Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/September-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 - 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
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.



==

Processed for increased contrast and colour (finlay)
File:Stata Center2.proc.jpg
Processed for increased contrast (adrian)

Finlay requested this one from me. I took it while I was in Boston at the meetup.

  • Support. →Raul654 02:30, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 03:28, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (Finlay). Chmouel 12:26, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose in its present form. Why are some pics put up unprocessed when very minor processing can vastly improve them? Ten seconds in Photoshop (or any graphics program) produced this improvement to contrast. (Adjust/Auto levels) Adrian Pingstone 10:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Raul's, Adrian's, mine: they're all good. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is the original photo in focus? It looks blurred to me. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 14:31, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think it is in focus. The original looks a bit hazy due to humidity (Raul: buy a polarizing filter). Some of the vertical lines (where there's a high-contrast transition between a bright surface and a shaded one) exhibit the dreaded "purple fringing", a chromatic abberation common on bigger digital cameras. I'll see if I can fix that, but probably can't. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even with processing, the photo is too far away and dark to really make an impression. JediMaster16 17:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Finlay's version. Angela. 22:52, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (Finlay). -- Solitude 11:18, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Finlay's version only Adrians version is far too big, the jpeg distortion ruins the quality, and Finlays looks sharper. --Fir0002 06:40, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Adrians version Lorax 13:23, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The architecture is what deserves accolade, not the photo. Andy5 08:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I do not understand this vote's intention in regard to the parameters of this WP project. Davodd 22:56, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Promoted by Davodd



Collar (BDSM)

BDSM Collar

I took this picture with a film camera, and scanned it in. I'm really proud of how it turned out. - grendel khan 05:19, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

  • Support. I look hot. Lady Byron 05:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Viva Walgreens. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:55, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice picture. Can see the difference between pictures taken by cheap digital camera and nice film camera. Chmouel 10:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I love it. -- Solitude 13:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:55, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object (and it's not nice to delete people's comments, whoever you are). The picture is good except for the large, ungainly shape growing out of this person's left arm. Take that away, and you =might= have a featured picture candidate. Denni 03:09, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)
    • Removed the 'large, ungainly shape'. (That was the window in the background; shallow depth of field caused by low lighting allows for neato emphasis technique, but makes the background an untintelligible blur in the meantime.) (And who deleted whose comment? I don't see anything in the history.) grendel|khan 05:25, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)
  • Support. Angela. 22:52, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 23:53, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 09:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Cute. FiP 12:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I dont like this picture, it doesn't seem very appealing --Fir0002 06:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Conti| 09:46, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Lupin 23:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Sexy. --huwr 06:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


STmaximin.jpg

STmaximin.jpg
STmaximin-Solitude.jpg

The Basilica of Mary Magdalene, France. Taken by Ericd. →Raul654 02:29, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. →Raul654 02:29, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 03:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Chmouel 10:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Lovely and crisp; it's difficult to capture detail in such a contrasty environment. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:55, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful. -- Infrogmation 16:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Kbh3rd 19:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Angela. 22:52, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Has this image been over-sharpened a bit? Perhaps some subtle blurring is in order. Lupin 02:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Added a mild blur effect and contrast balancing. -- Solitude 18:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmm, next time I'll use image revisioning, probably more convenient than my current method of creating new image names. -- Solitude 18:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's greatly improved. Support this new version and oppose the original. Lupin 01:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • I actually like the sharp version better, but my vote above supports either version. -- Chris 73 Talk 07:24, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • The original seems too sharp, or maybe grainy. I'm no expert, but it just doesn't quite look right. I prefer Solitude's edit, and support that version. --Prisonblues 19:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted by Davodd


