Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2004

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 - 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
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


I didn't like the doggy photo below, but I did like this one, very personal. Dunc_Harris| 14:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Pet photographers everywhere are going "Ewwww." GET DOWN TO THE PET'S LEVEL!! Denni 23:16, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Let's remember this is an encyclopedia and keep the anthropomorphic comments and cute photos to the many, I am sure, dog fan websites out there. Oska 03:23, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see nothing to feature here - Gaz 14:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 23:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • This is not a pit bull. It is a boxer. Janderk 10:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bad crop. Foreshortening skews proportions. Lighting is terrible. Davodd 01:30, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Would prefer to see the rest of the dog too. Enochlau 05:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT promoted, +1/-5 1 neutral -- Chris 73 Talk 14:25, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Himeji Castle

Himeji Castle modified

Another shameless self-nom. It's a beautiful structure. — Dan | Talk 05:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Great photo. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 05:26, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Schutz 06:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the colours are badly washed out and the sky is blank - Adrian Pingstone 07:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Himeji is impressive, but I agree with Adrian P that the colours are washed out and with a grey sky, the photo lacks contrast. -- Tlotoxl 17:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose (as AP) (William M. Connolley 19:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
  • Oppose. I added an attempted colour-correction..However, I'm not quite satisfied with it, since the sky got even more plain. I bet a professional Photoshop user would do a better job. — David Remahl 00:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm no professional, but I modified the contrast on the sky as best I could and even got some clouds out of the deal. Please reconsider. — Dan | Talk 00:14, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It certainly is a beautiful structure but unfortunately this photo does it little justice. Oska 03:12, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ditto all of the above - Gaz 14:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose original because of the grey sky; oppose the modified version because of the Disney/nuclear winter sky. There has to be a middle ground between dull and surreal. Markalexander100 07:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Good composition, but the pink sky is hilarious. I sort of like it, but nooo.. ✏ Sverdrup 20:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT promoted: +2/-8 -- Chris 73 Talk 14:27, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Space Shuttle

The Space Shuttle Columbia seconds after engine ignition, 1981 (NASA)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture

You just have to say 'Wow!' Shows the Space Shuttle to good effect and the colours are rather nice too. This was on the 'Selected anniversaries' section of the main page last week, and it really caught my eye then. -- Solipsist 06:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually I think I am mistaken. It was probably Image:Ap11-KSC-69PC-442.jpg on the current WP:COTW at Space Race that caught my eye. Not that that matters much. -- Solipsist 11:42, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Solipsist 06:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:02, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- [[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 08:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:26, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Autiger 00:00, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - A PD work has to be damn good to get my vote - Gaz 14:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fredrik | talk 21:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I like the photo, and I saw Columbia land after this launch, but that brings me to my problem. This is the first launch, and the fuel tank is painted white. Most shuttle launches used tanks painted orange. If we feature a shuttle launch photo, I think it should be more represtative of the "normal" configuration. Gentgeen 22:48, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I agree with your point, Gentgeen. We have featured picture that were not "normal" before, haven't we? The London National Gallery photo comes to mind....unless I'm wrong and it wasn't featured. Personally, the fact that the picture isn't representative of a "normal" launch isn't a problem for me -- many photos of non-normal happenings are featurable because they're not normal, as I recall. Jwrosenzweig 23:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I think there is a valid concern here because the image is used as a straight illustration for the Space Shuttle article, rather than to highlight the difference. It seems a fairly small point though, and the space shuttle looks better colour coordinated in white. The note on the image page seems sufficient. -- Solipsist 05:50, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Makes me want to go into space... Support JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 23:18, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Makes me want to stay the hell home. Support GWO 11:08, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Makes me wish they'd start flying again already Support --ScottyBoy900Q 02:34, 08 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Natto - a Japanese dish made from fermented soybeans
a Wikipedia:Featured picture

Nice composition, although possibly not quite pin-sharp. Somewhat unappetising to my eyes, however it illustrates the article wonderfully — I wouldn't guess what fermented soybeans would look like otherwise. - Solipsist 07:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - Solipsist 07:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. And yes, it tastes as bad as it looks -- Chris 73 Talk 08:05, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent photo of natto, really captures the gooey sliminess. Yum yum yum, I'm getting hungry. -- Tlotoxl 10:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Which criterion, beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant, is this picture intended to meet? I agree that it's a fine illustration for an article of the same name, But featured picture - man, you really have to stretch it. Denni 23:24, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice photo. (disclaimer: natto fan) Oska 03:17, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This scores about 800 on my 1000-words meter - Good, but not quite good enough (focus is off) to get my vote - Sorry - Gaz
    • Somehow I feel the slightly off focus is appropriate for a photo of natto. Oska 02:54, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The background and the setting with the sticks grabbing are perfect. The focus unfortunately isn't. Still better than many of the other featured images though. Janderk 11:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is, incidentally, the most disgusting food I have ever eaten, but the picture's good. — Dan | Talk 22:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think someone got desperate and ate the natto. The large image is no longer there. --Fir0002 10:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Focus could be better. Enochlau 05:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted: +6/-3 1 neutral -- Chris 73 Talk 14:34, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Great Dane & Chihuahua

