in my defense that the above banter demonstrates how there is too much room for interpretation to ever allow the image to fufill the accuracy requirement. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Not according to Babel Fish translator. Also, I don't think it was really your fault; I think the blame goes to certain idiot reviewers (i.e. me). Haha. Ok... This is getting a bit too far. I'm a native french speaker. "Innocence" in french as different meanings: "a female name", "somebody that can't do any evil", "the state of being non guilty", "to be pure, angel-like, white (in the sense of spotless, pure) naive and gullible". The latter definition is only very rarely used as "idiot", as "innocence" is a name, but the adjective "innocent(e)" is used frequently in any of those 3 latter definitions. BTW it's not "La Vouleuse d'un mouton et un enfant" it should be "La voleuse d'un agneau et d'un enfant". "vouleuse" doesn't existe, capital letters are never used for a common name in french unless it's the first word of a sentence (even in a title) and as far as I know, this woman is not carrying a full grown sheep (mouton), she's carrying a lamb (agneau). PYMontpetit (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Oh dear. That does complicate things. Je parle francais aussi. Well, even if we can't decide whether the image represents a virtue or an act of vice, at least we know what the title would be in French, were the title actually related to theft. Which it isn't. Jordan Contribs 18:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure how voleuse became Vouleuse, but I suppose having a d' before each un makes sense. As for agneau and mouton, I just used the language from the previous comment. (J'ai étudié français depuis trois ans.)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Ha, while we're at it, wouldn't that be "J'étudie français depuis trois ans", since depuis implies past action in the present tense? Thegreenj 03:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Oh yeah....I'm going to stick to English now....--HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC) It should be "J'étudie le français depuis trois ans" PYMontpetit (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Je déteste la langue français maintenant. Est-ce que vous êtes heureux?--IciPourAider (parlez à moi)20:44, 30 Septembre 2008 (UTC)

• Support. would make a nice FP PYMontpetit (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.94.54 (talk)
• Support. I think it meets the criteria Tokugawapants (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Question Just above the halfway mark (vertically) and immediately right of her left elbow, there's an odd paleness in the shadow that looks like a wear mark or something. Is this part of the painting or a problem in the reproduction or scan? Should it be fixed? Matt Deres (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm no expert on art, but based on other online copies of the painting, it seems that the white streak is part of the original. Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Very good EV., and ofcourse oppose alternative. — Nvineeth ^talk 06:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Excellent encyclopaedic value for the article "Innocence", but I am concerned that the image is unsourced on its description page at commons. Oppose Alternate 1 - everyone knows that a man with a black hat is never innocent. Melburnian (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Alternate 1 as per caption :) Noodle snacks (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Any Alternative 1 is unfortunately on the small side... -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Original - Excellent image and excellent EV, pedantic discussions of imagery and semiotics remind me of high schoolers in a basic ethics course (but kudos to those who use tongue-in-cheek humor!) — Noraad 19:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. Jordan ^Contribs 18:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha now we can blame you next time we get off topic ;) Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'd best watch out. If I'm not careful, this might devolve into a humorous conversation relation to various obscure and abstract ideas about art. I think that this should be avoided at all costs. Of course, if anyone wants to start up a similar conversation to the previous one, I'd be sure to oblige. Jordan ^Contribs 09:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

But you're such an expert in an intangible concept like "innocence" that you are qualified to evaluate the encyclopaedic value of this submission eh Noraad? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very pretty picture. The artist has captured the essence of innocence very well. Priyananda (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see "very pretty" on the list of requirements for FPC... --Uncle Bungle (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Bouguereau-Linnocence.jpg MER-C 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Older nominations requiring additional input from users

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.

Bridge Tower, Malá Strana, Prague, Czech Republic

Original nomination- Bridge Tower, Malá Strana, Prague, Czech Republic

Edit1 - Corrected Tilt

Current Nomination and Edit2 - Corrected Tilt and Crop

Current Nomination Edit 3 - Desaturated, cooler white balance, and higher black point for artificially-lit areas

Reason

It has a high EV. There is not such a detailed and good picture currently available of this part of the Charles Bridge on Wikipedia. Further more it possesses a good technical quality. As for the composition; A restoration of this part of the Charles Bridge in currently underway. That's why it was hard to get a good picture of it. I hope the picture will be good enough. I even had to crop the picture (something I never do..).