Sea gulls.jpg

Sea gulls.jpg
Sea gulls Solitude 1.jpg
Sea gulls Solitude 2.jpg

Self-nom. Took this one while I was in Atlantic City. I like it. →Raul654 02:29, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. →Raul654 02:29, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 03:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC
  • Oppose. Horizon is clearly leaning - Adrian Pingstone 10:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Rotated to fix the problem. →Raul654 15:25, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a bit too muted (due, I guess, to martime fug). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:17, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not enough color, contrast, or action. JediMaster16 22:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC):
  • Oppose. Grey birds on grey sand with a grey ocean under a grey sky -- too much grey -- Chris 73 Talk 14:58, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Pah. You're not British, I can tell. ;-) James F. (talk) 04:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. The picture as it is at this moment has too much extra stuff that distracts from the best thing in it (that exact arrangement and body position of that set of birds). I'd crop out the ocean entitely, lose that beachcomber, and create a panorama of just the birds. Alternatively, cropping just that group of six birds on the left makes a neat picture because of the almost perfect line up of four of them. This is one good characteristic that high-resolution pictures like this one have; that one can crop out great looking subsets. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 14:21, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I gave it a shot, also performed some color balancing. Let me know what you think. (Bevo thanks for fixing the layout, couldn't get it right just yet) -- Solitude 14:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support any, but especially Solitude 1.jpg. Angela. 22:52, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am British, and it's way too grey. And it's not in an article AFAICT. And the image quality isn't so great. Lupin 02:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • FWIW, the Laughing Gull article now includes Sea gulls Solitude 1.jpg; it was an oversight that this nomination got as far as it did without being included in at least one Wikipedia article - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 03:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't like Solitude 1, because it has been resized way too much, and the picture is at very low quality. Solitued 2 is better though.--Fir0002 08:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose them all - Boring - Gaz 17:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Not promoted +4 -7 - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Dostoevsky

A lovely, characterful portrait of writer Fyodor Dostoevsky (used in that article) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comments: what's the license? It also seems a little small. Lupin 12:37, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • it was painted (apparently) in 1872, so that makes it PD. I'll see if I can dig up a larger version. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • It would be good if there was a standard way to say that in the actual image info page; not just that it is PD, but how images of old-enough paintings get the PD status. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:33, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Being painted in 1872 is not quite enough information to make it PD, but Vasily Perov died in 1882 so that part is OK. Note that it's unlikely that the uploader did the digitizing: it was probably a museum or art gallery, so we're implicitly relying on Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation. Gdr 12:24, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)
        • We need a template that expands to say that. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Infrogmation 16:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 04:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this size. Fine picture, but way too small. grendel|khan 05:30, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)
  • Support. Cool portrait, neat pic. JediMaster16 17:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, though it could do with being larger. Angela. 22:52, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Chmouel 00:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's too small, and even a bigger version is probably not featured picture quality to me. -- Solitude 11:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice picture, not big enough. --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 06:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Promoted +8 -3 - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 13:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kenilworth Castle

Kenilworth Castle
Kenilworth Castle - Solitude edit

A great photo of Kenilworth Castle. GFDL by James F.

  • Support. Angela. 22:52, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Oppose. A striking photo that has the subject clearly defined. No to all versions. JediMaster16 23:33, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Not particularly striking, IMO. Lupin 02:22, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not striking to me. -- Solitude 11:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Only complaint is that the file is too big (1.4 Mb), but the image is good -- Chris 73 Talk 17:01, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • I resized the image, also balanced contrast, color and levels. Vote stays "nay", but I prefer this edit. -- Solitude 18:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just looks like a normal photo to me. --Prisonblues 19:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Solitude's version. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 14:53, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose Solitude's verison. Solitude has lost all the colour from the sky. Also I think images should be as large as possible. ed g2stalk 17:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree, it appears my edit was too hard on the colours in the sky, perhaps a new edit is in place. I do not agree however with your second argument, I prefer pictures with decent but practical dimensions. -- Solitude 10:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Practical dimensions for what? Your monitor? My monitor? a printed copy of the wikipedia? Printed out and hung on the wall? Large images can be resized down, resizing small images up doesn't go as well. Lorax 13:16, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Not promoted. +3 -5. -- Solitude 09:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Clare College

Clare College

GFDL image by James F. used in Clare College, Cambridge.