Great Dane & Chihuahua

I requested this one, shows nicely the range of dog sizes. I'd be interested to know how people see it for the first time. Dunc_Harris| 14:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Now I know why there is no Chihuahua and Great Dane cross-breed ;-) -- Chris 73 Talk 14:29, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose (too messy) (William M. Connolley 19:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
  • Support. Excellent pic - Adrian Pingstone 21:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral -- I think a truly featured worthy picture of this kind would add a human being or something else in the picture to help establish a frame of reference. This picture only provides a relative range of dog sizes...someone not very familiar with the size of a Chihuahua, for example, might assume the Dane is 7 feet tall. A nice concept for a picture, I think, but I'm not sure if this execution of the concept is featurable. Jwrosenzweig 22:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A great concept, but poor execution. I have always wondered, though, what a ChihuaXDane might look like. (You'd want the bitch to be a Great Dane, of course...) Denni 23:20, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Oska 03:19, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I like it and its a good illustration. The problem for me is the tone of the background hill merges with the great dane's coat and the outline of the chihuahua is not so well defined (lost in the grass?). Looking at User:Elf's other dog pics, I notice they work a lot better when the dogs don't have leads and look towards the camera (that can't be easy though). Kudos for avoiding the photographer's shadow. -- Solipsist 11:54, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Gaz 14:12, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The trees seem to grow from the Great Dane's back. -Hapsiainen 23:28, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • They are. Remember, this is a BIG dog, large enough to support a minor ecosysytem. Denni 23:17, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Picture quality and pose are poor. (SHould be Chihuahua vs. Irish Wolfhound, anyway). Davodd 01:37, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have been entertained by the comments here. If you need more entertainment, here's the true story behind trying to get a good photo out of this situation. (Including why no people, why no Irish Wolfhound, what about the photographer's shadow, the ugly background, and so on.) Elf | Talk 01:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hillarious. Never work with children or animals. -- Solipsist 15:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT promoted +3/-8 1Neutral -- Chris 73 Talk 14:38, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Fire ants

Fire ants (Fire ants.jpg)
Fire ants edit - smoothed grainy background (Fire ants02.jpg)
a Wikipedia:Featured picture

Very striking, nicely composed. Used on Ant and attributed to Scott Bauer from the USDA (PD), uploaded by User:Ellmist.

  • Nominate. (just too bad it wasn't taken by a wikipedian) -- Tlotoxl 20:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mr. Bauer has a superb eye. Oh, and ouch! Denni 23:11, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
  • Support. I like this photo, but I didn't like the grainyness of the background so I have tried to fix it. --Fir0002 11:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Great job of smoothing the background! - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 13:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Really capures your attention, glad we don't have 'em over here. Nice work on the background Fir. -- Solitude 12:19, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Fire ants02.jpg - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 13:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Solipsist 15:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support both pictures. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:01, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • The wood is boring, the background and setting a bit too flat. ✏ Sverdrup 20:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The image is too staged. I prefer a nature shot for a featured picture. Janderk 14:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 15:24, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Sopport --ScottyBoy900Q 02:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted retouched, +9/-2. -- Solitude 11:39, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

A diversity of clouds

Various clouds, cumulonimbus cloud being the most visible
Various clouds edit

A very large cloud formation with other smaller formations in the background. The 'whipped cream' look is captured pretty well IMO.

  • Support. Self Nomination. --Fir0002 06:40, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I like the photo, but I think it needs some clone tool work to get rid of the dust/specs(sp?), and some color adjusting. Ivan 07:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment have tried to fix those problems. I took the original on film, so the scanning detracted from the quality of the image --Fir0002 09:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: would support if the meteorological conditions were explained. The clouds are very striking. Its odd that the wave cloud is in the foreground - I would expect it to be high. (William M. Connolley 12:33, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
  • Comment. um.. Meteorological conditions? I just pointed the camera and took the photo. It was a warm summer day, hardly any other clouds about, and I didn't think to do much other testing. --Fir0002 11:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Oska 02:29, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A not-bad pic of a modestly interesting cloud formation, but not Featured Pic calibre. Denni 16:15, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT promoted, +1/-4. -- Solitude 11:39, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Imperial guardian lions

File:Forbbiden City2.JPG
Imperial guardian lions (Forbbiden City2.JPG)
Imperial guardian lions depopulated (Forbbiden_City3.JPG)

From Imperial guardian lion and Forbidden City, photo by User:Allentchang. Very striking and definitely enriches the articles, particularly the first one. My only very minor complaint would be the person in the background, but this is hard to avoid in tourist places.--Eloquence* 04:11, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Good photo. --Fir0002 09:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - distracting elements (man in bg, fence in fg) - this is a good snapshot, lacking the flair to make me gasp the word "brilliant" - Gaz 14:09, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1.2 billion people in China, and one of them has the audacity to show up in this photo - we can sort that :-). Not sure I would want to tackle the fence post though. -- Solipsist 14:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Forbbiden_City3.JPG - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 23:58, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose any version with a misspelt filename. ;) Markalexander100 08:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Poor and cluttered composition. Good for article, bad for featured pic. Filename is misspelled. [[User::WibblyLeMoende|WibblyLeMoende]] 28 Sep 2004
  • Oppose - echo WibblyLeMoende's opposition Lorax 00:55, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT promoted, +2/-4. -- Solitude 11:38, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Large White caterpillar