Articles this image appears in

Prague, Malá Strana, Charles Bridge and Prague 1

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

Previous Votes before Restoration Work

* Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose Too tight framing here, too - top of spires cut off. --Janke | Talk 13:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Support edit 1 fixes the main issue that I can see which is the tilt, although the antennas on top of the spires are slightly cut off I don't see that as a huge issue. Cat-five - talk 20:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Support Edit 1 also. The crop isn't that big of a deal Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose per Janke 67.175.225.38 (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, but IP votes are usually disregarded here. I'd suggest getting a username; it's really easy and convenient! Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose per Janke. Mfield (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose I was hesitating on that one. I think it's a good picture, but some odd looking highlights and cut off spires tipped the scale. Blieusong (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Weak Oppose I agree with Janke - the cut of spires are a problem --Abdominator (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose - bad crop.--Avala (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Comment I managed to create a better crop with spires! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I attached the spires, so restored the picture. This version is the current nomination. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose -- The lights in the walkway are too overexposed. They really get in the way. (Giligone (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

They are not overexposed..If you don't believe me, check the photograph's histogram. That does not lie. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Very good picture. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't find the composition appealing; the fact that it's difficult to get a good picture of the bridge during the restoration may mean that an FP is just not possible. I also think the lighting detracts from it; a daylight shot would be more useful and provide better contrast on the details of the main subject. As for the walkway lights noted by Giligone, they are definitely overexposed according to my image program.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The composition..that's your opinion. How would a daylight shot be better? It doesn;t provide a better contrast and the details of the main subject couldn't be better. I can even see the cracks in the bricks of the tower. A daytime picture would only mean more people. Here is the histogram (Click on it to see it.):

File:HistogramPrague.jpg

Histogram

None of the spikes go through the roof so to say.. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Just upload a crop of the histogram; otherwise it's a copyright violation.

You're not interpereting the histogram correctly. The horizontal axis represents how light or dark pixels are. The far left is black, the far right, white. The bars themselves represent how many pixels are of that brightness. A spike that goes through the roof just means there are a lot of pixels that brightness; a landscapes, for example, usually have a spike or two because all the pixels in the sky are about the same brightness, though it's not necessarily overexposed. On the other hand, any pixels that are pure white (i.e., that are on the right-most part of the graph) are overexposed. If there is even a short bar there, you have overexposed pixels. Thegreenj 22:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I guess I had a thing or two wrong in my head for all this time. So a small part is over- and a small part underexposed. Ok, it that case I said nothing. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good EV, nice shot. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 02:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 Oh come on, the criticisms (see the votes before restoration (full disclosure: I was one of them)) were all dealt with and now the criticisms just coming off as anal retentive coming up with new things to oppose this for, I'm happy to support the edit 2 version of this since it took care of the cropping and other issues. Cat-five - talk 21:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I'm generally not a fan of twilight shots for their own sake, and this would have been better under certain daylight conditions. Unfortunately, everything bathed in artificial light in this picture appears mildly to completely overexposed.Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Only three lamps are overexposed..and the overexposure is slight. Further more nothing was bathed in artificial light, since all the lights were already out! This was taken at dawn. If this is the criticism I wonder how all night/dusk/dawn photo's could have become a FP. For example: User Dillif' shot of the Colosseum contains slightly less overexposure, but it is still there and even more underexposure!. The same goes for user BenH' of the Paris skyline. Again, the underexposure on Dillif' shot of the Palace of Westminster leaves whole parts of the building black, but somehow the all seem to have become FPs. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, granted in the strict technical sense they are not overexposed. But the concentration of very bright lights in that one spot of the photo draws your eye. And thats not what you want your eye to be drawn to. Perhaps because of those lights an FP of that location is not possible. (Giligone (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

• The lamps are burnt out, and this is very distracting on this shot. The fix is very nicely done though so I'll remain neutral, but this still doesn't impress me. Having a look at it again, I'm now thinking that dusk doesn't suit the subject well. Notice that only three lamps lit the scene and no window has light behind. No lights to lit the buildings as well (even very basic flood lamps). The pictures you are referring to have plenty of light sources which give of much more enchanting atmosphere, and which is why dusk pictures can be so beautiful. This is just my opinion though. Blieusong (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're pictures by the way deserve to be FP's. I might try to lower the saturation, so that the light are less orange. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lighting was against you (I insist, only three lamps !!)... and I think it's very nice you managed to get something this good out of that. Other wikipedians like the picture, so wait and see :) Blieusong (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've created a less saturated version. Let me know if it is better than the current version. http://massimo.catarinella.nl/IMG_5328.jpg --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the less saturated version, but this isn't why I don't support it... The lighting of the scene is the issue to me. Blieusong (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support Edit2 The mixed lighting is a little off putting - it would be better either shot a little later to reduce the contrast between sky and artificial or a little earlier to push the emphasis onto the sodium lighting. However my initial complaints have all been addressed. Mfield (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit 3 I've uploaded edit 3, which I think helps greatly with the disturbing lighting variation, though it's still a minor problem. Thegreenj 01:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose any of them. The top of the tower is almost cropped, and the overall quality is not so "wow".--Caspian blue (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The top of the tower is far from being cropped and the quality couldn't be better unless I would have shot it with and 1D or some camera similar to that one.... --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support (edit 3) - This one has obviously been improved over the original, the lights in the walkway most definitely do not look as bad. Matthuxtable (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose any of them. And this is my opinion, the composition is uncomfortable, especially the tight crop. --Base64 (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Dublin Rail Network