  • Support. Angela. 22:52, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The tree is kind of distracting, as is the plaque. Taken from farther away, this would be better. JediMaster16 23:31, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The plaque says "Welcome to Clare"; I thought that it was mildly amusing to include. The tree is not really the kind of thing that can be removed from the shot, and "from further away" would require demolition of the gates around the college, amongst other things. James F. (talk) 23:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The top of the building should be included, given that we can see some sky. This could theoretically be acheived with a wide-angle lens, I think, without any major demolition being needed. Alternatively, could one stick a camera between the railings? Lupin 02:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • One has stuck a camera between the railings: it has produced this image. I agree, a wide-angle lens could get more of the building in; perhaps I will investigate this at some point, when I have a few thousand to spend on a nicer camera. :-) James F. (talk) 03:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • What about trying from the first floor of the Senate House? You'd have a wider view and the railings wouldn't obscure the building. Gdr 11:58, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)
      • Did you try kneeling down and pointing the camera upwards? Lupin 01:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Lupin, if a better photo is not possible that's too bad, the target could make for a very good picture for sure. -- Solitude 10:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a reasonable photo, but nothing special. It's just a straight photo of the college, taken in normal light, with ok composition. Shouldn't a featured picture have something distinctive about it, great lighting, composition or timing etc.? --Prisonblues 19:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice pic but chopping off the top of the central turret kills it for me - Adrian Pingstone 19:53, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Given that we see part of the roof, would be much better to include the whole roof. As for the tree... I don't think that can be helped. --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 06:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, agree with Adrian. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Not promoted. +1 -7. -- Solitude 09:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Mount Rainier

Mount Rainer and the Sunrise visitor center, as seen from the Sourdough Ridge trail.

(Self Nomination) I took this picture of Rainer on vacation in summer 2004. It's not in an article yet, but I think it can be put in the Mount Rainier article somewhere. The picture dosen't look much thumbed, but click to expand it. JediMaster16 17:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose due to inappropriate license. This can not be used by any of our mirrors or in a print version. Angela. 22:52, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Fine, I relesed it under the GNU, as I took the photo itself. JediMaster16 23:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • That's excellent news. Support. Angela. 12:11, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 23:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Kbh3rd 00:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a good shot, but I'm far from bedazzled. -- Solitude 10:37, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks nice -- Chris 73 Talk 16:59, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see anything special about this photo. --Prisonblues 19:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Prisonblues. Lupin 19:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Just so that we can keep the votes tallied, as this is my own picture. I'm not voting twice, I'm just reminding you that I am voting. JediMaster16 14:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. At this time, no Wikipedia article uses this image. See comment below by Stan - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 14:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is so clear I can make out the spot on the Corridor where I helped bring down a body. :-( Give me a moment, it'll be in the article. Stan 03:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It's in. Seeing it in context, I think it could stand to lose 50% of the sky above the summit, keeps focus on the mountain itself. Don't crop anything else, it illustrates the alpine parklands that are all around the mountain. Stan 03:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support if sharpening is tuned down a bit. Right now it is a touch too pixelated for my taste. Janderk 16:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Version 2
    • The image was only resized, which may have sharpened it up a bit (It was a 4.6 Megapixel image). As I only have Microsoft Photo Editor and another obscure editing program (Microsoft Picure It! Publishing Platinum 2003), I cannot dull it up quite yet. If you go to the image page itself it looks a bit better. JediMaster16 13:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • If you have a link to the original full version I or someone else could resize and tweak it in Photoshop or the GIMP. It might improve the result.
  • Support A really nice shot, its too bad I live in Australia and cant go there --Fir0002 23:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (provisionally) - This image needs some of the sky removed to balance the composition and produce a more panoramic effect - Gaz 14:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • In the absence of a version from a Photoshop master, I took out some of the sky for version 2. Markalexander100 07:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Promoting cropped version, +9 -3. I'd like to note that there is no clear consensus, but the image was already made featured picture before going through this process. So I guess it's a done deal. -- Solitude 09:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
version 3
    • Version 2 was resized and color-enhanced in Photoshop. Being not a Photoshop master, I hope this looks a bit better. JoJan 19:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


