Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/January-2007

  • please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

    older archive
    miscellaneous archive
    2004: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    2005: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    2006: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    2007: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    2008: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    2009: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    2010: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    2011: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    2012: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    2013: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    2014: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    2015: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    2016: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    2017: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    2018: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    2019: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    2020: january - february - march - april - may - june - july - august - september - october - november - december
    purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


  • discussions posted after the discussion had closed

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

Older Archive
Miscellaneous Archive
2004: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


Battle of Hong Kong map

The Battle of Hong Kong (1941), World War II
Reason
Informative map of historic event. Well-drawn and clearly formatted.
Articles this image appears in
Battle of Hong Kong
Creator
Jerry Crimson Mann
Nominator
UCLARodent
  • Nominate and SupportUCLARodent 10:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Ambiguous geographic representation, hard to decide where is land and sea. Bad choice of lettering specially in the legends. No indication of scale, location (geographic coordinates) and orientation (direction of North, at least). Not pleasing the eye due to lack of colour. In short, very far from FP standards. Alvesgaspar 14:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's boring and not featured picture material. --¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 20:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the reasons given by Alvesgaspar above. However, thanks for making the map, it's an excellent addition to the encyclopedia but not FP standard - Adrian Pingstone 20:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Add some color into the pic, and I'll Support it. -- Walter Humala - Emperor of West WikipediaCrystal Clear app korganizer.pngwanna Talk? 01:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Also add north/south direction, altitude reference(colored), and I'll tell some users to support ur image. -- Walter Humala - Emperor of West WikipediaCrystal Clear app korganizer.pngwanna Talk? 01:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Please check the etiquette section of WP:VOTE. Merry Christmas to all by the way. -- 89.51.46.32 10:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Ooops, that was me. --Dschwen 18:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think the users above have adequately identified what needs to be done to the image to make it FP material. enochlau (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It just fails to catch my attention like a featured picture should. It's just not as good as it could be. Maybe adding some colors would make it a bit less boring better. Merry happy ChristmaChanuKwanzaDan :-). Ilikefood 20:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Moderate oppose as per all comments above; only in full view can a viewer truly determine which is land and which is sea. In addition, I think that the fonts do nothing but hinder the image quality. As per Ilikefood's comments, perhaps a minimum of two colours, to help identify land and water, would help considerably. -- Altiris Exeunt 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The semi-official colors at the semi-official colors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps would do wonders for the map. I also agree with the comments that the location names add little to the understanding of the map, but do distract from the story -- perhaps they should be in a lighter gray, or partially transparent. And I think that the movement arrows could be larger or snazzier such as used on this map. MapMaster 05:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

African Penguin Swimming in New England Aquarium.

African Penguin at the New England Aquarium.
Reason
I believe this is a high quality picture of a penguin swimming. It meets the size requirement and is appealing to the eye. My only complaint about it would be the red tag on its wing, but that can be photoshoped out.
Articles this image appears in
African Penguin, New England Aquarium
Creator
Max Lieberman
Nominator
ZeWrestler Talk
  • SupportZeWrestler Talk 15:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. Great shot but the bright, saturated water distracts from the subject. Noclip 16:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs clipping to bring the subject larger (I think you mean "tag" not "rag", and it doesn't need removing, zoo penguins often have a tag) - Adrian Pingstone 16:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Opps, thanks for pointing that out. --ZeWrestler Talk 17:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Due to the water color and the light reflecting off of it, it's more difficult to focus on the subject. Also, there seems to be blurriness around the beak and the angle isn't the greatest. Nice shot, but probably not FP quality. Nilington 18:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The water distracts me from seeing the beauty of the core of the picture which is the penguin. -- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't have a problem with the water, it's that the bird itself is a little unclear. enochlau (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The problems this image faces are twofold. Firstly, it doesn't illustrate its subject very well. This could conceivably be solved by finding a topic it actually does describe well enough for featuring, though it may require some brain-wracking to come up with one. But while this'd help, I'm still not sure I'd support it. The red-eye of the penguin and the reflections of an overhead light at the top center really hurt the image. All in all, a good photograph, but not a feature-quality one. GeeJo (t)(c) • 17:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose is it just me or does the penguin have a red eye? Kind of looks scary, I don't mind the water color though. — Arjun 14:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Pyramid Peak Drainage Waterfall

Pyramid Peak Drainage Waterfall on the east side of Pyramid Peak (California) in the Desolation Wilderness
Reason
This image represents many hidden areas of a wilderness area many people believe to be devoid of such an oasis
Articles this image appears in
Desolation Wilderness
Creator
Phreakdigital, Mike Grindstaff
Nominator
Phreakdigital
  • SupportPhreakdigital 23:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose — even if the image is above the 1k limit, I feel that the image is to little for this kind of object. AzaToth 00:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful. Just Beautiful. Ilikefood 00:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support That looks like it would make a great one of those animated pictures. -- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 02:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Image is fuzzy, like it's dithered a little. Looks like at some point it had been saved with little color depth -- frothT C 03:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The landscape looks.. artificial to me. It looks like it's a man made decoration or something (why would the rock on the sides look like that?). --antilived T | C | G 09:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The colour in the image appears rather flat and dull for some reason, and I don't think the scenery depicted is particularly beautiful or anything, sorry. enochlau (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Moderate Support; while looking at the picture while it was loading, it has come to my attention that there seems to be less focus on scenery objects further away from the camera (such as the waterfall). However, the level of detail on scenery objects closer to the camera (such as the flowers) is virtually unmatched. -- Altiris Exeunt 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as said before beautiful, and per above. — Arjun 14:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Resolution isn't high enough. --Zantastik talk 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Mountains of California

Mountains within the Desolation Wilderness in the Sierra Nevada with Lake Aloha in the foreground.
Reason
Shows the short chain of mountains from the best possible vantage point with the famous Lake Aloha.
Articles this image appears in
Crystal Mountains (California)
Creator
Mike Grindstaff, phreakdigital
Nominator
Phreakdigital 23:24, 25 December 2006 (UT
  • oppose — what are the holes/dots in the sky for a thing? why is it regularry blurry? AzaToth 23:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 Now it looks better. -- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 02:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Edit 1 - removed the "dots"
  • I support Edit 1; details are crystal-clear to me; decent lighting, well done. -- Altiris Exeunt 04:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Are those dark bands in the water stitch artifacts? They look very unnatural to me... --antilived T | C | G 09:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they're just shadows from the peaks. « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?) 23:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1 per all above. sign here HAPPY HOLIDAYS!s d 3 1 4 1 5 14:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 1' Edit 1 fixes the dots problem. The picture seems to be hi res, detailed, encyclopedic, and somewhat interesting. Not the best picture I've seen around, but it does meet the minimum requirements of WP:FP. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Green tickYSupport Edit 1: Nice color. Very crisp. Only thing I didn't like was the patterns in the water ripples made by the stitching program. But it's still a very nice shot. Mactographer 10:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Crystal Mountains CA02 edit.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

2006 US Silver Proof

2006 American Eagle Silver Proof (Obverse side)
Reason
I saw this picture (I cannot remember which article I came from, unfortunately) and I just love the detail of the photo, not to mention the lack of compression artifacts and virtually no noise. All it needs is a little rotation correction and it should be good to go.
Articles this image appears in
American Silver Eagle, Silver as an investment, US coin sizes
Creator
United States Mint
Nominator
Ataricom
  • SupportAtaricom 01:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I believe that this would make a great featured picture. -- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. False lighting, laughable contrast... looks more like concept art than an actual coin -- frothT C 03:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Contrast cranked to the hilt ≠ featured picture quality. And does the coin really say "Ingod Wetrust"? ~ trialsanderrors 08:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fake lighting, doesn't look natural. --antilived T | C | G 09:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the reason it looks unnatural is because the blank background areas of the coin have been cut out and replaced with that wavy gradient. Just to make it look neater, I suppose... —Vanderdeckenξφ 13:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'd like to see a version without the fake-looking transition between the light and dark areas of the coin. GeeJo (t)(c) • 17:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For the same reasons Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/United_States_Quarter and Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/South_Dakota_State_Quarter failed. Chicago god 00:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor support; is it me, or do I think that the extremely high detail makes it look a little...unnatural? -- Altiris Exeunt 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. The coin looks a bit too thick. Ilikefood 17:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Severe Oppose - I rather have naturally toned coins than Computer enhanced coinage. Posting an example (The Half Dollar pic) to prove my point. Theres no substitute to natural tonage done by mother nature and father time. --293.xx.xxx.xx 20:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Green tickYSupport Proof coins do look different. How about Jan. 2nd's POTD? ilikeFood, the coin is actually is thick. Reywas92Talk 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - This Trade Dollar is a Proof coin (see pic) and is completely natural and somewhat enhances the beatuy of the coin. While better examples exist, it illustrates the point that such beauty can be had if your willing to be patient. The US Mint's "doctored" proofs are too unnatural looking and aren't really an accurate representation of their real life counterparts. I mean, can you say, with 100% certainty, that the US Mint will give you a coin just like in the picture? Not really. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comments at Lincoln cent. ~ trialsanderrors 05:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Green tickYSupport Looks good to me. I like the contrast too. Makes me want to have one in my hand.Mactographer 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Whistling Duck Flight

Black-Bellied Whistling Duck
Edit1: Some space added at the bottom

You've gotta admire a shot like this - from the excellent sharpness and focus to the superb bokeh; a great shot of a Black-Bellied Whistling Duck in flight.

