Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria.
If you believe an image should be featured, create a subpage (use the "For Nominations" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section. For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here. The archive contains all opinions and comments collected for candidate nominations and their nomination results. If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.
A featured picture can be nominated for delisting if you feel it no longer lives up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Create a subpage (use the "For Delists" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture. For delisting, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures, except that:If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance. Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December.
|
Featured picture tools: |
Step 1:
Evaluate Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations. |
Step 2:
Create a subpage
To create a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for your nomination, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the field below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.
To create a subpage for your delist, add a title for the image you want to delist/replace in the field below and click the "Create new delist nomination" button.
|
Step 3:
Transclude and link Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (). |
How to comment for Candidate Images
How to comment for Delist Images
Editing candidates
Is my monitor adjusted correctly? In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting. Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting. On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet (roughly 75–150 cm) away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that the image must be viewed in original size (263 × 68 pixels) - if enlarged or reduced, results are not accurate. Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended. |
- To see recent changes, .
Current nominations
- Reason
- A well-composed, atmospheric image depicting a part of the world that is neglected in our featured pictures. The sharpness is not perfect, but the photo is well above the resolution requirements (so to the extent that sharpness is a problem, just imagine that it is downsampled a bit...).
- Articles this image appears in
- Bareina
- Creator
- Ferdinand Reus from Arnhem, Holland
- Support as nominator --Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support - I thought this picture was brilliant when I originally added it to the article. The contrast in my view between the dark sky and the light send as well as the subject of the photo in my view is quite special. I didn't propose it myself as I usually get it wrong and propose photos which are too dark for "professional" eyes but I think the image is quite something, The dead football seems very out of place to, adding to the character of the image. Its probably not quite sharp enough or technically sound enough though for featured but it certainly has many good points, Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Full disclosure: I alerted Blofeld to this nomination bc I knew he had previously considered nominating it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support For people who look at blown whites and crushed blacks, this is a wet dream come true, right? Apart from the histogram, I also looked at the flickr gallery, and saw that he has a lot of amazing photographs. Hope someone is on the job. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- There were about 90 already, and I've since uploaded about 60 more. See all of his photos we have so far at commons:Category:Ferdinand_Reus. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Suppport per nom. DurovaCharge! 01:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. High EV, good quality. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Let me commit sacrilege against the photographer's composition (certainly it's a pretty image) and suggest a crop of a portion of the sky-- it's so striking that it could be seen as detracting from EV (one might think that the sky typically looks that way at that location). Spikebrennan (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - no crop needed. The sky provides a striking entry point for your eye, leading down to the dry dusty foreground. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Excellent work. Might benefit (slightly) from a minor tweak to the sky, which is maybe a little grainy, but I don't think it's necessary. By the way, doing some tests, I think that cropping the sky would probably remove the the rather nice "wide open" feel of the image, hurting composition. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Are we certain that this image is ok to use? I'm not au fait with licensing, but the photographer's Flickr profile says all rights reserved, and that he must be contacted for permission. Perhaps he's mistakenly applied the wrong creative commons licence? Could someone with a clearer understanding explain the contradiction? Thanks, :-) Maedin\talk 19:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- It appears the licensing was changed on flickr. (It was verified as valid earlier by our flickrreview bot.) licenses are non-revokable, so this isn't a problem. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Bareina, Mauritania.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16♣TC♣ 19:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Mission San Juan Capistrano was one of the most ambitious of the Spanish colonial missions in California, and also underwent repeated damage and rebuilding. This is a high resolution photochrom print of the courtyard as it appeared in 1899 after two earthquakes and nearly 7 decades of neglect. Restored version of File:Mission San Juan Capistrano unrestored.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Mission San Juan Capistrano
- Creator
- William Henry Jackson
- Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 06:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Information This article has probably been one of the top 0.2% (my estimate) most detailed and best written WP articles for about three years now. Mdhennessey was the last editor to contribute substantial amounts of quality material to the article, between 17 January 2007 and 20 March 2008, and left WP on 21 March 2008, citing lack of respect for scholarly research as the reason. User:Lordkinbote had done significant work on the article between 3 April 2005 and 19 November 2006, and left under the same complaint on 27 November 2006, linking to the account of one-time admin User:RickK, who appears to have been an admin at one time, and who left with the same complaint on Jun 21, 2005. May their contributions be remembered. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Can you clarify? Is this the only picture of this section of the Mission in reasonable repair? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support GerardM (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice. There's even a song about it. anyway, you really can't win with these kinds of things - if it's historic, they want more modern, but look up a bit at the Anne Frank house one, where they think it's too recent. Both have their place and are good. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Not enough EV since it shows so little of the mission. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support It shows enough of the mission for me. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Makeemlighter. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom and Erik vis-a-vis Makeemlighter. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support This image is clearly iconic for numerous reasons, of one of the most famous and historic sites in California. The off-topic material above should have no bearing on the worthiness of this image for promotion.--Filll (talk | wpc) 04:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your argument should not be based on the notability of the article, but the quality of the picture. The article has many pictures that are of sufficient resolution - what makes this one stand out as one of Wikipedia's best? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support and thanks. --Caspian blue 15:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this part of the mission still standing? Further input re: enc please. MER-C 08:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think the FOV is wide enough to convey much information. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Pretty, and excellent restoration, but doubtful EV in an article that is full of images: why is this one better than one that shows how the mission looks today? Spikebrennan (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per above, better views of the mission are available in the article. Fletcher (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 10:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- A very old picture taken by my old Nikon coolpix. It shows the specie quite well and DOF is good. Its the only image of the specie that Wikipedia has.