Original - Map of the Greater Dublin Rail Network - showing Suburban Rail, Luas and proposed Metro and Commuter lines.

Reason

Compelling, informative, high resolution image which adds greater understanding to the oft confusing topic at hand - Dublin's rail network.

Articles this image appears in

Dublin Suburban Rail

Creator

Stabilo boss

Edit - Have Changed Colours (and a few editing mistakes)

Edit 2 - Further Mistakes edited.

Edit 2 SVG - SVG Version

• Support as nominator --howth575 (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support A clear,easily understandable depiction which shows the lines in relation to each other and position in the city simply and without confusion. Is it possible to distinguish the Metro West and North lines any more clearly? The colourings look remarkably similar to me Lemon martini (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I see your point, and unfortunately its not so easy, Unlike London or say Munich, Dart and Irish Rail Lines are not colour coded, the Luas Lines are because they were developed by a separate entity, Who haven't specified a colour coding for the Metro or the third Luas Line. I may edit it to show a different hue. I would have used SVG if illustrator didn't have a habit of mucking up the Fonts... Stabilo boss (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Second Pic. Super EV. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment New Version added...Stabilo boss (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• CommentSupport Support edit 1. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose while it may have encyclopedic value, IMO it is boring, sorry. Muhammad(talk) 02:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. No "wow"... Good enc, though. --Janke | Talk 08:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The 'wow' comes from the fact that half the subject matter in the image is yet to be constructed, and as such could be construed as something of a record of the ambitions etc for Dublin, similar to Abercrombie's unrealised plans[6]. howth575 (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. I didn't see 'wow' on the list of criteria anywhere...
    • It's people reading in their bias into their votes because they think it should have have "wow" like a photo nom because most of the nominations are photographs while being ignorant to the fact that an illustration or diagram is never going to have wow compared to a photograph but can have a wow factor vs other diagrams. It's unfortunate that current FPC guidelines encourage this type of vote since it leads to most diagram noms failing for no good reason other than the voting block of the ignorant anti diagram group. Cat-five - talk 08:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
      • An illustration can have wow factor. Look at the images created by LadyofHats. The images are both encyclopedic and wowwy. This image however, is like a map of the place. A map does have EV but we cant feature all maps can we? Muhammad(talk) 02:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • "wow" didn't save this nomination. If the creator added some flying cats or other ridiculous non-sense would that add enough "wow" to support? The fact is the diagram adds a lot to the article. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 High enc. value. I'm afraid it's impossible to make a schematic of metro rail lines as exciting as a battle or a beautiful runway model, but this is a clear and informative image that serves its purpose well. Durova^Charge! 18:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support either. No wow needed, even though its a positive factor. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support I prefer the London subway system personally, because it is a more interesting example and partially because it has more to show in my opinion, however this has good ev content and is a well done diagram. Cat-five - talk 08:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - can't vouch for the accuracy (I didn't even know Dublin had trains!), but I see wow. Stevage 00:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Just a generic map. You've seen one you've seen them all - why should we feature this one in particular? I'm not saying it's not useful in an article but useful map does not equal FP --Abdominator (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comments/Questions/Suggestions. (Note: all these relate to Edit 1, and some look to not have been an issue in the Original.) At the risk of being labelled as one of “the voting block of the ignorant anti diagram group” (who incidentally aren’t working too successfully as a voting block or group here – hmm, go figure), the thing about diagrams is that they can be easily corrected and improved. So on that note, I will list a few observations – act on them at your will, as this will likely be promoted regardless:

1. Why the inconsistent use of font sizes? Is that meant to indicate major and minor places/stations, is it just a convenience, or an error. See for example the bottom of the Green/Yellow line along the water with the stations on the green side in a bigger font than those on the yellow line. This occurs in many other places with station names. And the font size on the ‘Northern Intercity and Commuter’ is considerably bigger than any of the other Intercities. Why?
2. Alignments of names with stations are inconsistent – see for example Killmacud, Stillorgan, Sandyford, one after the other, but all aligned at different heights with the station indicators.
3. On a similar note, some station names are too close to, or overlap, the station indicator – it looks a bit sloppy and in some cases is hard to read. Some examples, Sydney Parade, Windy Arbour, St. James.
4. Inconsistent spacing when using slashes – see for example Salthill / Monkstown (with spaces) vs Sandycove/Glasthule (no spaces).
5. Some abbreviations I’m unclear on (and they may well be correct). Should DCU and N.A.C. be initials or should they be written out in full? Why does one have full stops and the other doesn’t? Ditto for S.C. Also I know what St., Rd. & Ave. are for example (do they need the fullstops after them?), but what is Jc.? And is the ampersand in Rush & Lusk technically correct – seems unusual?
6. Shouldn’t the icons be keyed? E.g., what is the anchor? Does that just indicate water, or is it indicating specific locations of say docks? If it’s just indicating water then I’d move them well away from station names.
7. I was wondering about using PNG vs SVG and saw your comment above about it, and I’m not really sure – how do others get SVG to work successfully? An issue is that this is illegible at anything below full image size (not only thumbnail, but even image page size is basically unreadable, and I’ve gotta say I don't think that’s really ideal).
8. I’m wondering why no one has requested references be stated on the image page (just interested, because they normally do with, say, the LadyOfHats biological diagrams).

It does look an informative and neat diagram, and I don’t mean to be too picky, but I felt obliged to comment given the derogatory statements made by an earlier contributor directed at those opposing. A significant part of the reason that a lot of diagrams fail is nothing whatsoever to do with “the voting block of the ignorant anti diagram group”, but is rather more to do with diagrams containing basic errors and problems that can be easily fixed (along with the work taken to review them properly discouraging voters). I mean, with all the ‘minor’ issues I’ve listed here, apparently no one else has noticed them, looked for them, or taken the time and effort to comment (and I know some contributors have commented before that they simply don't see those things themselves if they're not pointed out). Now that may mean they're insignificant for some people, but to me a diagram needs that sort of perfection to make it ‘featureable’. --jjron (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'll answer two of the above, out of my own knowledge:

5. D.C.U. (Dublin City University) and N.A.C. (National Aquatic Centre) are both sets of initials. Jc. is junction. In my experience, Ireland is somewhere in the middle of American and British conventions regarding the use of full stops for initials and contractions, probably leaning toward the former. Therefore, I'd leave full stops in for them all. Rush & Lusk is correct - that's the name of the station.

6. The anchor refers to the ferry ports near Point Sq. and at Dún Laoghaire. I agree, they should be keyed.

I'll also add two:

9. It's just a minor grammatical error but there should be apostrophes in the following: St. Stephen's Green; St. Brigid's; St. James'.

10. "Underground Dart" might want to be changed to "Dart Interconnector", since that's the name being thrown around for that tunnel in most of the planning documents.

11. The planned intercity line to Navan isn't in the key, and the broken line used to show it is different from the broken lines used to show other planned lines.

So, I'm neutral right now, but I'll have no problem strongly supporting once these problems are fixed up. The enc. value is excellent. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 20:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Strike this vote (see below). --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 21:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support It's a nice svg, but it's a weak support from me. I want to know a little more about the rail network, but the image doesn't have a lot of "wow", as said above. In addition, I like this better than another rail network FP: Image:Madrid-metro-map.png, because it provides more context for the rail system (the water). Spencer^T♦C 00:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment by Author

1. Font Sizes: Poor Editing on my Behalf. Should all be same, and all were in the Orignal but started moving them around due to SVG Problems noted below. Then Tried Changing it to size five for Luas, 6 for Dart/Commuter. and the Intercity ones just were whatever I used last...

2. Station Name alignment. Again When exported to PNG from SVG, Some of the alignment for fonts was terrible, I fixed some of them but haven't really had time to go in and do them all.

3. Same as above.

4. Poor Grammar on my Behalf.

5. DCU in Common Usage is written as such. "DCU" while to be grammatically correct it should Be D.C.U. N.A.C. is never referred to as NAC though. St. Ave. Rd. are correct. Jc. is not really used outside Rail networks. and the Name of the Station IS "Lusk & Rush", which Contrasts to Salthill / Monkstown which should maybe be Salthill & Monkstown, but the Station name is as shown.