Large White caterpillar
a Wikipedia:Featured picture

Taken by Sannse, used on Large White. Nice symmetry, good focus, excellent perspective.--Eloquence* 00:32, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Superb quality, I love it. -- Solitude 01:50, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 02:38, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks even more tasty than the natto. -- Oska 03:03, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A very interesting caterpillar, and a well taken shot --Fir0002 09:45, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent in the full view. -- Solipsist 10:23, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Great DOF work - even has a "munched on" leaf in the shot - Gaz 14:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice. Autiger 00:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 00:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Janderk 11:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Simon A. 14:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - but too bad the shot angle is of the animal's backside instead of its face. Davodd 01:26, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks all. I'll try for one of the other end next year ;) -- sannse (talk) 18:37, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +12/-0. -- Solitude 11:38, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Water after droplet impact

1: Water after droplet impact
2: Water after droplet impact
3: Water after droplet impact - Nice base
4: Water after droplet impact - Crooked, but not grainy

An almost perfect photo of what happnens when a water droplet hits water.

  • Comment, have added a series again, only Water_droplet.jpg is linked to a page. The favourite will take the place on the page. --Fir0002 02:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Self Nomination. --Fir0002 22:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- I think it looks a bit wonky, and a bit grainy Dunc_Harris| 22:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. 2 and 3 are fuzzy, 1 and 4 are tilted and also an odd angle between the surface and the frozen water column -- Chris 73 Talk 02:41, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose these shots - Go take some more (probably lots more) - I would like to see a level "horizon", clear water (like 2,3 & 4), a vertical water column which is centred and in perfect focus - THAT I would support - (don't ask much do I!) - Gaz 13:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree. And while you're at it, why not take some pictures of the ripples hitting some kind of barrier so that they can be used in boundary condition or wave equation at a later time. That would be handy. -- Tlotoxl 19:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT promoted, +1/-4. -- Solitude 11:37, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)


Slowed down a Wikipedia:Featured picture

This is just one out of the collection of catalan solids created by Cyp. They exist both in animated and unanimated form (unanimated version of this one: Image:Pentakisdodecahedron.jpg). As far as I could see, none of these have been featured. They're excellent work and at least one of them deserves the honors, IMHO.--Eloquence*

  • I like it but I think the animation is a bit fast. Dunc_Harris| 15:31, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fredrik | talk 21:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Brilliant --Fir0002 22:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very illustrative. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 23:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 02:42, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice nomination. -- Oska 02:57, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Just slow it down to about half speed - Gaz 06:45, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment Have slowed it down, but this has caused it too be jerky. I dont know whether it is better --Fir0002 09:40, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support either, both render smoothly for me - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 00:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Especially the slower version. One of the less regular solids such as Truncated icosidodecahedron might be a little more interesting, but I would support either way. -- Solipsist 10:31, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support strongly. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:19, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The slower one. And, BTW, the images on Archimedean solid are better examples than the one on Catalan solids. Simon A. 14:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The faster version. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 21:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Abstain. Ugh. Gimme a dramamine. Davodd 07:14, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. There should be more animations in wikipedia. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:04, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I like it. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted slow version, +14/-0. -- Solitude 11:36, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Himeji Castle in the spring

Himeji Castle in March 2004

A self-nomination as an alternative to the above photograph of Himeji Castle - colours are less washed out, and the sky is blue. - MykReeve 13:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent picture. MykReeve got better weather than I did! — Dan | Talk 20:09, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning towards oppose. It's a pretty snapshot, but somehow I think a featured picture of this structure would either be from a better angle (to get more castle, less tree) or from farther out, to get a better sense of the environment in which the castle is placed. I haven't been there, though, so perhaps I am asking too much. Jwrosenzweig 23:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:31, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Trees obscure the subject and the focus could be much sharper. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for same reason. I'm sure there's a clearer shot floating around somewhere. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT promoted, +2/-2. -- Solitude 11:35, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

SEM Fiber Image

SEM picture of a bend in a high surface area polyester fiber with a seven-lobed cross section

I find the curves mesmerizing. Used on scanning electron microscope and taken by me for my thesis so this is a self nomination.Pschemp 02:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Very good image. Could you also add more detail about what type of fiber (Ribbed?) and maybe add it to the appropriate "fiber" article if possible -- Chris 73 Talk 02:25, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Note: I reverted to your earlier, larger version. The pixels you got was the old small image in your cache sized up to the size of the large image. Next time try CTRL + reload for Internet explorer or just reload for Firefox/Mozilla -- Chris 73 Talk 02:28, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment. Oh thanks so much, I was very confused by the pixels. I'll just blame Mozilla :) I added detail too. Pschemp 02:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Again one of those images that makes you curious. Janderk 11:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've seen more striking SEM images. Simon A. 14:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Lorax 00:52, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not too fond of this image, I was going to vote support for being a very useful illustration to a SEM article, but I think Image:Ant SEM.jpg is doing a better job there already. -- Solitude 12:14, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment - BUT you can see an anthead with the naked eye. You can't see this because its only 40 nanometers across.Pschemp 18:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This image is very striking and has a lot of depth. I also like the fact that it is Black and White. cats_rule Cats rule 20:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just not very interesting in itself William M. Connolley 09:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC).
  • Oppose. Concept of image ≠ image. This looks like a bottle of poorly-packed tube worms. To the uninformed, it is huhville?. Especially in B&W. Denni 01:59, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I just don't think it's at all attractive. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT promoted, +5/-5. -- Solitude 11:31, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Halo around the sun at the South Pole

Beautiful photo showing the halo around the sun perfectly. It also is a good photo for the South Pole, demonstrating the exploration, and natural beauty. Only bad thing is that it is PD not GFDL, but you cant have everything.