- Articles this image appears in
- Ceriagrion glabrum
- Creator
- Muhammad
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 04:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
-
Weak oppose, for nowSupport edit 2 The streaks above the wing bother me. At first, I had thought it was the other wing out of focus, but it appears to be the background. It could probably be removed with editing software (I'm able to do that, so you can let me know if you want me to fix it). Also, is it missing a front leg? I prefer one in good condition. ZooFari 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)- Since I had the original, I cloned out the streaks and have uploaded an edit. I count six legs, so I think this is perfect condition. --Muhammad(talk) 06:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- It does appear to be missing the bottom segment of the front right leg. --jjron (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- I hadn't seen that. However, does it make much of a difference? --Muhammad(talk) 15:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can use the clone tool to extend the leg to make it seem as if the rest of the leg is behind the stem. Though it would make it a foul edit, it would not be a big deal, as it is only for a small detail of portion. ZooFari 02:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- I hadn't seen that. However, does it make much of a difference? --Muhammad(talk) 15:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- It does appear to be missing the bottom segment of the front right leg. --jjron (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since I had the original, I cloned out the streaks and have uploaded an edit. I count six legs, so I think this is perfect condition. --Muhammad(talk) 06:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Edit 2 Uploaded --Muhammad(talk) 07:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to have feedback from others as well please :-) --Muhammad(talk) 07:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Edit 2: I'm not overly keen on a section of leg having been cloned in, but it does look perfectly natural and probably suits our encyclopaedic aims. Good focus. Maedin\talk 18:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The quality of the Nikon is letting you down here - I think you'll have to wait till you get one with your 150mm as the current macro bar is above this IMO --Fir0002 09:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Weak opposeWhile you took care of the streaks above the wing, I'm not satisfied with the streak right below the bottom of the image. SpencerT♦Nominate! 20:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)- Edit 3 Uploaded. Cloned out the streak you mentioned --Muhammad(talk) 06:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support edit 3, oppose others. SpencerT♦Nominate! 19:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Edit 3 Uploaded. Cloned out the streak you mentioned --Muhammad(talk) 06:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
No consensus MER-C 03:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Changed to no consensus as that's a more accurate description. MER-C 09:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution featured picture on Wikimedia Commons that I believe meets the requirements and adds encyclopedic value to the articles.
- Articles this image appears in
- Sahara and Desert
- Creator
- Lucag
- Support as nominator --Synergy 23:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support The image may need to be moved to a more prominent location int the article. --Muhammad(talk) 05:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate your thoughts, but I was wondering if you could clarify. Did you mean that the placement in one of the the above articles needs to be reconsidered, or that the image needs to be on the Tadrart Acacus article? Synergy 19:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like Tadrart Acacus needs some more text rather than images at this point. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Moved to top of sahara, let's see if it sticks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. :) Synergy 20:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate your thoughts, but I was wondering if you could clarify. Did you mean that the placement in one of the the above articles needs to be reconsidered, or that the image needs to be on the Tadrart Acacus article? Synergy 19:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Kanonkas : Talk 17:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Would be better without the human and footprints, but we can't do too much about that, can we? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. I disagree with Erik; I think that the human in the picture adds a helpful sense of scale. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support — neuro(talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support I agree with Spikebrennan. -- AJ24 (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Maedin\talk 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - and I actually like the person hiking - it gives a wonderful sense of scale. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Libya 4985 Tadrart Acacus Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg MER-C 08:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Currently a featured picture candidate on Commons, and will almost certainly be listed. High resolution image of a distinctive mushroom, particularly useful for showing the ring. Displayed as it actually looks, rather than as it looks on when fairies are sitting on it. Looks great at high resolution, clear shot of the fungus itself and looks very natural.