6. These Indicate Links to Passenger Ferries. Yes should be keyed.

7. I Created this in Illustrator, and the intention was to publish in SVG. However, for some reason Illustrator came up with an Unknown error and I had to export to PNG, When I did, Some of the Font Sizes and Alignments came out wrong. So doing guesswork in Illustrator to Align them correctly.

8. The Planned Rail Line to Navan is done differently and I may need to have a look at it again. It SHOULD be a commuter line when complete. But the differences between the Commuter / Intercity / Dart Services is a very blurry Line at the moment.. Oh to Be like Germany and have an Intercity / S-Bahn and U - Bahn. all clearly defined...

Finally I am an Amateur. Design is something I do in my Spare time, I am learning Illustrator and not that familiar with SVG yet. I never expected this to be voted as a FP. Personally I think it needs too much work and while it does have high ENC Value. there is just to much up in the air about Planned stations / lines and services that will operate on them. So The Existing Lines, Under Construction Lines, and Planned lines will need to be clarified more. I haven't really come up with a convention for those its not like I've had 70 years of practice like TFL. This was very much a new direction for a map that I had [here] Which You can see is a lot more confusing. I went the Way of the London underground and ignored geographic locations and tried to make it as simple as possible (Which It isn't) you basically have 7 Rail Lines on 5 Services. and 2 Light rail lines. being a Dubliner, and appreciating top class rail networks in other cities I use in my travels. I HOPE the rail network in Dublin does actually look like this in 5 or 7 years time. There are very few good quality maps out there of this network (take a look at Irish Rails own Website! You should try moving around this network Like I do at the weekends.) This was my Attempt at adding a comprehensive and accurate diagram of it. So I'm afraid Oppose in this format. and I will upload a new version taking into account all the comments above as soon as I can. Stabilo boss (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with such seeming fussiness. It's why I now rarely vote on diagrams; it takes me a long time to properly analyse the images, and usually annoys the creator. However I feel my comments are usually reasonable as far as EV, and FP worthiness for that matter, are concerned. I just get frustrated myself when people make unfair comments about supposed voting blocks here opposing particular images due to preconceived biases, when it's not the case; that sort of comment serves no purpose other than to discourage both voters (who feel maligned) and good contributors (who feel that their images will not be fairly judged). PS well done on the further work done. --jjron (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Suggest Delist and nominate the new version when it's ready. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• New Edit 2 Added Stabilo boss (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support edit two. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 21:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit two SVG (I chaned my vote above) Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support (Edit 2) - I particularly like this idea, and the drawing of the rail network is a good addition to the encyclopaedia. I would see no harm in it being nominated as a Featured Picture. Matthuxtable (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nice one. --HighKing (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I intend to promote Image:Dublin Rail Network3.svg when I fix the breakage caused by the upcoming namespace change (Image -> File) (probably Tuesday). Any objections? MER-C 05:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment about SVG, MediaWiki SVG interpreter uses a sans-serif font while Firefox 3.0.3 is giving me horrible looking serif font for the text... is there a reason for this? Bad coding? Using non-standard font? gren グレン 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It's MyriadPro Regular (never heard of it until I opened up the source). It's funny you got a serif, mine goes to what looks like Lucida Sans (FF 2.0.0.14). I'll bump the creator. MER-C 08:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - no wow factor whatsoever Oscar (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Edited Version (All Text Conv to Verdana) Stabilo boss (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 SVG —Black and White 15:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment--I can't read the SVG at all. Chick Bowen 23:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• In what way? Too small? Bad font? Crappy SVG rasterizer (most likely)? Works for me. Going twice... MER-C 07:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• The font is too small--I literally cannot read the names of the stations. This is in Firefox 3.0.3 for Windows. But even if I open it in Inkscape I have to zoom to about 140% to read it. Chick Bowen 15:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Does the world really need to be bored by a map of the Dublin Rail Network? I have no doubt that this map is useful to some, but with a featured picture I want to be interested in the subject or wowed by it. I am not interested and I doubt that there would be universal interest in the image. I could be wrong on the last point, however. LCpl Stephen Bolin, USMC (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "wow" isn't a requirement of FP though, it has to be accurate and technically strong, which this image is. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - This picture is awesome! I'm going to set it as my background! ^8thstar 22:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, this really needs some sources to verify the accuracy of this data. Also a time for when this is correct (as of X date). gren グレン 03:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Promoted File:Dublin Rail Network3.svg --jjron (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Suspended nominations

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

Closing procedure

A script is available that automates the majority of these tasks: User:Jujutacular/closeFPC

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing {{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}} on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.