  • Nominate and Support Edit 1 --Fir0002 00:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nice quality picture!! --¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 04:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice. Don't suppose they have it available in higher resolution? --Dgies 06:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Minor preference for Edit 1. —Dgiest c 16:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done. Ilikefood 17:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support either, with preference for the original per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. Another great find. Pstuart84 Talk 19:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Difficult shot. --Tewy 23:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Support edit 1. I don't think that adding sky is an "illegal" edit in this case. It helps the composition. --Tewy 05:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. sign here HAPPY HOLIDAYS!s d 3 1 4 1 5 03:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, as above. enochlau (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; every user above has said it! -- Altiris Exeunt 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Either the masses had spoken. --antilived T | C | G 09:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit1. Olegivvit 11:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support either one. I have no problems with the addition of 'blank' space that does not mess with the reality of the subject. -- Noraad 16:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Support edit 1 -- Noraad 14:29, 02 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support a quality picture... well worth it! --SunStar Nettalk 02:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. frothT C 23:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Support edit 1 frothT C 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 What can I say? | O Talk | 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Love it, very nice. — Arjun 15:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The quality is great, and I love the second one!! Daniel10 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Edit1, though I'd also accept the original. A superb photo! Ackatsis 02:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Either Version, leaning towards Edit 1 I support both verions of this picture (it's quite beautiful!) but I am leaning more towards edit 1. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with a preference for the second one. Bobanny 22:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. Per above.--HereToHelp 23:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support original nice one, even without the fake extension. But why is the duck surrounded by that light aura? --Dschwen 11:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Probably something in the background that's horribly out of focus -- frothT C 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Great quality. -- Pembroke(talk) 06:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit one. Both are good, clear pictures, but edit one's extra space makes it a little bit better. --RandomOrca2 20:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 per above. —dima/s-ko/ 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Whistling duck flight02 - natures pics-edit1.jpg Raven4x4x 05:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Chicago River

View of the Chicago River at night.

I was able to locate the full size version of this picture which I previously submitted. The picture is in articles: Chicago and Chicago river among others, and was taken by myself User:Kkmd.

  • Could you instead add the full sized version to the first nomination, rather than creating a new nomination? Thanks. --Tewy 05:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support A great shot, illustrative and appealing. Jellocube27 00:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; sorry, but I could only load half the image due to some problems with my connection. However, in the top half that I managed to see, I noticed a small amount of fragmentation in some areas of the image, so that lowered my opinion of the picture a little. However, I have no qualms over the image resolution or anything else, for that matter. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Here is the original nomination for the smaller version. --Tewy 18:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I just don't like the way the lights reflect off the water. I know it's inevitable.... but I just don't agree with it. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The picture is slightly leaning to the left (on top of the perspective distortion). I believe either a HDR shot or a picture taken during the day would reveal more detail and do the scene more justice than this (albeit pretty) picture. --Dschwen 11:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Plate tectonics

Plates in the crust of the earth, according to the plate tectonics theory
Reason
I feel this image represents the plates of the earth perfectly. Although a little small, I have come to understand that is not an issue with svg images. Slowly superceeding Image:Tectonic plates.png
Articles this image appears in

Creator
User:Scott Nash / User:Zimbres
Nominator
- Jack (talk)
  • Support — - Jack (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • comment resized it to A0 format. AzaToth 21:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are gaps in the outline of the land where there are labels. Perhaps the labels could be moved to allow unbroken lines? Also, is the Equator relevant in this diagram? Surely it has nothing to do with plate tectonics... Mahahahaneapneap 23:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Absolutely agree, I thought all that when I found it, but kinda hoped someone with more of an understanding of svg manipulation than me could help with that one. I gather its easily done? - Jack (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose current version, although I think it could be fixed to make this a featured picture. My objection is mostly about the color scheme which makes it hard to detect the relation of the plates to the continents. One way to fix this would be to switch the scheme to dark, saturated colors for continents and light, desaturated colors for oceans. I also recommend changing the colors for the Arabian and Caribbean plates because the difference between continent and water is hard to detect and in general sticking with "maritime" colors for non-continental plates (Pacific and Filipino in particular). And lastly, switching the color of the plate borders to white might make it easier to differentiate between them and the shorelines. ~ trialsanderrors 23:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose My main reason for opposing is the map projection. In my opinion it should be an equal area projection so that the relative size of the plaques are conserved, like in this picture, in the same article. Also, the ocean ridges should be represented, as well as the Equator and some meridians and parallels. Alvesgaspar 00:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per all above. -- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per all comments above. -- Altiris Exeunt 02:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all above. sign here HAPPY HOLIDAYS!s d 3 1 4 1 5 03:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've seen better. The one we have in school shows which plate is overriding at the subduction zone, not just where the subduction zone is. Ilikefood 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I believe that this is an attractive and informative map. It is easily understood but nonetheless contains a lot of data. I believe that the method used to show present day continents is not only very effective but also subtle enough not to compete with the plate outlines. I do think color-coding the plates for land and sea is a good idea. While not perfect, I would support this map for Featured Picture. MapMaster 02:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I like this image just fine, but what's with the red arrows? What do they represent? They're a little jarring as is. --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • They're the direction of plate movement, I thought that to be obvious - Jack (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sturts Desert Pea

Sturts Desert Pea, Melbourne Zoo
Alternative

An unusual image to come out of a day at the zoo (it's so dangerous it needs to be kept behind 400,000 volt electric fence and requires human sacrifices to feed it ;-)) but a good image IMO nevertheless. It was quite challenging to capture the vibrant red of the flower without blowing the red channel, but I think this pic does a good job at it.

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unfortunately, this image looks "messy" (even in full size), because of the mottled background and the foreground leaves. The composition also feels lop-sided. You can do better! --Janke | Talk 09:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That's what HDR is for isn't it? Anyway I agree with janke, too confusing and messy -- frothT C 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
No, HDR wouldn't be useful for this scene --Fir0002 23:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
If you lowered the red channel in other areas then the red on the flowers would be "redder" relative to the rest of the image and you can get more red in the image without blowing it out. HDR doesn't necessarily have to be for brightness, the same principle applies to colors too -- frothT C 03:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with the people who say its messy, although i think the colours are nice, if theres another picture with the same subject that wouldn't be bad. User:Voshvoshka
  • Weak oppose both. Per above. I prefer the alternate, but it suffers from the same problems as the nominee, and I don't like the harsh lighting caused by what seems to be a flash. --Tewy 01:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose As stated above the leaves in the background are distracting and also the picture just doesn't have to much of an attractiveness. A good picture just not featured picture material. -- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 04:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Moderate Oppose as per Why1991's comment. -- Altiris Exeunt 11:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nice colours, but the capital sin of this picture is the composition (or the lack of it). Alvesgaspar 14:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Composition aside, I also don't quite like the harsh lighting on the plant, why did you use flash? --antilived T | C | G 22:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