  • Support. --Fir0002 06:11, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Cool pic, and I don't mind PD. Slightly rotated and bigger would be even better, but this one is good enough for me to be a featured one. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:19, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Uploaded a higher resolution image over the current one. (CTRL-Reload if you see pixels). -- Chris 73 Talk 06:27, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support William M. Connolley 09:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC).
  • Support. Markalexander100 09:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Dramatic, and an excellent illustration of all the main features of an ice crystal halo. -- Solipsist 15:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - FanFtastic! Not only does it demonstrate the major refractory phenomena, but the composition is Right On!! Denni 02:02, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
  • Support. While the orange colors of the man's clothing are not that good, the picture is certainly striking. Janderk 17:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Support, but really responding to the comment about the blaze-orange hunter's garment - I would want to be wearing such an overall if I were running the risk of being lost in Antarctica. Ancheta Wis 19:23, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Call me crazy. I just don't think it's nice to look at. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, Your'e Crazy. Cavebear42 21:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good in so many ways. +sj+ 07:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +8/-1. -- Solitude 15:02, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Free range eggs

Free range eggs

Eggs where they are supposed to be, in a nest and not on battery farms. Free range eggs on a farm.

  • Support. Self Nomination --Fir0002 10:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I like the idea and admire the quality, I think the picture is missing the most important subject, the chicken! -- Solitude 12:07, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment. I thought about that, but it was either like the photo is now, or having a chicken sitting in the straw. Being free range chickens, they aren't dopey and they certainly wont stick around to get a photo taken after laying an egg. All three (eggs, box and chicken) was an impossibility. --Fir0002 23:44, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Can you take a picture of her on the nest while she's laying and leave an egg near her?
  • Support. Looks good to me. Some more info on the image page (e.g. Photographer) would be useful -- Chris 73 Talk 14:25, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the box looks very out of place. Chicken near eggs would be good for me. Markalexander100 01:47, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Its just too boring (sorry) William M. Connolley 09:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC).
  • Oppose; too staged, and unnatural unless you find me a hen that lays multi-colored eggs. Davodd 02:22, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Janderk 17:40, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Boring --ScottyBoy900Q[[User

talk:ScottyBoy900Q|∞]] 02:30, 08 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • NOT promoted, +2/-6. -- Solitude 15:04, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Golden Retriever

Golden Retriever

A better doggy action photo. Dunc_Harris| 13:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Colors feel faded, and the background distracts. Happy dog, though. -- Chris 73 Talk 14:23, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose ditto) (William M. Connolley 09:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC).
  • Oppose. Oska 02:23, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are way better Golden Retriver pictures out there. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT promoted, +0/-4. -- Solitude 15:08, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Australian Cattle Dogs Diving

Australian Cattle Dogs burning off some energy

OK, now I'm trying to find a dog photo that's excellent photography and not merely an encyclopedic image of a dog. I like this one; shows action with the dogs heading out into the picture for an adventure. Taken by User:jimhutchins and used in Australian Cattle Dog.

  • Nominated. Elf | Talk 00:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The dogs are only a small section of a rather small image, and there is not enough detail about the dogs. While they are caught nicely in the act, i think it is not quite feature material. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:02, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too small image, especially for a feature. Also agree with Chris in that the dogs do not make up much of the image. --Fir0002 10:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too small and not even that great. -- Solitude 12:05, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ditto William M. Connolley 09:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC).
  • Oppose. Oska 02:25, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT promoted, +1/-6. -- Solitude 15:09, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

English Cocker Spaniel

English Cocker Spaniel ready for a good time

If you can handle another dog photo, I also like this used in English Cocker Spaniel; face is alive and happy. - Elf | Talk 00:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Self-nom. Elf | Talk 00:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good colors, nice background, good posture. Do you have this also in a larger resolution? -- Chris 73 Talk 01:00, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Done--but I didn't compress at all so its file size is huge. Elf | Talk 04:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I compressed it a little bit and uploaded it over the first picture Image:EnglishCockerSpaniel wb.jpg. Maybe we can delete Image:EngCockerSmileBigger.jpg now since we don't need to have two identical photos? -- Chris 73 Talk 09:04, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
        • Done. Elf | Talk 20:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great photo. Cant say that I particularly like the English Cocker Spaniel breed, but I like this photo. --Fir0002 11:03, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry but I think this is really boring, I'm much more interested in a dog photo with some action, like presented above. -- Solitude 12:09, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. If I'm going to support a doggy photo, this one looks like the best choice. Despite being sharper, it doesn't beat Spot Fetcher, but it's close. -- Solipsist 00:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I love it :) →Raul654 00:29, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 01:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (But no more dog nominations, please!) Markalexander100 01:49, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • A better job of Getting Down to the Pet's Level, but still not a reined-in-enough photo. This picture ought to have been taken after the commands "sit" and "look pretty". Regrettably, Oppose. Denni 02:04, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Remember the criteria for a Featured Picture: beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant. This is none of these and there is a better dog picture already posted—sorry. NickP 04:53, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:40, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a nice picture, but then again just another dog picture without the extra required to be featured. Janderk 17:44, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Sopport. I used to have one so I might be a little biased. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just a dog. ✏ Sverdrup 10:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT promoted, +8/-5. -- Solitude 15:11, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Ladybug on a leaf

Scary and cute at the same time, superb colors. The article on the ladybug had two NC pictures which I replaced.