View of Santorini

View of Santorini

View of Santorini before sunset released taken by me released under GFDL. The all the set of pictures on Santorini were featured but we voted to remove it. So now i add this single one for voting. Chmouel 23:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. It's a beautiful picture (and cute woman too :-)). — David Remahl 04:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very stiking... though I think I'd crop the bottom part to make it a horizontal format...Pollinator 04:22, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, another clearly leaning picture. Why is this fault so common? It takes a few seconds to fix! - Adrian Pingstone 14:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Sky is very grainy (and is not on the pre-colour-corrected small version). Lupin 15:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A balcony rail (or whatever that is) should not consume almost a quarter of the frame. Denni 01:18, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Same complaint as Denni. JediMaster16 13:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Same complaint as Denni - If the original is good enough you could crop a nice shot from it - Gaz 13:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Support - After discussions with Chmouel, I offer this modified version - Gaz 17:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Why is the sky so grainy? Maybe Chmouel has a higher resolution version of the original (before the colors were altered) that he would share? - Bevo 22:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Sorry but look i could not find any backup of the old higher untouched file. Chmouel 23:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sky is far too grainy. -- Prisonblues 11:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry, there's just not enough here to make a good picture. No real focus, no real sense of place. My vote remains unchanged. Denni 01:49, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice composition, but the purpose of the photo in WP is to illustrate an article. Here, the model overpowers the subject of the photo: the cityscape. I do not think this photo as is can be salvaged since my suggestion would require a better focus on infinity while the foreground (and model) are downplayed slightly out of focus, perhaps a different (back to camera, over the shoulder?) pose for the model so she is no longer distracting from, but helping for the subject. Davodd 23:49, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

NOT promoted. +4 -7. -- Solitude 07:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


The perfect Buddha at the Borobudur

The perfect Buddha at the Borobudur on Java, Indonesia.
File:Borobudur-perfect-buddha edited.jpg
The perfect Buddha - Jan Derk edit. Cropped, color corrected, metal sign edited out, brightness adjusted

This image was shot by fellow (new) Wikipedian Jan-Pieter Nap on his vacation in Indonesia. This one depicts the perfect Buddha at the Borobudur on the island Java. It is used both in the Buddha as well as in the Borobudur article. -- Solitude 11:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose in current form. It's a litle too dark you should rework a litle bit the luminosity of the picture. Chmouel 11:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too dark, and camera position connects background and foreground when there is in fact no connection. A shot from a slightly different angle, leaving a gap behind Buddha and background temple would be better. Denni 01:08, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
    • I've brightened it up a bit. →Raul654 03:52, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's perfect now. JediMaster16 14:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. That cigarette-pack-sized silver object to the right of the statue just spoils it for me. - Bevo 14:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I added a new edited version without the metal object and a few other tweaks. Janderk 20:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support the revised version - Bevo 12:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support with metal sign (see below). Janderk 14:09, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Can anything be done about the shadow where the sign use to be? --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 06:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Photos in an encylopedia should be an accurate depiction of reality at the time the photo was taken. Editing out signs and other objects violates this and shouldn't be in wikipedia at all, let alone be a featured picture. Lorax 13:09, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • As the one who actually removed the sign, your comment made me rethink about matter and I agree.
    • Comment: Lorax didn't comment in a similar vein when supporting the altered version of the "Fractal Broccoli" image. - Bevo 02:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't realize the content was altered at the time, have changed my vote on it. Lorax 00:18, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support altered version. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (nominator). I too prefer the edit. In my opinion, the fact that an image is improved by a minor edit does not lessen its value or worthiness for an encyclopedia. -- Solitude 12:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NOT promoted. +4 -2. Both versions end up at this score, no consensus. -- Solitude 07:16, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Monopoly game in progress

(German) Monopoly game in progress.

Illustrative and well-processed image. The background has been removed, and a soft shadow added. GFDL. "Created by german Wikipedian Horst Frank 13:23, 7. Dez 2003 (CET)". Used in Monopoly (game). — David Remahl 01:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Should I vote even though �I was the one who listed it? — David Remahl 01:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Striking, informative, appropriate, cool. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 03:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Kbh3rd 04:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (I copied the image from the German Wikipedia) -- Chris 73 Talk 05:06, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great picture.--Eloquence* 16:25, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support/Comment. I love the picture...is there any concern that it's a shot of the German game? It does differ in minor but visible ways from any English-language version I've seen....I don't know if that should trouble us at all. I'm certainly no linguistic imperialist....I'm just wondering if, say, the German Wikipedia would feature a picture of a US or UK version of a game when the game they're familiar with differs slightly? Certainly it's a worthy picture in terms of composition and color....sorry to be a fence-sitter. Jwrosenzweig 23:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the caption on the article's image should say that it is the German language version of the game. - Bevo 23:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Note that the French, Swedish, and Hebrew wikipedias' Monopoly articles all feature this (the german) image. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Excellent information, Finlay....but I'm a little confused. Do they "feature" this image, as in "use it in an article" (I think that's a perfectly good idea), or do they "Feature" this image, as in "put it on the main page as an example of the best pictures on this Wikipedia"? If the latter, then my question is answered. If the former, I would still question whether it is best practice for us to Feature this image -- but I don't question it enough to prevent its promotion if I am a lone voice. I just think it's worth considering. And I think Bevo's caption idea sounds like a good one. :-) Jwrosenzweig 13:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I suspect only the former, but I don't really know. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • I'll stop being a pain and support this -- it's not a major issue, and certainly it's a great shot of the game. I do think there may be an underlying principle here that is unimportant now but perhaps more important later....but I imagine we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Don't let me delay this excellent image any longer. Jwrosenzweig 20:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice picture. It does not disturb me that it is a German version. Monopoly is an International game after all. Janderk 13:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Where ever this game was laid out, this is a very nice picture. Brillant editing or photography. Just make sure the caption says something like "A German version of Monopoly game in progress..." --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 06:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not featured material. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's too "fuzzy", I can't make out any of the lettering except the MONOPOLY centerpiece. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 22:14, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Promoted. +9/-2. -- Solitude 07:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Moscow Kremlin Egg