63 Building

Reason
A great picture of the 63 Building in Seoul, South Korea. Its coppery geometry stands out beneath an overcast sky, instilling a sense of awe.
Articles this image appears in
Seoul, 63 Building
Creator
IGEL
Nominator
Húsönd
  • SupportHúsönd 01:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Neato, but I must Oppose. Overcast lighting it not the best way to show it off, composition cuts off the base and provides very little sense of scale. The only way I can tell how big it is is by counting floors. Also seems uniformly a little out of focus. --Dgies 02:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - In general, overcast lighting is going to make the photo subject less attractive. Also, the clutter at the bottom and the dim building in the back takes attention away from the subject. This would be a great picture had it been taken in better light conditions. Nilington 04:09 28 December 2006 UTC
  • Oppose Maybe if you would step back a little bit and wait untill a day that has better weather. -- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 04:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with the above user about the weather, and personally i think the street lamps at the bottom are eye sores. If there were trees or blurred cars or something that would be better.User:Voshvoshka - Dec 27, 22:26
  • Oppose In addition to all that, aliasing all over the place. ~ trialsanderrors 08:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Moderate Oppose; the weather in the picture will turn people off. A good shot, nonetheless. Do it in fine weather and you may get my support. -- Altiris Exeunt 10:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per rampant aliasing. Needs to be at least 130% that resolution. -- frothT C 22:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons stated above. sd3141 (sign here) 23:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per above. --Tewy 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per above, defiantly not featured material. — Arjun 02:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Not exactly FP material. It is couldy, the resolution isn't that great, and the picture isn't that inspiring. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hubble Ultra Deep Field

This high resolution image of the HUDF includes galaxies of various ages, sizes, shapes, and colors. The smallest, reddest galaxies, about 100, are some of the most distant galaxies to have been imaged by an optical telescope, existing when the universe was just 800 million years old.
File:Hubble Ultra Deep Field Black point edit.jpg
This edited version is already featured.
Reason
High resolution, very detailed, makes a reader wonder just how impossibly large the universe is with all of its galaxies. PLEASE VIEW FULL SIZE.
Articles this image appears in
Hubble Ultra Deep Field
Creator
NASA
Nominator
- Rogsheng
  • Nominate and Support- Rogsheng 19:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I love that picture can I have it!!!!!! --¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 20:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — This image appears to meet all nine criteria for a featured image, and is one of the most striking scientific images of the last several years. Wittyname 20:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — Since there's an article on this image, the captain for featured image should include the article's text, right? This is my first attempt to feature an image. After seeing it on the site for months, I decided to take the initiative. --- Rogsheng 22:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Image:Hubble Ultra Deep Field Black point edit.jpg is already featured and of a higher quality. I recommend pulling up both in tabs and switch back and forth. the edit is superior. That's not to say that the image isn't good, only we have a better one.--HereToHelp 23:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — Oh. I thought I went through all the featured images. I guessed I missed that one.--- Rogsheng 03:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Not promoted --HereToHelp 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

AjaxF

Two guinea pigs.

Nomination I found this picture and it is amazing!! The two guinea pigs are so cute!! Is there anything that the picture needs to make it better? Here is the picture:

Daniel10 15:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  • "'Strong Oppose'" . The picture isn't particularly special or stunning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.85.31.9 ( talk) 09:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I doubt it will pass FPC. The red-eye in the left guinea pig would have to be corrected, and the white balance is off (the picture is too red). The image has noticeable jpg compression, ans thus is not particularly sharp. There is also some colour noise on the background. Unfortunately, "cuteness" is not part of the FP criteria, and isn't valued in FP (though if a picture is good quality and cute, that's quite all right). It's a nice photo, but it's not high enough quality for FPC, sorry. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually the left guinea pig's eyes are red.Joshua dude 11:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Its true, guinea pig's can be white with red eyes. Daniel10 11:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. I think that this picture has a very good quality. I think it can make Featured Picture. Sigeway 14:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, no chance at all, the left hand animal is too blurred - Adrian Pingstone 16:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think that the left had guine pig is blurred. Its a very good quality picture. KodiakB3 11:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is a very good quality picture. TriceraGuy 11:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support A very good quality picture such as this deserves to be featured. Since lots of people have supported it, I'll change it to featured picture. KangarooFan1 11:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You can't change it to Featured picture if voting just started, I changed the template back to . Also, the vote right above doesn't count, since there isn't a signature. | O Talk | 11:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You just hate guinea pigs. I'm changing it!! 85.210.43.199 12:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I love the quality of the picture. Also, how do we make a signiture? Zooyak 11:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support The quality is amazing!! Monster1000 12:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Vehement Oppose because of apparent ballot stuffing (puppeting?) by users Zooyak, KangarooFan1, TriceraGuy, KodiakB3, Monster1000 - all are new accounts. (Also because it is not FP quality - DOF problem, and the butt ends of both animals are cut off!)--Janke | Talk 12:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Comment: anon users are still placing the Featured Picture template on the image's page. sd3141 (sign here) 12:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Not me. And this is breaking rules. It says make comments on the picture, no the person or people. I should tell the administrators. Daniel10 12:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if not you, you should not edit comments of others. Olegivvit 12:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you just put a strike throough it? Daniel10 12:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You can only strike out comments that are yours. You MAY NOT, SHOULD NOT, CANNOT (and WILL NOT) strike out other people's comments. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think he already been told that Altiris. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose (after 5 edit conflicts) This isn't a great picture, and featured status shouldn't be imposed; whoever is doing it should stop. Also, shouldn't this page be deleted? | O Talk | 12:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Damn. That's my birthday! -- Altiris Exeunt 12:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This image was also added to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals twice and two new WP:POTD subpages have been created for this image (at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/February 1, 2007 and Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Febuary 1, 2007). Additionally, 85.210.43.199 struck out all "oppose" votes on this page. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I deleted the POTD pages and I'm keeping my eye on Daniel10. It seems to me he's just a kid who likes the picture. Raven4x4x 12:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, and I'm not doing anything wrong. It just nominatedit, that's all. Daniel10 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Can a kid use so much vocabulary? -- Altiris Exeunt 13:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well of course there are other explanations for his behaviour, but I'm trying not to read too much bad intent into this. Raven4x4x 13:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral; this opinion will stay until all the flak has exploded. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Forget the flak! Oppose; on closer inspection, this picture has a small amount of blur picture-wide. Also, I highly doubt that many people will appreciate this picture. The shot is above average as compared to normal shots in my estimation, but it just doesn't seem to be very eye-catching. -- Altiris Exeunt 08:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose the image is okay but it is pretty blurry on the left side, while the image is nice it is not FP nice. — Arjun 14:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose and kicks away sockpuppets. Animals cut off edge of photo, focus problems, unattractive composition, and honestly not all that cute. --Bridgecross 16:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per my comment above. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Pharaoh Hound. --Tewy 18:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above.--Andrew c 21:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not even close to FPC quality. Could we get some checkuser action and blocks on the disruption going here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong 'Oppose. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here - there's a very bad picture that somene took and that they will create multiple socks to try to get it featured. When that failed they just went straight ahead and featured it themselves. But, back to the picute, it's uninteresting, bad composition, bad lighting, unencyclopaedic and has retina reflection. Witty lama 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose <sarcasm>Finally some drama in FPC!!!</sarcasm> --antilived T | C | G 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't even see the whole entire body of both of the guinea pigs, and there is white splotches on the picture. -- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. --DonES 23:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Exactly what is encyclopedic about this photo? Becuase it's cute? This is an encyclopedia, not Sesame Street --UCLARodent 02:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • <facetious>Superstrong AWESOME Support!!!111!! So so so cute, and I had one just like the one on the right. You peoples is all [email protected]</facetious> ~ trialsanderrors 08:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Mean? No! We are voting here for the very best pictures on Wikipedia. To say this is pic is one of WP's very best is simply ridiculous. The left animal is is well blurred which puts it out of contention immediately. You clearly do not know the standard that FP pics are required to reach - Adrian Pingstone 10:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's nothing particularly special about this picture. The pigs aren't even particularly cute. —Psychonaut 11:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Strongly Oppose - awful picture by FPC standards, compromised nomination by Daniel10 (talk · count)'s various sockpuppets: Sigeway (talk · count), KodiakB3 (talk · count), TriceraGuy ( talk · count), KangarooFan1 ( talk · count), Zooyak (talk · count), Monster1000 ( talk · count), and possibly 85.210.43.199 (talk · count) (although that's just an IP so not a sockpuppet). —Vanderdeckenξφ 12:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not doing anything wrong. I just nominated the picture. You guys are so [email protected] Daniel10 14:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and MumDude ( talk · count) can also be added to the list of sockpuppets of Daniel10, and warned for a personal attack against Adrian Pingstone. Bollocks to AGF, this guy's verging on WP:POINT. —Vanderdeckenξφ 17:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support my 12 year old son took this picture and posted it. pretty good for a 12 year old. so all of you out there who opposed it are either blind or just plain stupid. open up your eyes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MumDude ( talk • contribs).
  • Oppose. Featured Pictures are not supposed to be "pretty good for a 12-year-old", nor is "cute" one of the criteria for featuring. No credible reason has been advanced for featuring this picture - it does not provide the "thousand words" for any article. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As Guy says, the age of the photographer has no bearing whatever on the acceptability or otherwise of the photo, and we are not blind or stupid. We rarely meet bad manners like yours on Wikipedia, thank goodness. I've been voting for or against FP candidates for about 3 years now and I've got 1500 pics on Wikipedia. What's your record? - Adrian Pingstone 14:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • From your picture Pingy you look about 103 I am suprised you started so late!!!!!!! Get a life!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MumDude ( talk • contribs).
  • Comment Hmm... would that account be counted as a meatpuppet, or a possible sockpuppet? | O Talk | 14:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentWill everyone please stop argueing over this picture? I took it to show off my guinea pigs, and now it's just leading to war! It's either a nominated picture, or not. If anyone starts to argue again I may call the administrators. Joshua dude 14:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support aesthetically pleasing. Should be a featured picture MumDude
    • Comment I struck out your vote, because you may only vote once. | O Talk | 15:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest oppose. Focus problems, excludes parts of the guinea pigs, and overall the animals in the picture are in a very bad position. Some dirt on the camera can also be seen. I suggest MumDude to mind WP:NPA and reconsider his messeges. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Cuteness is not a way of determining what a FP is, and it is plainly obvious that the uploader has created multiple accounts to try to feature their picture- no user who votes dishonestly deserves FP status. SuperFly2005 18:42 December 30th 2006 (UTC)
    • The only punishment for said behavior is a block. If the community (besides the socks) decides the picture is still FP-worthy, then it will be made featured, regardless of any inappropriate behavior in the voting (not saying that's the case here). Whether a user voted dishonestly or not is not reason to prevent featured status. --Tewy 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Calm down, Tewy. Daniel10 is not worth getting worked up over. Blocks are not punitive, by the way, although if Daniel is seriously using sockpuppets I suggest he admits so. Yuser31415 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, was the tone of that comment a little strong? Sorry, I can assure you I'm not getting worked up over this. I was just saying that a nomination shouldn't be prevented featured status because of how the nominator acted, and I hoped that SuperFly2005 wasn't voting "oppose" primarily because Daniel10's behavior. --Tewy 22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - lighting not too good, not a brilliant angle, red eyes on the white guinea pig; and then there's the possible sockpuppet issue. Sorry Daniel, but I don't give points for sockpuppets (or extremely likely sockpuppets). Yuser31415 00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Mediocre on technical grounds, nominator is using sockpuppets to rig the vote, and the original photographer's contribs show a strrong correlation with the nominator so one may be a puppet of the other as well. Don't upload a so-so photo of your pets and then try to scam people into putting it up on the main page. —Dgiest c 01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not exactly FP quality. The red eye puts a damper on the whole affair. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I was just wondering, Sharkface (as well as anyone else who is turned off due to red eyes), what exactly is wrong with red eyes? -- Altiris Exeunt 08:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Usually, red eyes are caused by reflection of the flash light from the subject's retina. This is considered a no-no in photography. However, some animals do have naturally red eyes (white rabbits come to mind), and apparently guinea pigs, too. --Janke | Talk 09:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Whoops.... I was not aware that Guinea Pigs had naturally red eyes. I still vote oppose due to the fact that meatpuppets are voting errr.... contributing here. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: and I think that the poster above me (Dgies) has just summed it up perfectly. Not only is the original photographer using sockpuppets to try and rig the vote, but he/she has also just copied and pasted his/her own sockpuppet comments from the Peer Picture Review. I don't think there's a single SUPPORT vote from a genuine user at all (apologies if I'm wrong). The photo itself is hardly FP quality... Ackatsis 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment; to put it very bluntly to everyone here, we only care about the quality of the images here. There is a reason why this page is called Featured Picture Candidates and not Featured Photographers. On this page, all we care about are extremely well-taken, free-use images. We don't care if the photographer is 10 years old or 1000 years old; as long as the picture meets our standards, and it's free, we'll vote for it. Simple as that. -- Altiris Exeunt 08:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Basically, yes. But in this case many editors are upset by the "unethical practises" of sockpuppeting and unauthorized inclusion of the photo in PotD and FP lists (which has been reverted) - so, this cannot be handled by discussing only the photo, the offenders need to be discussed, too. --Janke | Talk 09:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Then what should we do? Take off every 'ArbCom'? -- Altiris Exeunt 10:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        • LOL, but if you introduce fraud into your own nomination, it should go down in flames regardless of the merits. —Dgiest c 07:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's important to establish consensus on featured pictures and meatpuppets mess it all up. -- frothT C 07:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's an unremarkable photo, cropped too tight, and the image quality isn't that great. Good for a portrait of the family pet by a 12 year old maybe, but this aint about that. Dubious practices to sway the vote don't help much either. Bobanny 22:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This is a joke. -- Pembroke(talk) 22:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:SNOW? Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:SNOW is for an early close, and this has gone on long enough to be due for closing in the usual way. —Dgiest c 19:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • This nomination's week is up now anyway. --Tewy 19:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • You guys responded quickly; do you have this page watchced? (I do). | O Talk | 20:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I watch all the pages I vote on, in case something comes up (and it usually does). --Tewy 20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Well that explains it. Maybe I'll do that too... | O Talk | 20:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor focus and sockpuppet issue 205.250.109.113 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, forgot to login. The above comment was made by me. Dan M 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lechuguilla Cave Pearlsian Gulf