When promoted, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~

   • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:

   Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Add the image to:
   • Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
   • Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom.
   • Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
3. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.

   The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.

4. 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.
5. Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
6. If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
7. Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
8. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.

Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:

1. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} to the top of the section.
2. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the May archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
3. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Nominations for delisting

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.

Tulipa suaveolens floriade to Canberra.jpg

Cultivated tulip at Floriade 2005

Reason

Lack of background diffusion, distracting background elements (including flower that harms clarity of side of focal point flower), therefore I beleive it doesn't meet criteria 1 of FP "Its main subject is in focus, it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements."

Previous nomination/s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Tulip

Nominator

Capital photographer (talk)

• Delist — Capital photographer (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It is required to notify the original nominator of a delist nomination (User:Fir0002). I suggest you do that, it also would be good to notify the photographer, User:Jjron. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 18:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep meets all criteria. "including flower the harms clarity of side of focal point flower" is very confusing. de Bivort 18:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The FP criteria states "...it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements." The left side of the main Tulip in the image melds into a tulip of the same colour behind it. Therefore, the form/shape of the main tulip is not as clear IMO. Capital photographer (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep IMO the image still meets all the criteria. Muhammad(talk) 19:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Essentially per the above, it meets all the criteria and I see no reason to delist this. Cat-five - talk 00:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets all criteria and shows the leaves, which the new candidade doesn't -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per all above.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 11:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• weak keep The nom is correct that the outline of the main bloom is partially obscured, but I don't think it's a fatal flaw. Find a better one then get rid of this one. Matt Deres (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Meets criteria, IMO this one is better than the new nom, main tulip is sharper here, even though edge blends slightly into bg. --Janke | Talk 18:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per all above - particularly since it shows the leaves --Fir0002 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Good quality, and shows both flowers, buds and leaves. Sharper than the new nom. Narayanese (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - image does not fail to show what a tulip looks like --T-rex 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per above, is more enc and sharper than the new nom. Mfield (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Perhaps a bit unnecessary given the other generous comments above, but this still strikes me as one of the best flower photos on Wikipedia, clearly meeting all criteria. And would have been nice to be notified of the nom here, as per the clearly stated delist criteria. --jjron (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Kept MER-C 03:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

NGC 602

NGC 602 is the designation for a particular young, bright open cluster of stars located in the Small Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy to our own Milky Way. Radiation and shock waves from the star cluster has pushed away much of the lighter surrounding gas and dust that compose the nebula known as N90, and this in turn has triggered new star formation in the ridges (or "elephant trunks") of the nebula. These even younger stars are still enshrouded in dust but are visible to the Spitzer Space Telescope at infrared wavelengths. A number of other, more distant galaxies also appear in the background of the image.

Proposed replacement

Reason

I really hate to do this, but this image is really not that fantastic. It's not FP material, and even while it was at FPC it was doubted that it would pass. Low quality, should be replaced with better quality edit.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NGC 602

Nominator

—Sunday · (Testify!)

• Replace with edit— —Sunday · (Testify!) 14:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you be more specific about the image's shortcomings? Chick Bowen 19:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

* Keep No good reason to delist, wouldn't pass today is a quite frankly crappy reason to nominate an image for delisting especially if you can't back it up with how specifically it fails to achieve the current FPC standards. As a matter of thoroughness I did a second look at it and I see no reason that it should be delisted on technical grounds or anything else. Cat-five - talk 00:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Striking at this point since the edit takes care of the noise and the blue glare but at the cost of the entire image being greatly softened so I'm going to withhold a vote on this. Cat-five - talk 01:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The partial grain removal in the edit distracts, and may have removed small details. --Janke | Talk 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Kept MER-C 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Delist closing procedure

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.

If consensus is to KEEP featured picture status, and the image is used in at least one article, perform the following:

1. Check that the image has been in the article for at least one week. Otherwise, suspend the nomination to give it time to stabilize before continuing.
2. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

3. Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.

If consensus is to DELIST, or the image is unused (and consensus is not for a replacement that is used), perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
3. Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.

If consensus is to REPLACE (and at least one of the images is used in articles), perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
   • Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.

2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
3. Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
4. Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
5. Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.

Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:

1. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
2. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the appropriate section of the archive.
3. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.