  • Support. -- Solitude 12:52, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The larger pic is blurred which is surely not OK for a Featured Pic? - Adrian Pingstone 13:03, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Deep DoF at this level of magnification is tremendously challenging, and the parts of the ladybug required to be in focus are. Moreover, the photographer has provided an image which is far larger that the minimum pixel width to meet Featured Picture requirements. Denni 00:21, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)
    • Comment. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, to me no part of this pic is in good enough focus for a Featured Pic (I've had both my sons check it out, they have first class eyes and agree with me (and they don't agree with me very often!)). Yes I know it's a very difficult subject but we do not have to consider that, only what what we see before us on our screen - Adrian Pingstone 09:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:32, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While the setting is nice, the depth of field is just not good enough for a featured picture. A tripod would have helped a lot here. Janderk 17:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with what User:Denni said earlier. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:57, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks beautiful in the article. ✏ Sverdrup 20:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - although I might prefer the Ladybird eating aphids picture in the article. -- Solipsist 22:31, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A decent picture, though depth of field could be better, but my main problem with it is that I don't think it does a very good job of showing the ladybug, and as such, doesn't add significantly to the article, particularly given the two other pictures the article has. Lorax 00:12, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support --ScottyBoy900Q 02:29, 08 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:21, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +9/-3. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 06:47, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Orbit state vectors explained

Orbit state vectors explained

I've used programs for years to show the location of the Mir, the shuttles, and the ISS. This is the best explanation I've seen for what all those orbital parameters mean. GFDL.

  • Support - Nominator - Kbh3rd 22:04, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I like it, I have a number of years of experience with such diagrams and concepts. This is far too technical a diagram to do anything but make most people wonder what it all means. Denni 00:17, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I can absolutely not agree with Denni that the picture is too technical. Instead, I find it so simple that I begin to wonder if there really isn't something missing! I can't come up with anything specific though. Perhaps it has all it needs. I'm not sure, however, that I would like to announce it a featured picture.. For example, I have some objections to the typesetting of variables and the projection of the velocity on the three axes. Jolson 20:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Confusing. Davodd 07:12, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent diagram that adds very significantly to the article it goes with (Orbital state vectors). In fact the article would be almost meaningless without it. As an aside, I'm noticing that Oppose or Support responses often don't consider the article and the pic taken together as a whole. Surely we are not supposed to be judging the pic in isolation since it says at the top that the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article. Denni says this is far too technical a diagram but given the subject it's bound to be exactly that! Davodd says Confusing Of course it is, if Orbital State Vectors are not a subject you're imterested in. So let's keep to deciding if the pic significantly ADDS TO THE ARTICLE and then this voting system will mean something Sorry to go on about this at length but I wanted to get it off my chest (Disclaimer: I have no connection with the supplier of this diagram)- Adrian Pingstone 09:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Can people please remember Wikipedia is an encyclopeadia not a photo gallery. You're meant to learn stuff from looking at it. Yes, cute photos of lions and dogs and ladybirds are great, but technical diagrams are just as valid, and I'd say more intellectually worthy. --Prisonblues 09:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Both article and illustration are jargon-filled and confusing. Neither are beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating nor feature-worthy. Davodd 17:20, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The subject is arcane, but our future will depend on more people visualizing orbital mechanics, which ordinarily takes years to understand, jargon and all. This picture, which has millennia of technology and science behind it, becomes instantly understandable when it is animated, as the vectors then grow and shift as the object moves in its orbit. But if the picture of an orbit were animated, then an aspiring spacecraft commander or aspiring engineer would then demand a frozen frame such as this png, to study the relationships behind the variables of the orbit. Ancheta Wis 19:12, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Is "aspiring spacecraft commander" another name for a "space cadet" ?? (too funny!) KeyStroke
  • Please remember what Featured Picture is about. It's not a pat on the back for an illustration which goes well with an article, it's for an illustration which is brilliant enough to stand ON ITS OWN as a diagram or photo. I have no difficulty with this diagram as an illustration for the article which it is intended to expand. But do you really think that most people would get this diagram? I think not, and most of us are not "aspiring spacecraft commanders." Denni 01:05, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with views above about how this doesn't really stand on its own. It's nice, but there's nothing terribly special about it to call it Featured. Enochlau 05:36, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Denni and Enochlau's comments. I feel the point of a featured picture is to present a visually striking image which will pique the viewer's interest in an accompanying article which it serves well to illustrate. This image may work well in helping illustrate concepts described in the accompanying article but it has little visual impact by itself. If there is an article that is well written and is well supported by explanatory diagrams then I would suggest that it is the article itself which should be nominated and not an accompanying diagram unless that diagram is itself particularly striking. --Oska 06:56, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with Adrian Pingstone. I think the "beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating" directive is terrible, myself, because naturally not everything in an encyclopedia can be immediately any of these things, and yet we ideally need good pictures for all sorts of articles, even the technical and (sometimes) frankly tedious. -- Oarih 11:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment. I disagree; this diagram could be re-drawn to be more beautiful, impressive, fascinating and/or striking. Right now it is functional and good enough to get the job done. But it is not good enough for Wikipedia to hold up to future diagram makers as a shining example of what they should aspire to create. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 22:19, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose Not elegant, excessively intricate, nothing special about the graphics, color choices tend to "clash", not interesting to general public, tries to do too much in one diagram (there is, likely, enough information in this one diagram to make four or five separate ones). It just looks like so much spaghetti. Its something that only someone with two PHDs in orbital mechancs would like. KeyStroke 16:57, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with the idea that featured pictures need to be striking and/or attractive. While I see the merit in this picture, I'm not so sure it represents a beautiful or striking in any sense. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT Promoted, +5/-5. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 06:48, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Landing at Normandy