stalagmites, stalactites, and draperies by a pool in Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, USA
Reason
I'm not a troglodyte, but I understand that Lechuguilla Cave is considered to be the finest cave in the world for its collection of crystaline limestone cave formations (most particularly the 'Chandelier Ballroom', although I think this photo is the better illustration). It was only discovered 20 years ago, but access is severly resticted and essentially impossible for the general public, so I suspect we are quite lucky to have this illustration by Dave Bunnell.
Articles this image appears in
Lechuguilla Cave
Creator
Dave Bunnell
Nominator
Solipsist
  • SupportSolipsist 20:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bad JPEG artifacts, marginal resolution, and some film/scanning grain visible. Original photo likely does not have these problems. Would support a higher-quality scan. —Dgiest c 20:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose It looks nice but it just kind of looks flushed out.-- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit on the low side and oversharpened, but the lighting appeals to me --Fir0002 01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • oppose - artifacts, low contrast blacks. Debivort 04:04, 1 January 2007

(UTC)

  • Weak Oppose Although I like the picture, the technical problems with it (lighting, artifacts, possible aliasing) leads me to oppose. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Artifacts, small size.--HereToHelp 19:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Green tickYSupport Good topic, good lighting, good quality. Reywas92Talk 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Great composition and lighting, but very poor technical aspects per above. --Tewy 05:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, although certainly an interesting picture, the size and quality is below featured picture standards. --RandomOrca2 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Radar

Principle of radar: The radar emits a burst of energy (green). If the energy strikes an object (rain drop, bug, bird, etc), the energy is scattered in all directions (blue). A small fraction of that scattered energy is directed back toward the radar.
Reason
I like this image because it easily demonstraights the principle of radar, and it looks apealling to the eye. I found this by accident last night while checking out pages for the heck of it.
Articles this image appears in
Radar
Creator
commons:User:Pierre_cb
Nominator
TomStar81 (Talk)
  • SupportTomStar81 (Talk) 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Lots of faults. Radio wave should not change color. Doesn't demonstrate that much more energy is radiated than is reflected. Does not show how radar is used to build an image. The tight beam confinement shown is not demonstrative of pulse radar. Should show reflection off a more typical subject such as an airplane. The timing of the animation makes it look like the signal is being send by the object and bouncing off the dish. —Dgiest c 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Dgies' last point alone does it for me. It really does appear that the wave is originating at the 'dot' and bouncing off the dish. There should be a delay in between each 'ping'. And his other points are all valid as well. But this is an interesting subject for an animation. --Bridgecross 01:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I don't think it would be right to have an animation as a featured picture. Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 04:56, 31 December 2006}}
    • Comment That happens quite often, actually. Jellocube27 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Which is why this was proposed. --Tewy 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment It doesn't even fit the size requirement.-- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 21:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • From WP:WIAFP: While larger images are generally prefered, images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported, unless they are of historical significance or animated. --Tewy 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, far too abstract to be really featured-level, it only gives the most basic operating principle. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For featured status, I think it should be a little more descriptive. Dgies pretty much summed it up. --Tewy 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per well enumerated reasons above. Debivort 09:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Bridgecross' comment. -- Altiris Exeunt 10:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. sd31415 (sign here) 15:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's a bit basic for FP -mwe 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Abandon M3 Tank