File:Kremlin egg-700px.jpg
Moscow Kremlin Egg


With black background

Thought I'd try putting one of my efforts through the critiques. :-) Illustrates Fabergé egg; although many pics like this are on the net, this one actually has a proper license. - Stan 01:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The image is OK, but it is somewhat grainy and the background is too dark. If the background could be removed or made brighter, I may support. — David Remahl 04:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I attempted to put a black background on it, but I agree with the comments below that the original version is better. Angela. 00:54, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • The black background is a lot better, but you seem to have missed the two triangular areas to the left and right of the tower. — David Remahl 00:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't want to fiddle too much with the background; not only is that an accurate representation of its physical location, but as Angela's essay shows, it's tough to catch all the background bits. This image came directly out of iPhoto, and hasn't had the benefit of the color/contrast tinkering available in more powerful tools; I'll try some experiments. Stan 03:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Cool! Denni 01:13, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see dots missing from the picture, (latest). -- Allyunion 05:58, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too much noise and color imprefections. Looks like it was taken in low light at high ASA with a not so good camera (I changed my opinion upon a second look). Janderk 14:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The lighting is not good enough, the viewing angle too low, and the black background really sux - Sorry - Gaz 13:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I dislike the backgrounds in both pictures. Also the picture is not featured in any article. -- Solitude 09:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not promoted. +3 -6 - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 18:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Lioness face close-up, lying down.jpg

File:Lioness face close-up, lying down.jpg
Lioness face close-up, lying down

Stunning picture. →Raul654 09:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. →Raul654 09:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Featured pictures of wild animals should be taken in their natural habitat. Not in a zoo, a cage or an aquarium. While the lion is perfect, the background is as unnatural as it gets. The same picture with an African Savanna as background would be a clear winner. Janderk 09:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree that the unnatural background kills the pic - Adrian Pingstone 12:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Could be used to illustrate animals in captivity. I added it to Zoo. I agree that he images on Lion should depict the animal in its natural habitat, but there are cases when a constructed environment is at least as good, if not better, for illustration in an encyclopedia. — David Remahl 14:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I just had almost done the same thing (ie putting the image on the zoo page ) but decided not to, as a zoo image should have a bunch of happy kids standing outside a fence pointing at the giraffes or lions. This image has no bars and no fences and no visitors that are typical of a zoo. However, it is probably better than nothing. Janderk 14:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, I think Zoo should have several pictures. One like you describe, one with the lion on the unnatural background, and one showing animals in near-natural environment. Next time I go to a zoo, I'll bring a camera. Several POVs should be represented in the pictures as well. — David Remahl 14:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • David, you've missed the point. We are not discussing if this is merely a good pic for WP, the brief for this page is images and charts that we find beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant. I don't think this pic is any of those - Adrian Pingstone 15:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • I tend to put more weight on the add significantly to Wikipedia part of the page description. Further more, in my opinion, this image is both beautiful, striking and fascinating. YMMV. — David Remahl 16:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • I agree with you David, the picture is pretty good (admiting the background is poor) and I whole-heartedly subscribe to your outlook on this page. It is the photos that pass through the nomination stage that really need to be aboslutely perfect --Fir0002 09:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Although background is unnatural, still a great pic. JediMaster16 14:03, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Simply a 'cute' pic. Wikipedia is not Disneyland. Oska 05:13, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The bench destroys any greatness this picture might have had. Denni 23:30, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
  • Oppose - OK, but not "featured" material - Gaz 13:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A Zoo is not all "shiny and happy people", the negative impact Zoo's can have on animals is captured well by this image. If I was a lioness behind bars, I'd be looking like this. -- Solitude 09:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not promoted. +5 -5. -- Solitude 07:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Emperor Gum Moth

Emperor Gum Moth - Black background
Polyphemus moth - Transparent background

I nominate this moth, because I think it exceedingly handsome and having very striking colors.