PD pic taken from a boat at the Battle of Normandy
a Wikipedia:Featured picture

Photo taken excellently which I think illustrates the landing very well. Taken by the US government and so is PD. To me this is a good examples of how black and white can be better than colour for some photos. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 08:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent featured pic for an encyclopedia. We need more of these. Janderk 17:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good picture, especially since I'm guessing that there aren't many such photos around. --Fir0002 07:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Dunc_Harris| 10:58, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:20, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The feeling is captured pretty well in this one. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Captures the moment and good to have a historical image. -- Solipsist 07:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Striking. grendel|khan 01:07, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +8/-0. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 14:20, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)



Courtesy of the United States' Air Force.

  • nominated at 09:02, 4 Oct 2004 by Dunc_Harris|
  • Support. --Fir0002 06:30, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • whoops, I nominated it, forgot to sign. I support too. Dunc_Harris| 19:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice plane, pedestrian shot. Denni 01:55, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nearly excellent and Lakenheath is almost my home turf, but a shot showing the afterburners usually works better and for a professional shot, the fact that the background breaks the outline of the plane is distracting. -- Solipsist 22:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with comment about background above. --Oska 00:24, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I had the same issue with the background; a second later with the plane against the blue sky would have been so much better. Autiger 05:38, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose (background) - William M. Connolley 20:05, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Background distracts -- Chris 73 Talk 15:21, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. In my own defence - many have commented about the background; I chose the image from TO SHOW THE BACKGROUND FOR the RAF Lakenheath page, not to showcase the F-15E. Mark 01:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. (background) --ScottyBoy900Q 03:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT Promoted, +2/-7. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Redback spider

Redback spider back view

The redback article prior to these photos had no pictures, and I think they do justice to the spider and its trademark redback.

  • Support. Self Nomination --Fir0002 09:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Icky. (Would be better, though, in natural setting.) [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 22:11, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • In my opinion it wouldn't, but I can upload the original of you really want.--Fir0002 23:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral Support. Clearly a shot to be proud of. I can't decide whether the editted drop shadow background is a good idea or not. One problem is that it looses scale - not having seen one, I believe these spiders are quite small, as illustrated in the article's picture showing the pipe, but this isn't clear. On the other hand the clean background helps make the image more dramatic, which I like. Either way, I only really like the face shot, even if the name suggests the back should be emphasised. -- Solipsist 23:29, 6 Oct 2004
Changing to support. Of the images here are the moment, it grabs my eye more than most. -- Solipsist 10:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think they're adorable, too, and want to start importing them. You will recognise such a spider if you see one easily, which is the most important thing. Smerdis of Tlön 14:50, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think a picture of this spider on its web on in its natural setting would be much more attractive than on the dull white background. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. The redback spider has virtually no web. It mainly lives in unattractive and distracting places such as pipes, which are usually full of junk. Look on the Redback spider page to see what I mean (page bottom). I think the white background contrast well with the black spider and leave nothing but it for you to be distracted with. --Fir0002 05:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted: +5/-1 1 Neutral. Promote front view due to slight preference of that in the comments -- Chris 73 Talk 22:45, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Daisy in water

A daisy under water, but dry because of surface tension
a Wikipedia:Featured picture

This is a fun picture (I put it into surface tension) which I think is both beautiful and striking. But then I took it and remember watching the water rising... William M. Connolley 20:41, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support (self nomination) William M. Connolley 20:41, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I like how the distortion of the surface tension is clearly visible. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 22:12, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good tension - what happened to the bug? -- Solipsist 22:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hope the bug floated too. -- Chris 73 Talk 22:54, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Superb pic. Moriori 00:43, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Execellent illustration of the topic. -- Solitude 07:14, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It looks like the caption is improved, also. A very rare shot, very well taken. KeyStroke 23:11, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
  • Support. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't find the picture visually striking at all , and while it does illustrate surface tension I think this phenomenon could be better demonstrated by other images. --Oska 23:04, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Bendy water- fantastic. Markalexander100 07:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The surface tension concept needs several images for illustration, and this is an excellent one. — David Remahl 22:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +10/-1 -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 18:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Trinity College heraldic shield