Abandoning a disabled M-3 tank in training.
Reason
Can't resist an old military photo like this.
Articles this image appears in
Tank
Creator
U.S. Army
Nominator
Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here
  • Support and nominate — Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 21:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Although it can be cleaned up, it is an encyclopedic picture. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support; image quality doesn't apply significantly in this image as it is black and white...and that's a good thing,

mind you. Details are sharp even though it is a two-colour image. In short, there's nothing I can find fault with in this picture. -- Altiris Exeunt 02:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • oppose - image quality regs certainly do apply to b&w images, but I think you mean exceptions can be made if the image is historical, as this one may very well be. That said, it is strongly posterized, which has reduced its effective bit depth. The region around the tree seems to me a flagrant example of distracting blown highlights - a complaint I seldomly lodge about FPCs. Debivort 07:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I'm not sure what this picture is supposed to be telling me. Guys jump off of tanks? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The text in the thumbnail pretty much explains it.-- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, people abandon tanks by jumping out of them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • FOR TRAINING. How much clearer could I get? If you have a better suggestion please tell.-- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not bad, but seems to me a poor scan of a not overly historic/enc image --Fir0002 01:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. poor quality not outweighted by much (any?) historical significance. There are literally thousands of pictures like this available via LOC, this one isn't really outstanding. --Dschwen 15:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First of all the picture just looks weird. Something just seems wrong with the upper right person. But the main problem is: who does this expand your knowledge of tanks? I have to say it doesn't. The image is of quite high quality for its age, but I believe it should be removed from the article (as redundant and having nothing to do with its location) before being featured. Though it could fit well, unfeatured, in M3 Lee. say1988 04:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 12:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Castel Sant'Angelo

Castel Sant'Angelo from the bridge. The angel statue on the top gives the name to the building.
Reason
A good use of contrast with the lighting helping to dislay the beauty of the castle.
Article this image appears in
Castel Sant'Angelo
Creator
Andreas Tille
Nominator
Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here
  • Support and nominate.-- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 16:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't like the motion blur of the people, it really detracts from an otherwise fine image. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. — Arjun 20:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above, also seems to be on a tilt --Fir0002 01:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • oppose - graininess or jpeg artifacts, especially in the sky. Much detail lost in the super-dark shadows on the right side of "the bridge." Debivort 09:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 12:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Gas Mask

Finnish Civilian gas mask from 1939

Ok, shoot this down if you wish... ;-) This is not a "beautiful" image, but it is high enc and certainly eye-catching, even in thumb size. It shows a gas mask of the type that was distributed to civilians in Finland during WWII. Not quite Darth Vader, eh? Appears in the Gas mask article, of course.

Self-nom, so no vote. User:Janke

  • Blah Now that's some fine colour noise you've got there... --antilived T | C | G 09:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. It has good composition and lighting. However, as mentioned by Antilived, there's noticeable colour noise. Also it's not as sharp as I would like. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose the color noise doesn't bother me. However, the image just isn't striking to me. The contrast is fairly low (background, jacket, and helmet colors have similar qualities) and overall isn't that dynamic of an image.--Andrew c 15:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose As stated by Andrew C it just isn't that appealing to me.-- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 15:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose the noise is a little too much and per Andrew C. — Arjun
  • OpposeThe picture is of high resolution and of somewhat okay quality. But it is not (as quoted by the featured picture criteria ) "Wikipedia's best work." It isn't very attractive nor is it pleasing to the eye. Wwicki 17:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The picture really isn't inspiring to me. It's just some dude in a grey gasmask. Now, if it was a dude in a really cool gasmask (say, with multiple stamps or even bumper stickers on it) and the guy had some really cool hair or tattoos or something, then I would support. Although the picture is technically good, it's not exactly worthy of the front page. Remember, featured pictures are the best of Wikipedia in order to show the quality of the site. If this is the best we have.... then Wikipedia is in trouble. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 07:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, Sharkface, I don't think stamps and bumper stickers go well with a gas mask...but I would agree with you on the last point; it's Oppose for me. The picture has little notability, if any at all. If you could get an ancient picture filled with people in gas masks, that may be more appealing. -- Altiris Exeunt 08:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • some really cool hair or tattoos? You know that gas masks have a use besides weird fetish parties... ...do you? ;-) --Dschwen 15:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. sd31415 (sign here) 11:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Featured pictures should be for the best pictures. This one is rather dull. --RandomOrca2 00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The image fulfils all criteria, and seems to be fairly striking to me, comments above notwithstanding. Prospects for featuring here don't look good, but do consider {{NowCommons}}ing the image and trying again over on the corresponsing Wikimedia Commons feature process, where it may get a more favourable response. GeeJo (t)(c) • 17:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 12:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Red Sand Garden

Panoramic view of the Red Sand Garden, Australian Garden, Royal Botanic Gardens, Cranbourne, Victoria, Australia

An attractive high quality panoramic image of the Red Sand Garden in the newly opened Australian Garden at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Cranbourne, Victoria, Australia. This image was taken back in June 2006, just a month after the Australian Garden opened and before the spring growth and changes.

It was taken in the late winter afternoon to avoid the crowds and to capture the best lighting and shadows on the dunes and across the gardens. While this has adversely affected the sky on the left where the sun was setting, in my opinion that does not diminish the encyclopaedic information or quality of the image as the garden itself is beautifully lit. Incidentally, in case anyone's wondering, the curve of the path and wall are real, not an artifact of the creation of the panorama.

  • Self-nominate and support. --jjron 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - In general, the composition is sort of lacking. A closer crop might be better. Beyond composition, the left-hand side of the image has blown highlights and the very top-left corner has a strip of black pixels—I would assume its a remnant of cropping a stitched image. drumguy8800 C T 09:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Well spotted on that black line - in all the times I've looked at this I'd honestly never noticed that before, but easily enough fixed. Closer cropping overall however would reduce the encyclopaedic value of the image - I guess 'composition' can be a personal preference. --jjron 07:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. I have updated the image to remove the strip of black pixels at the top lefthand corner - if you still see them please purge your cache or refresh the page (since this was a genuine flaw in the picture I simply overwrote it rather than posting an new 'edit'). --jjron 08:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose nice but per above, the black strip of black pixels is very unattractive. Consider cropping it. — Arjun 14:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I don't know why they're complaining about a line that's just a couple of centimeters long. It's a beatiful picture to me. Just to make them happy I would just crop that line out.-- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 15:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support; if that line at the top-left hand corner is removed, I'll change my vote. -- Altiris Exeunt 07:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • To what? Super duper insanely strong mega support? --Dschwen 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Haha, nicely put. Don't take this too harshly Altiris, but maybe kill the over the top voting except for truly exceptional cases. "Extreme support" and the like aren't commonly used on FPC --Fir0002 01:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll try my best to take that into effect, Fir. Bear in mind that I'm new to voting in FPC, so my opinions are pretty high initially. However, you can be rest assured that my votes will be...ahh, what's that phrase...harder to earn as time goes on. This does not mean that I give Extreme Support for no reason, though. As long as the image is exceptional in my opinion, it gets my vote. -- Altiris Exeunt 10:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, quite understandable for someone new, and I'm glad you took the comment in the right spirit --Fir0002 22:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The clouds seem to change hue from pinkish white to mustardy white about 1/3 into the picture (from the left). Is that the "adverse effect"? Fixable? ~ trialsanderrors 10:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The sky is very inhomogeneneously exposed. The blown out part on the left is rather unattractive. I don't like the composition either, too much of the path in the foreground. And shame on you for stepping into the bushes ;-). --Dschwen 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't; it was taken from underneath the visitor's centre building - see here for a shot looking back the other way. --jjron 07:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The colours are really striking, but the blown out white on the left makes it less than featured for me. (is 'inhomogeneneously' a real word?) Bobanny 22:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I believe it is inhomogenenenoeouslysome. Anyways I was referring to the brightness changes across the sky :-) --Dschwen 11:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Weak Support The colors (red sand and blue sky) work well together - shame about the blown highlights losing this on the LHS --Fir0002 01:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support okay now that the strip of black is gone I am willing to support but also per Fir. — Arjun 14:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 12:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sufjan Stevens playing banjo

Sufjan Stevens playing banjo
edit1
edit2
Reason
I posted this recently on WP:PPR. Traffic there isn't that great, but I got some good feedback, and decided just to go ahead and nominate it.

Here's why I think this should be FP:

  • The composition is fantastic - the colors incredible, the placement is artistic, the focus is great
  • The subject is very well depicted. I've never really listened to Sufjan Stevens before, so I listened to a few tracks on iTunes. His music is very solemn, quiet, and thoughtful. The look on his face is very illustrative of his music.