  • Support. Self Nomination --Fir0002 09:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I support black background version only. JediMaster16 14:00, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I would support a white background version.--Eloquence*
    • Comment. I have replaced the original photo with one with a white background.--Fir0002 06:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support either version, slight preference for black background. -- Chris 73 Talk 07:39, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. White Background. -- Martin123 09:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support both (although the black background for some reason seems better)...what software makes this "backgrounding effect" possible? - Bevo 14:36, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment, I cut the image from its background in Photoshop --Fir0002 09:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support black background. Denni 23:27, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
  • Support - (black) - Gaz 12:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support either version, slight preference for the white. It's a shame jpg's can't have transparency. -- Prisonblues 11:34, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment. I have replaced the white version with a PNG file which has transparency. The white is now transparent. --Fir0002 00:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but it's now 10 times larger, and nearly a megabyte in size. -- Prisonblues 10:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Would you rather I restored the white background? --Fir0002 22:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support either, preference for black background. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, black version. -- Solitude 09:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Promoted, +11 -0. Black seems to be favoured, promoting the black version. -- Solitude 09:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Fractal Broccoli

Fractal Broccoli

Great image to illustrate the featured article fractal. Public domain source, name of photographer unknown. Uploaded by me. - Chris 73 Talk 08:56, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support (nominator)- Chris 73 Talk 08:56, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Martin123 09:42, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fixed some brown discolorations on tips of broccoli. --Fir0002 10:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Is this image "beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant"? No. Object. Denni 23:22, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful, striking, impressive, just brilliant — absolutely. Markalexander100 03:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very much so. — David Remahl 05:02, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Yum! Broccoli. --Aqua 06:59, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Highly striking pic - Adrian Pingstone 07:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Striking - Gaz 12:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose, because it was edited. Lorax 13:23, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Striking and informative. Support. James F. (talk) 14:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the finest examples of a natural fractal I've seen, and excellently captured, too. Fredrik | talk 17:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've eaten one of those; they are more interesting than tasty. [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 18:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Seen some fractal broccoli and cauliflowers but none as striking as this. I wonder if it was bred for its fractal display? Also like to commend Chris for the excellent work he does in digging up photos for articles, this being just one example. Oska 22:28, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • hey, thanks! Contributed 500+ images to wikipedia so far ;-) -- Chris 73 Talk 14:22, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's just a shame the bottom has been cropped. -- Prisonblues 11:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Cropping addressed with a quick paint job. Fredrik | talk 22:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Damn, that's impressive work Fredik. -- Prisonblues 01:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree on the cropping. There are some brown spots too, which you wouldn't see in a professional image. Still very good though. Janderk 23:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I think Fir0002 fixed those. Did you try CTRL-Reload? -- Chris 73 Talk 14:22, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Striking, and a very clear example of fractals in nature. Neurophyre 01:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Absolutely fantastic. -- Tlotoxl 16:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Promoted. Angela. 19:37, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)



Cross on Mount Royal, Montreal

Cross on Mount Royal, Montreal

Created by Aarchiba. I like the gradation of the night sky behind the cross and the contrast between the bright illumination and the silhouette. - Montréalais 03:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Not terribly stunning, and not terribly sharp. Lupin 03:50, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Larger version is not sharp enough to be a Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 09:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Pretty ordinary photo. Not sharp --Fir0002 10:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The image quality of the larger photo looks pretty bad. --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 06:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Ok on its own page, but not "featured" material - Gaz 12:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Another normal photo. -- Prisonblues 11:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (not that it'll do much now :-) Nice angle and gradient of light. LUDRAMAN | T 18:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Not promoted. Angela. 19:37, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)


Sarajevo valley at dusk

File:SarajevoValley.jpg
Sarajevo Valley at Dusk

An excellent picture of the city at night.