The heraldic shield for Trinity College, Cambridge. One of the better diagrams or drawings I've seen here. Actually one of several shields contributed by User:Prisonblues which are not trivial to draw and add quite a bit to the infoboxes which tie the series of articles on Cambridge Colleges together. -- Solipsist 22:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. (My only connection is that I added some photos to the Trinity College article) Solipsist 22:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:33, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It does the job but its nothing special. I don't think crests/flags can ever be considered featured picture material. ed g2stalk 13:45, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's great to have for wikipedia, but is not brilliant, shocking etc; as ed said, this type of material is seldomly featureable. ✏ Sverdrup 16:30, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. -- Kaihsu 19:49, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
  • Oppose - William M. Connolley 20:05, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - IMO this is GFLD this is Trinity College Copyright ? The large version of the image makes me believe that it ws originally made for hi-res printing and not for web use. - Ericd 22:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not sure where you are coming from here. The design of the crest and shield must be over 100 years old and from his comments I would be pretty sure that User:Prisonblues drew this version and several other college crests (well just the shields). There may be some arcane law concerning heraldry that makes a crest similar to a trademark, but I am not aware of one. I doubt there is any cause for concern over the licencing. -- Solipsist 07:20, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Biased as I made it (as a derivative work of a crest that User:Lupin made. It's definitely not copyright, all elements were made from scratch by me or Lupin. --Prisonblues 07:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT Promoted, +3/-6 -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:25, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Nomination for removal of Globular Cluster M3

Globular Cluster M3

No match to Featured Picture standards criteria.

  • Nominated for delisting by [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 20:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support for deletion delisting (reluctantly). It will be hard for a Wikipedian to trump this shot, but a significantly better Featured Picture Candidate for a globular cluster would be Image:M80.jpg which has much better resolution and gives a stronger idea of the number of stars in a tight GC. -- Solipsist
  • Support for deletion delisting. As astronomy pics go, this one is not so special. -- Chris 73 Talk 22:58, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, ditto. -- Solitude 07:01, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. There are better ones. Janderk 20:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've seen much clearer images of M3 before. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:33, 08 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Retain, on the grounds that it is by a wikipedian -- William M. Connolley 22:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) Reluctantly I have to agree with others & change my vote. Support delisting -- William M. Connolley 22:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC).
  • Support delisting. I agree that i like to see the homegrown photos up there but space is one of the few subjects where wikipedians just can't compeate. Cavebear42 19:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A shame but true. However, we can probably still compete on aurora images, astro related diagrams and probably some other areas. And hey, surely some Wikipedians work at NASA or some other world class observatory. -- Solipsist 20:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delisting approved, 8/0 -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nomination for removal of Parliament Hill, Ottawa

Library of Parliament and gorge of Ottawa River

Rather small and we now have much better location shots.

  • Nominated for delisting -- Solipsist 21:40, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, *yuck*. -- Solitude 07:00, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. Janderk 20:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Re "rather small," there's a larger version available; check parliament3-big.jpg. - Montréalais 23:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • support Cavebear42 19:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delisting approved, 5/0 -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 18:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nomination for removal of Yarra River

Yarra River in Melbourne
a Wikipedia:Featured picture

Technically a well handled difficult shot, but doesn't really show the river or the city.

  • Nominated for delisting -- Solipsist 21:40, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. May be better with Street lamp or Cast iron fence. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 22:08, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. It doesn't show much of the river but still an interesting shot, I'm in doubt. -- Solitude 07:11, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I kind of like it. -- Chris 73 Talk 14:22, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a great picture even if not the best one for showing the whole river. Angela. 21:10, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; looks cool. --Twinxor 06:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and kudos to the photographer. Cavebear42 19:34, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delisting not approved, 3/4 -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 01:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Diversity of Maize

Exotic varieties of maize are collected to add genetic diversity when selectively breeding new domestic strains
a Wikipedia:Featured picture

An eye catching photo by Keith Weller of the US Agricultural Research Service. Best used in illustrating biodiversity. -- Solipsist 06:33, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support -- Solipsist 06:33, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I uploaded a larger version (press CTRL-Reload if you see pixels). Somebody should remove the unused thumbnail Image:GEM corn thumbnail.jpg -- Chris 73 Talk 07:01, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Simple, elegant, helps article. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 07:11, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice Janderk 15:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support — amaizeing. Dunc_Harris| 15:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The picture. Question ? What means exotic ? For a French Wikipedian maize is still exotic... It's an American plant, like Tomatoes but it wasn't a serious culture in France before the end of WWII. And it's still mainly animal food (Hmmm... I love Tacos...). I tend to think that exoctic means "South American" or "not commonly used in the USA". Ericd 22:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well to be honest, I probably put the word 'exotic' into the caption. Ordinarilly I would have used the adjective 'wild' to describe the introduced gene lines, but I got the impression from the information at the images source that these other maize varieties were not necessarily wild varieties, but rather old varieties or varieties grown in South and Latin America. So exotic was the best I could think of. Feel free to improve the caption. -- Solipsist 17:56, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great shot. "Exotic" means not commonly eaten in North America. Europeans do not know what they're missing in corn on the cob, though (trying to prepare European corn in such a manner proved a futile task - the cobs are small and the corn is hard). Denni 01:52, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice photo, good choice of corns as well. I especially like the creamy one in the foreground on the left hand side. --Fir0002 06:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Oska 00:16, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +9/-0 -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:02, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)