I understand that in an ideal world, there are a few things that could be fixed in this photo, but for the most part these are known limitations that are particular to concert photography. These issues include:

  • Lighting does not highlight the face well enough (Maybe this can be fixed with some photoshop?)
    (Because of this, thumbnail image does not show subject well if it's not big enough.)
  • It is a little out-of-focus around the hands, or possibly blurry due to the motion of playing the banjo
  • It is also somewhat grainy, due to the [necessarily] high ISO setting (800)
Articles this image appears in
Sufjan Stevens
Creator
Jlencion
Nominator
tiZom(2¢)
  • SupporttiZom(2¢) 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    PS - The biggest fault with this image is that it is so dark. It was suggested on WP:PPR that we tweak the Gamma a little. Unfortunately, I do not have the skills to fiddle with a picture like this. If anyone knows how to brighten it a bit, that would be greatly appreciated. tiZom(2¢) 21:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How bout now? And next time please upload it to the commons so other language wikis can use it is well. --antilived T | C | G 21:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    Will do. Whichever consensus deems is the better picture, I'll upload to the Commons (regardless of whether or not it makes FP). tiZom(2¢) 21:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose — too much grain. AzaToth 22:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support original I like the first one but the second one is too washed out. The first one has more fullness in the color. -- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 02:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment; the original image is too dark but has more fullness like Why1991 said. On the other hand, even though the edited image is brighter and more details are visible, it is washed out like what Why1991 said. -- Altiris Exeunt</foht> 02:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose The main problem is that Sufjan's face is in the shadow. ~ trialsanderrors 07:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Beautiful and representational - high quality and resolution, pleasing to the eye, and adds great value to the article. Perhaps not the perfection of resolution and lighting that we've got used to with landscape and wildlife shots, but that's a feature of the type of photo - for a musician, a concert shot like this, capturing a moment, adds far more value to the article than a posed and perfectly-lit studio shot would. Definitely among Wikipedia's best work. A gamma adjustment might benefit it, but I think the edit does perhaps go a little far, though I'd support either. TSP 22:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I feel it is a great photo, in addition, topically relevant. Sufjan Stevens has been featured in the press lately for his Christmas album that has been receiving excellent reviews. In addition, his unique goal of writing fifty albums for the fifty US states (2 down, 48 to go) makes for an interesting article.–Alex LaPointetalk 07:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Both Versions, but mainly EDIT 1 Both versions are good pictures. I especially like the first Edit, EDIT 1, because it largely fixes the shadow problems raised earlier. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for all of the support so far, everybody. I hear what you are saying about the darkess. I am out of town right now, but when I get back toward the end of this week, I will work on lightening the shadow on Sufjan's face.--Jlencion 15:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Red XNOppose Not encyclopedic, colors get annoying, too dark on him. Reywas92Talk 02:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Awful shot and not nearly encyclopedic enough -- frothT C 05:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Grain, lighting, poor encylopedic merit. —Dgiest c 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose the poor lighting and high grain levels are too much to support. — Arjun 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 06:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Sorry it took so long everybody, but I just uploaded my next edit. Hopefully that fixes some of the issues even though it was not promoted. --Jlencion 13:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

A Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) in Panama
Edit 1 by Pharaoh Hound. Cropped and very slightly lightened.
Edit 2 by Pharaoh Hound. Cropped, but otherwise unchanged
Reason
A very encyclopedic, good quality and beautiful photo.
Articles this image appears in
Willet
Creator
Mdf
Nominator
Pharaoh Hound (talk)
  • Support originalPharaoh Hound (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support either any, with preference for original or edit 2. Clear shot, simple background, and good lighting despite the apparently overcast weather. --Tewy 21:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You might want to crop the picture so that the bird is centered.-- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 22:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Personally, I don't think that's necessary. To me, the picture doesn't feel unbalanced. However, I have provided a cropped version for those interested. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I strongly oppose a cropped version as the first one is very unique and the bird is still the focal point. — Arjun 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support isn't this image up for Quality image at commons? I was the one that voted to promote :D. And I see no reason why it shouldn't be featured. Amazing. — Arjun 22:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, now it is up for FPC on the Commons (thanks for the suggestion, not to mention the promotion on QIC). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support edit 1 Now the picture looks excellent!!!-- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 02:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Green tickYSupport edit 1 brighter and I like the cropping better Reywas92Talk 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support either version, with a slight leaning towards the original. Flawless image. « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?) 03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Cropped version is much better. -- Pembroke(talk) 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original I like the composition, and prefer the lighting on the original. Lovely picture. Mak (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Part of the reason I prefer the photo un-cropped is that it's more clear what the background is; a line of surf. When it's cropped like that, the fuzziness of the background actually distracts me a little bit from the subject, and it's not clear what the context is. I think it's lovely to see this bird on a cast-over beach, not only is it very encyclopedic, the original picture is very evocative for me. Mak (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for Edit 1; the focus is there, the size is there, the quality is there, the lighting is there. Excellent work! -- Altiris Exeunt 06:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, with preference for edit 1. —Dgiest c 07:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Both Both are incredible photos. FP worthy, indeed. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support both. I like the cropping, but I prefer the lighting of the original. - Mgm|(talk) 11:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support either. sd31415 (sign here) 15:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support either. Maybe a cropped version without a change in the lighting? Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • My new edit 3 should be what you're looking for. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support either edit Wow, great picture! | O Talk | 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original per nomination Mahahahaneapneap 22:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support both. —dima/s-ko/ 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit ` Quite nice, and I may be going blind ,and please tell me if I am, but I can't tell the difference really between edit 1 and edit 2. Cat-five - talk 10:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's an extremely subtle difference (it even takes me a second to figure out which is which, and I made them!). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If you can, try opening them in different tabs or windows, and switch back and forth. Any change is a lot more obvious that way. --Tewy 19:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Catoptrophorus semipalmatus edit.jpg Raven4x4x 07:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Damaged Yorktown

Scene on board USS Yorktown during the Battle of Midway, June 1942, shortly after she was hit by three Japanese bombs on 4 June 1942. Dense smoke is from fires in her uptakes, caused by a bomb that punctured them and knocked out her boilers.
Reason
This is one of the iconic images that came out of the Battle of Midway, the pivotal battle of the Pacific Theatre of World War II. This image was taken shortly after the air raid against the U.S. carriers protecting Midway, and has been used in several notable publications (among them Robert Ballard’s book about the Battle of Midway and his search for Yorktown). For these reasons I am nominating this image for Featured Status.
Articles this image appears in
USS Yorktown (CV-5)
Creator
Photographer 2nd Class William G. Roy, USN
Nominator
TomStar81 (Talk)
  • SupportTomStar81 (Talk) 21:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support A bad image, but historical and encyclopedic. | O Talk | 21:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent.-- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very enc. -- frothT C 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support As above. --Midnight Rider 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support due to notability and image quality given its age (thank goodness size doesn't apply to it!). -- Altiris Exeunt 06:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • question - great subject, but is there no way to get a higher quality scan? Debivort 07:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have searched everywhere I can think of to get a higher quality photo, and came up empty handed on each account. If you want, you can try to find a higher quality photo, but from where I stand this is as good as it gets.