  • Support. Self Nomination - Asim Led 01:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too low resolution and much too restrictive license. Otherwise a nice image. — David Remahl 01:15, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic photo. Too bad about the license --Fir0002 06:36, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Could be any urban valley at dusk. I like that it appears so calm, considering where it is, but that does not improve its value as a photo. Denni 23:25, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see nothing to feature here - Gaz 12:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The landscape looks like mishmash. -Hapsiainen 10:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Not promoted. Angela. 19:37, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)




Antarctica satellite globe

A satellite composite image of Antarctica

Lovely and informative stuff from the US federal government. - Markalexander100 08:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. - Bevo 08:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A beautiful photo - Adrian Pingstone 09:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 17:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very very nice. Would be nice to have a link to the original one though. Janderk 22:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Clean pictures of Antarctica are not easy to come by. Denni 01:06, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm usually quite reticent to support PD works, but this certainly qualifies - Gaz 12:15, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:17, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: it really ought to have a link to the original. Also, I'm pretty sure its false colour (doesn't rule it out of course, but ought to be noted) (William M. Connolley 22:34, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
  • Support on the condition that a link to the image source is added. I've put a request on User talk:Cantus for this information as they were the original uploader of the image. Oska 06:15, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Added. --Cantus 06:36, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • Appreciated. I found it interesting to read how the image was obtained through a polar transform. Oska 21:01, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
        • Especially as the image would have been originally taken from (probably) directly above the Antarctic, then converted to rectangular formats by NASA (along with, I'm sure, a load of other filters), then converted back to polar coordinates by Cantus -- Prisonblues 21:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Cantus 06:36, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. That's amazing. -- Prisonblues 21:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --huwr 06:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


ChessSet.jpg

ChessSet.jpg

Nice picture, from Alan Light (user:Alight). Used on chess. -spencer195 05:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Chmouel 07:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comments: I see a distinct "lean" to the left. That piece of lint on the board is distracting. I like this idea for image content for the Chess article, but I think better lighting and background would make it more of a candidate for a FP. - Bevo 15:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cheap plastic chess pieces are not what the great game of chess deserves. Plus the picture is far from sharp which is most obvious in the left bottom corner. It is probably taken without tripod at high aperture value. That and the lean to the left. Janderk 23:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cheap plastic pieces, lean, unfocused, poorly chosen pieces (I think the photo should have been either of a game in progress or the starting positions) Generally speaking, this photo isn't very good. --Fir0002 23:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    No, we've pictures of starting positions and other positions, all are too messy to make a good top illutstration of Chess. A picture composed something like this is just what makes a good illustration of Chess. Comment on picture: Support, adds a lot to the article. [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 10:31, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Unfocused? Seriously? This photo is pretty sharp. It has a very low depth of field - which gives it a nice look. Apart from the slight lean, Support. ed g2stalk 20:16, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think the molding seam on the bishop makes me cringe the most - Gaz 11:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Thousands upon thousands of variations of chess sets, and you pick this one for a featured picture candidate? --AllyUnion 08:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I had the exact same feeling as Gaz, that's just awful. -- Solitude 12:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- perhaps the rest of you are well-off enough to afford fancy chess pieces, but this is the look I associate with the actual game. More expensive pieces, in my experience, are almost invariably so stylized that they would give an unrepresentative image of the game. The picture is clear, somewhat striking, and definitely a good choice for Chess. And frankly, even if you don't think it should be featured, I think calling it "awful" is hyperbole. I'd welcome a better picture, but I think this one very fine. Jwrosenzweig 21:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Heh, I was actually referring to the seam on the bishop, trying to describe the feeling Gaz experienced as well. The picture as a whole is defenitely not awful but not FP-level to me. -- Solitude 23:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Chess set looks too cheap and nasty, they don't sit on the board square, either. --huwr 06:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - composition and lighting are nice, but the Bishop looks obviously made of plastic. --StoatBringer 22:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • User:Alight Since I took this picture, I will not respond to the photography comments. I will however comment about the complaints that it's a "cheap plastic chess set." The pieces pictured are standard tournament pieces that were actually purchased from the U.S. Chess Federation. They are the type used at thousands of tournaments and by millions of players every day. I do not think there is a better set to use to "represent" the game of chess.


Other Languages