Cropped version without grass

Dunc_Harris| 19:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - best photo I've seen in quite awhile. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:31, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - but I bet there are peacock images of the whole bird (including all of its plumage) that might be just as nice. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:37, 08 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - I quite like the focus on the head and neck rather than getting the whole tail. -- Solipsist 07:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - I took the pic (can I vote?) - Adrian Pingstone 19:10, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes you can, and I support as well. -- Solitude 06:47, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
Comment from the photographer: luckily no-one has mentioned that the pic looks to be leaning but, just in case anyone has been thinking so, it's the peacock that's leaning not the pic! - Adrian Pingstone 10:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Compositionally this photo just doesn't work for me. It's hard for me to say why. Perhaps the small patch of grass is distracting, but also I think the amount of the bird shown. Neither the bird with all it's tail or a close-in of mainly the bird's body. For such a visually stunning bird I think we could have a much more striking picture. --Oska 22:51, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Your comment made me curious, so I cropped the image without the grass. Not sure if it is better though Janderk 08:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +6/-1 -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:19, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Horse Chestnuts

Did you know that horse chestnuts are not true nuts, but rather capsules
a Wikipedia:Featured picture

A taste of autumn. Used to illustrate the seeds of the horse chestnut tree, but mostly I just like the textures and colours. Taken by me a couple of weeks ago. - Solipsist 17:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support (self nomination). - Solipsist 17:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Perfect focus, good composition, colors, yups! -- Solitude 17:59, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. As good as it gets. As this is a self-nomination: Would it be possible to change the license to GFDL? Janderk 19:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I see no problem with the licence. Dunc_Harris| 19:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 22:19, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice picture, adds to the article. I like your attention to detail, showing how they look at different stages and having the background being horse-chestnut leaves. Lorax 00:16, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Wonderfully composed! Denni 01:36, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
  • Support. Exceptional! Great composition and incredibly illustrative. Autiger 05:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful photo, very nice colors/composition and the lack of jpeg compression is really good. --Fir0002 06:00, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support! Is it available in a higher resolution? I would love to use it as my desktop background. — David Remahl 23:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Like the colors. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I noticed this image on Solipsist's image page and was going to nominate it myself. It is an excellent photograph, visually striking while also strongly informative of the featured item. --Oska 22:59, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. One of my favourite WP images, but I'm a sucker for conkers (er...) — Matt 15:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +13/-0. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:38, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

The Himalaya Mountains

NASA image of the Himalayas, taken from the International Space Station
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
Alternative 1: Same image with annotations

It's large, it's striking, and it is of a scale rarely seen in photography of any kind. The oblique angle is also interesting, and the colors are especially vivid and clear for an image from orbit. A PD NASA image, but impressive no less. - Matthewcieplak 12:25, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support -- Matthewcieplak 12:25, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support! That is a stunning picture. But could you add the source and the tag to the image page? -- Chris 73 Talk 07:37, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Found source and added image tag -- Chris 73 Talk 08:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support alternative 1: I wondered which mountain was where and where people would climb mount everest. Anyway after doing some research I created alternative 1 with annotations, trying to make the image more informative for an encyclopedia. Janderk 15:18, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. As an image I prefer it without annotations. But the labels are useful, so I would support either way. -- Solipsist 17:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Only himalaya_annotated.jpg is used in an article, so right now that's the only one of those two eligible for promotion. I added Himalayas.jpg to Himalayas - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • support unannotated version (the annotations spoil it as a photo. But I agree its nice to have them identified, so I think the unannotated pic should link to the annotated version) - William M. Connolley 20:05, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC).
  • Support Himalayas.jpg - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 09:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Kaihsu 15:42, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
  • Support the first, unmarked version. This looks much better blown up than the small thumb version. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoting unannotated version, +8/-0. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:40, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Nomination for removal of Lagoon Nebula

Lagoon Nebula

No match to Featured Picture standards criteria.

  • Nominated for delisting by [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 20:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. As proof that there are better space images I nominated the remnants of Kepler's supernova. Janderk 10:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. It might take a professional team, but the Orion Nebula above shows so much more. - Solipsist 16:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - in the "created by wikipedians" section, this is the best Nebula pic there.Cavebear42 16:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I would agree with you if the Orion and Eagle Nebula images weren't nominated above. Both will probably make it into the featured images soon. I voted for removal because those other two are much more striking. Janderk 20:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. Small, not particularly great on its own, let alone compared to the others. ed g2stalk 02:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delisting approved, 4/1 -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 13:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kepler's Supernova

Beautiful NASA image of the remnant of Kepler's Supernova, SN 1604, the last supernova in the Milky Way observed with certainty by man kind. Janderk 10:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support Janderk 10:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I very nearly nominated it myself when you added it to the Kepler article. Its a false colour image, but that's pretty much required if you are going to incoporate X-ray data. -- Solipsist 10:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • support -- Chris 73 Talk 10:48, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose; no wow factor, just a mushed up bunch of colours. Dunc_Harris| 12:45, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. →Raul654 08:38, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - William M. Connolley 20:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC).
  • Support WOW Amazing. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. One that made me say "Wow". Markalexander100 00:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 00:52, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks a bit fuzzy at low res though. Alphax (talk) 08:07, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +9/-1. -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 14:38, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Other Languages