TomStar81 (Talk) 08:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • what I am wondering is if the low res comes from the poor quality of the original, or just a low res scan. If the latter, I'd like to see a new version, but if it's the former, I'll gladly support. Debivort 23:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support A good image. It's encyclopedic, powerful, and HiDEF. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Being (moderately) historically significant isn't reason enough to throw size and quality standards out. --ragesoss 10:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

*Support Weak Support. Very high quality. Clearly gives a feeling of how the Yorktown was destroyed.Has no copyright infringement. Wwicki 11:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Uninteresting, vapid. Olegivvit 12:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. bw does not equal historic value. The image quality and the resolution are low. As for enc, the picture doesn't tell me anyting. All I see is a smoking aircraft carrier. Big deal. --Dschwen 15:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I also oppose this image, for size requirements and quality. But your point "All I see is..." seems odd to me. I could say the same of a photo of Lincoln "all I see is a guy sitting there" or the Hindenburg "All I see is a zeppelin burning." I think a burning aircraft carrier is a big deal! --Bridgecross 16:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Ha ha, I see you point. And I'm even inclined to agree to the Lincoln comment :-). I suppose it is hard to define what makes up historical significance (we should abbreviate that just like enc. I'll call it hist now). We can start arguing now if the explosion of the Hindenburg was a more significant event than the burning of (yet another?) aircraft carrier. What was the media impact back then? We can also argue about the historical importance of a figure like Lincoln, but in that case the significance of the depicted moment is more important to me (example: Lincoln eating a steak - low hist, Lincoln being shot attending a theatre performance - high hist). We can argue about all that... ...or just let it be since we wont resolve that issue here anyways :-). --Dschwen 18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Midway was the first battle won by the Allies in the Pacific and marked the switch from Japanese to American naval dominance. Pretty important I'd say! [1] I think this more than justifies this image as a featured picture-- it is very illustrative, as well as very rare. Jellocube27 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It is certainly not very rare. WW2 is a well documented epoch, although it might seem like forever ago for younger people. Check this page and its subpages for tons of pics from the attack on the Yorktown. --Dschwen 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • This most certainly is very rare. WWII was a well documented epoch, as you have stated, but the war ended over 60 years ago. These images are all we have left of the conflict, we can not build a time machine and travel back to these historical events with digital cameras just for the sake of correcting one or two imperfections. Moreover, pictures are not suppose to tell you anything, they are suppose to show you something that would be otherwise difficult to explain with words. If you are objecting to this on the basis of context, then read through our Battle of Midway article (a featured article, no less) and gain some deeper apreciation for the event(s) depicted here in. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        • The fact that this shot is not reproducible with a digital camera says nothing about rarity. And you've got it backwards, a FP should make a reader want to know more not the other way around. --Dschwen 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Even if it isn't rare, the picture is still historically significant and (in my opinion) does a fine job of illustrating the Battle of Midway, or at least the bombing of the USS Yorktown. Jellocube27 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral Changed vote per Dschwen. | O Talk | 21:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the image itself is featureworthy, this version doesn't meet our requirements and there is no reason why a better version cannot be produced. ~ trialsanderrors 00:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As I have noted above, I have searched everywhere I can think of to get a higher quality photo, and came up empty handed on each account. If you want, you can try to find a higher quality photo, but from where I stand this is as good as it is going to get. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I noticed that. But "as good as it's going to get" isn't a criterion except in the rarest of cases. This is a comparatively recent (in photographic history) picture from a well-documented event and a number of pictures have covered similar subject matter, so size and quality requirements shouldn't be cast aside because of the rarity argument. ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, "I couldn't find a better one" isn't an excuse when the problems are endemic to this version of the image and not with the original. The image is in the archives, you can ask them for access to make a better scan, this one has problems. I'd support the image, but this version of the image has flaws. Quality forgiveness for historical images doesn't apply when the quality issues aren't part of the original image. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Seal

Reason
High detail image of a seal. Originally uploaded under a CC license, which is irrevocable.
Articles this image appears in
Pinniped
Creator
Flickr.com user "Chylandra"
Nominator
Noclip
  • SupportNoclip 19:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mostly because of the noise, but also because the species isn't identified. --Tewy 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nasty artifacts/noise. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose It looks cool but I must agree with the above statements.-- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose cute seal but the image has too much noise and other problems. — Arjun 23:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Have a look at the largest version, the grain/noise/colouration are not FP quality - Adrian Pingstone 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The chest looks like someone scanned a piece of cheap carpet and edited it in. Artifacts are over-the-top. Very cute seal though, and I like the frothy water -- frothT C 05:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose; that's an excellent position to shoot a seal (I mean, even the seal looks like it's smiling). Unfortunately, in full view, picture fragmentation is in the thousands. Also, it appears that this image has minor problems with copyright. -- Altiris Exeunt 06:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose per above. Let's try to keep the snarky and potentially offensive comments to a minimum. Debivort 07:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I really just don't like the picture of the seal. A better one can be found easily. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all above. sd31415 (sign here) 15:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Awwwww, cute seal! However, the pic is way to grainy, with the lots of artifacts. Very nice pic otherwise. Is there a cleaner version perchance? cheeseCont@ct 12:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. grain. info not really detailed. -mw 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Is it me or does this pic look like its godzilla seal or something??? Damn those man eating seals!! Oh and oppose. --Tobyw87 12:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, it's the angle. --Tewy 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


NB. This image was deleted from Commons due to an OTRS ticket (2007011610014593). I left the image here as part of the historical record. --pfctdayelise (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandstorm

A massive sand storm cloud is close to enveloping a military camp as it rolls over Al Asad, Iraq, just before nightfall on April 27, 2005. DoD photo by Cpl. Alicia M. Garcia, U.S. Marine Corps.
Reason
Illustrates the subject well, appears to be of good resolution/compression, I find it rather breathtaking
Articles this image appears in
Dust storm
Creator
Alicia M. Garcia
Nominator
Eyrian
  • SupportEyrian 10:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Very impressive, however the composition is rather poor. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Pharaoh Hound took the words out of my mouth. — Arjun 14:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral They're right about the composition. Though it may not be so supported here, taking the image into Photoshop, upping the contrast and color saturation, and perhaps using some of the stagelight filter things on the storm would make it a much more dramatic photo—if the composition is shot, a lot of times reworking the lighting can fix it. However I don't think such an image would pass if the original is here. drumguy8800 C T 16:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support very interesting image Sotakeit 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Impressive subject, but poor composition and lighting. --Tewy 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support I know that the composition could make it look nicer but if you did change it that would take away from how it would really look in real life. I think it is a very interesting subject to pick.-- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very impressive, has a few faults but it's such a clear example of a duststorm that I support - Adrian Pingstone 23:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very cool, but come on look at all the compression artifacts, especially on the trucks and in the sand -- frothT C 23:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Cool subject...terrible composition. The trucks and tree and post make it a very low quality picture. --Midnight Rider 00:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral Pretty cool picture, but i agree with the above statement of a low quality picture this shot was probably taken by a amateur photographer, but i think its cool enough to be a fetured picture. User:Voshvoshka
  • Support Very impressive and imposing picture. There are a few minor flaws, but none of them detracts from the picture. cheese Misc-tpvgames.gif Cont@ct 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see why the composition is so bad. It's a familiar sight- a military parking lot or vehicle depot, but with a massive, imposing sandstorm approaching. The foreground is a nice touch. -- frothT C 05:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There's a lamp post and a tree right in front of the subject. --Tewy 08:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah well I can see where you're coming from but they don't bother me much -- frothT C 19:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, complaining about the lamp and the tree is a little bit ridiculous. C'mon, there's a sandstorm rushing towards the photographer!!!! He can't just walk around and find the best angle! (If another impressing picture of a sandstorm is nominated, which has a better angle, than I'm glad if I can support it. In the meantime, this is definitely a FP. -Wutschwlllm 13:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The questionable resolution is more than enough to compensate for the coolness and awe-inspiring nature of this picture. Lol, whoops. The picture is so cool, the resolution problems can be overlooked. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, cluttered and underexposed foreground. Should be possible to find better pics (compositionwise) ([2] [3]). --Dschwen 15:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting, eye catching, and encyclopedic. The composition doesn´t doesn´t really bother me. It shows the environment of our troops in Iraq as well as the physics of a sandstorm. And its more than big enough. --Tobyw87 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support*, I took this photo in a rush. I have to agree that it's not a great photo and the composition is poor. However, my foremost concern when I took this photo was to take it and then put my camera away so that it would not be destroyed. For those of you who have never had to sit through one of these things, they are very destructive for electronic equipment. There may be better photos out there but most military photographers don’t shoot when sandstorms are coming because of the threat to gear. It would be cool to see this photo used by Wikapedia however, I am biased. I may have a higher resolution copy somewhere if neede. Statdard procedure is to drop the resolution of photos that are going to be posted on the web. AliciaGarcia81 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Alicia Garcia
    • Comment (reworded). Your comments about the difficulty of the shot are valid, but since you are a new user, I have a suspicion that you created this account to pass off as the photographer. If that is the case, please stop. If not, then I apologize. And I apologize to those who commented on this. (--Tewy 04:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)) --Tewy 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Some awful bold statements for a sockpuppet.. what he/she said makes sense, and he/she offered a higher resolution version. Confirm with carlos on commons before biting the newb -- frothT C 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Also check google, the corporal seems to be a legit marines photographer -- frothT C 02:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Apologies. I didn't check the tag on the image page, and figured that Carlosar had taken the image. --Tewy 02:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Sure, the composition could have been better, but considering the circumstances.... -Wutschwlllm 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, great pic, low quality Lycaon 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • support good pic Preetikapoor0 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Sandstorm.jpg Raven4x4x 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Image:Sandstorm.jpg

Wolf Spider

A good image of a Wolf Spider on a white background. All body parts are visible and thus the image has a high enc value.

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 01:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose nice spider/shot but the some of the legs are clearly blurry which takes away from an otherwise fine image. — Arjun 01:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is all but unavoidable in a macro image (see Macro photography) --Fir0002 01:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, the article you reference contains an image proving the contrary, by... ..oh, right you :-). Well I guess this speciment didn't hold still as nicely as the other one... --Dschwen 14:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I'll have to agree with arjun on this one.-- Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't mind the legs being out of focus. --Tewy 01:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Itsy Bitsy Spider Oppose Seadog Arjun brought up a valid point. Featured pictures of Wikipedia should not be blurry at all (unless their encyclopedic value significantly outweighs the blurriness or it is a picture that cannot be taken again.... or both). Sadly, another picture of this type of spide could be taken again without the blurriness. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, that's unlikely due to technical limitations in DOF for macro photography --Fir0002 07:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
1) Selective focus often increases the encyclopedic value of a photo by drawing attention to the subject while blurring out irrelevant aspects of the image like background detail. 2) As Fir and others keep saying, getting all of the subject of a macro shot in focus is generally impossible. Debivort 09:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. As has already been pointed out by Fir0002 it is virtually impossible for all parts of the image to be in focus in this type of macro photography, especially on a relatively large beastie like this. The key parts are in strong focus, and at least two of the legs are also fully focussed showing all necessary details. --jjron 07:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose In addition to the DOF problem (could you shoot at f:64?), what bothers me are the double, or "cross" shadows. Fir, maybe we need to start a collection to buy you that white umbrella! ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 :-) I wouldn't complain! Maybe you can convince Wikimedia to part with some of their $800,000! But no I can't shoot at f/64 because the min aperture of my lens is f/22 - and at f/22 the sharpness is unacceptable due to diffraction (I can only imagine what it'd be like at f/64! --Fir0002 22:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom Tewy and jjron. Definitely one of the best spider images on WP. Debivort 09:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Maybe a good spider image, but not the best Wolf spider image. Repeating subjects tend to get a little boring. --Dschwen 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, which wolf spider image do you think is the best? And bear in mind that this isn't a repeat subject because the last image was an illustration of a focus bracket. --Fir0002 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that only the composed 3-image focus series was promoted, which leaves just one real Wolf spider FP, crawling from its hole. So it was just a percieved repetition. In that case I happily support. Thanks for clearing that up. --Dschwen 14:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support okay now I know about Macro photography! Okay so the blurriness to the legs is unavoidable. But I am going to weak support due to others. — Arjun 14:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Not a bad picture overall, only the shadows are somewhat distracting. How come you've been shooting spiders lately? ;-) | O Talk | 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | O Talk | 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support per above. Reywas92Talk 02:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Large regions are out of focus and we already know the photographer can produce a better composite through focus bracketing. —Dgiest c 07:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well it's easy to talk airily of focus bracketing but it's tremendously difficult to do, let alone on a live subject. I did try a full body shot, but he kept moving - the focus brackets I uploaded where the only ones I managed to produce --Fir0002 08:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Although this is an excellent picture there is something unnatural about the background and the shadows. I have nothing against editing (provided it doesn't fake the subject), I just would like to know what kind of manipulation was used. Alvesgaspar 21:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to say that no manipulation of the background was used --Fir0002 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
But I suppose the spider was moved to a favourable shooting place. Brrr, how did you manage that? Alvesgaspar 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I captured him and put him in a wide plastic tray (with about 15cm lip on it) lined with white paper --Fir0002 09:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, disturbing shadow, insufficient DOF. -- Lycaon 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Disturbing? I think the spider itself is disturbing enough...--Iriseyes 00:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I seem to remember there being another shot of a similar spider without the shadows a while back. This one is much better. A shame about the blurring, but sadly that's unavoidable when taking such a shot. GeeJo (t)(c) • 00:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted , although again this was quite close Raven4x4x 06:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Whaling in the Faroe Islands

Caught and gutted Atlantic White-sided Dolphins at a port named Hvalba, in the Faroe Islands
Edit 1 - Lightened and sharpened
Reason
A large, high res and compelling photo of whaling in the Faroe Islands that I feel is very encyclopaedic. A bit POV, yet displays similar content to the holocaust-era images of mass graves. This is simply what happens. The number of whales I think shows that the practice is of economic significance, essentially summing up the two main arguments behind whaling. (part of a series - here)
Articles this image appears in
Dolphin / Faroe Islands / Whaling / Whaling in the Faroe Islands / Atlantic White-sided Dolphin / Hvalba
Creator
User:Erik Christensen
Nominator
- Jack (talk)
  • Support edit 1 — - Jack (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good, encyclopedic picture. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment it would be nice if the picture page itself had a more descriptive caption. And just idle speculation - from all the faeces and intestines, I would expect some birds to be hanging around - I wonder why there aren't any in the picture? Mak (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The dolphins are on a concrete floored dock at a small port called Hvalba, which is in the Faroe Islands, north of the UK. They've been caught for food, as has been done for at least a thousand years. As for the birds; they're there, just not in the picture. It is best to view the photo in context, as part of the series of images that where taken of the same catch, which can be found at commons here - Jack (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • According to WIAFP "The picture should be displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption. The image description page should have an extended caption that is suitable for featuring the image on the Main Page." Last time I looked there was practically no caption on the image description page, in fact the image description page just has "Whaling in the Faroe Islands", which is somewhat misleading, as the creatures pictured are dolphins. Basically, could you please add a more descriptive caption to the image description page please? Thanks, Mak (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Support, thanks for putting the caption on the image page. Very interesting, encyclopedic, and well done picture. Mak (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment We seem to have a thing for the graphics images lately (eye surgery, decapitated prey, guinea pigs...). Very visually compelling, but what floor is this on? There are horizontal stripes which could be ripples in the concrete or image artifacts. ~ trialsanderrors 08:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Guinea Pigs are graphic? {I would admit to them not being especially attractive, I've never liked rodents very much). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. While it's a very impressive image (at least as subject matter goes) it is somewhat blurry. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, blurry and dully lit (although I can't really fault the photographer, overcast skies will do that to you, and blurriness seems to be the result of the camera). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per both of the above. This image is very encyclopedic. — Arjun 20:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak Oppose Per above - image quality isn't that great. (Not to mention the yuck factor!! :) --Fir0002 01:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • weak Support edit 1 - efficiently conveys what text cannot and illustrates many articles. slight blur seems to be on the 1.5-2px scale, reducing the effective resolution to at least 1200x500, which is barely within the acceptable range. Debivort 09:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • SupportHigh-quality. Clearly gives an image of whaling in the Faroe Islands. Wwicki 11:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Per wwicki. -- frothT C 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very encycolopedic in both quality and subject matter --UCLARodent 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Not good enough to be a featured picture. It describes the subject matter, but it should be clearer to be featured. --RandomOrca2 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Red XN Oppose a bit dark and blurry. Reywas92Talk 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unpleasing to the eye. Olegivvit 12:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you please elaborate? I suspect you don't like it because of the "yuck" factor, and I don't feel that is fair. If your objection is on the grounds of photographic quality, that's fine, as long as you explain yourself - Jack (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't like it because it is disgusting to me. In the same way I would oppose a high quality and encyclopaedic image of shit. I think, this is fair. Olegivvit 14:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Support to cancel out Olegivvit's vote, since it would be a pity to lose this picture's FPC status simply because of the yuck factor. It's an important and genuine issue - if anything, the disgustingness should add to the importance. --Kizor 09:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, fascinating picture -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Suggested crop, for discussion
  • Comment The crop is not optimal, I think. There's a little too much empty space (i.e. the concrete) on the left. It might work better with a narrower crop, showing principally the two complete rows of whales on the right. — BillC talk 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Add: crop shown on right:-
  • Oppose crop - way too small! - Jack (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you referring to the size of the overall image? Because that's not I was proposing. I shrunk the size of the cropped image to be kinder on the servers; the image to the right is only for discussion as a proposal for where to crop the image, not a proposal to shrink it. — BillC talk 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, OK. Though it's usually best to create a ready-for-promotion picture as your edit. Although I partially agree with your idea, I think you definitely cropped too much. Perhaps a 100px shave off the left? Still, I do like the image as it is, I feel it gives the impression that more dolphins are yet to be added. I'm not sure - Jack (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Whaling in the Faroe Islands.jpg Raven4x4x 06:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Other Languages