- Articles this image appears in
- Amanita muscaria
- Creator
- Tony Wills
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Looks very real. Lighting is also quite good. I wanted to nominate this myself but felt too lazy. --Muhammad(talk) 04:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It has blown highlights (not severely so), a noisy background (not to bad), chromatic aberration (mostly in the background), lacks contrast and is soft all over. I don't really understand why stuff like this passes commons QI. More aesthetically speaking, the background very distracting. Most of these problems are caused by stopping down too much on a point and shoot. The edit helps a couple of the problems, but I've often seen images that size opposed on size grounds. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- IMO the background is quite informative. If I am correct, it shows ferns which require soil rich in organic matter and shady areas, conditions which are also required by mushrooms. --Muhammad(talk) 19:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose foreground and background objects distracts very much and mushroom is torn. Lee2008 (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- The slight damage to a very delicate structure is perfectly normal for this stage in development, and likely happened when it came free of the gills which it formerly protected. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support We have very few good fungi pics, and this is amongst the best of what we have. When standards are raised by people going out and showing us what they are capable of, it would be reasonable to delist this one, but I think it reasonablew to accept this as amongst the best we have, then seek to improve the situation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I plan to go fungi hunting in a couple of months when the time of year is right actually. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, then, I'm ure your work - which is always excellent - will greatly raise the standards of fungi on Wikipedia =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- I plan to go fungi hunting in a couple of months when the time of year is right actually. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose per Noodle Snacks. SpencerT♦C 20:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose A good contribution, but I don't think the quality and composition are up to snuff. Fletcher (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment IMO the only thing that needs sharpening here is the stalk, so that's what I've done in the alternative edit. Feel free to re-apply any other changes that you feel are necessary. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'd still do a curves adjustment, contrast is still lacking on the edit. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I was pleasantly suprised to find this had been nominated here :-). I took this photo to give as detailed a view of the classic features of this mushroom as I could. Starting at the top we have the white universal veil remnants, and small bits of debris from the forest floor on the slightly glutenous (when wet) bright red cap. Under which you can clearly see the gills, then the partial veil which has dropped away from the gills and clings to the stalk. And below is the white stalk. The only major visual feature missing is the bulbous 'root' which is in the ground. Surrounding the mushroom can clearly be seen the pine-needles from the pine tree in the background - a very common association of these species. As usual under pinus radiata there is little undergrowth, just a few very small plants.
- @User:Noodle snacks the time of the year is right, you are just in the wrong hemisphere ;-).
- @User:Lee2008 Yes the partial veil is 'torn', it may well drop off all together just leaving a ring - my intention is to depict real mushrooms :-).
- There are technical compromises in the background, but the background is for context not the main subject of the photo.
- I see the Amanita muscaria article is currently a featured article candidate, I will try and provide a photo of a mature mushroom as well (I'll go check if there is already a good one available). --Tony Wills (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Acceptable DOF, high quality macro, and distinguishable foreground.
- Articles this image appears in
- Lomatium, Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, Flower
- Creator
- ZooFari
- Support as nominator --ZooFari 23:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Support per nom. DurovaCharge! 00:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support - could benefit from a little sharpening. Stevage 00:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Note: this is actually Lomatium parryi not Lomatium bicolor, which doesn't occur in southern Nevada. Stan (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I did further research and it appears to be that you are right. Just in case, I communicated with a tourist and requested varification. As soon as I get a reply, I will add it as a source. ZooFari 22:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Per nom. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Per nom - but I must say that it does have the 'wow factor' about it. - Fastily (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. It's a little concerning that supports are still rolling in despite the apparently valid doubts on species ID. I'd probably suggest this should be suspended until a confirmation on the species occurs (and I'm not sure "a tourist" is a reputable source for this). --jjron (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Species ID Confirmed by RRCNCA. Also mentioned that this umbel is still producing flowers, as it makes sense since I took the image early spring. ZooFari 23:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent quality. Beautiful picture. Spinach Dip 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, did anyone review this one at full size? If you did, you would see that it's full of JPEG artifacts, which were made worse/more apparent by the edits (also not mentioned here). Not promoted MER-C 08:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Back to the FPC page, this is a clear promotion to me -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Worth noting that the current file version and the one at the time of nomination are different, so the votes above don't really count. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Would you like to help adding the current version to the nomination? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Take a look at the file revision history. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/42/20090314030214!Lomatium_parryi.jpg was the file version at the time of closing. The file revision that MER-C closed was not the version that everyone voted on, going by the dates above. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Would you like to help adding the current version to the nomination? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose and Speedy Close Technical quality is far below standard, MER-C's original closure was correct in the circumstances IMO --Fir0002 14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Images shouldn't be reviewed at full sizes only. Downsampled to around 1500px, are the artefacts still visible? If not then the picture shouldn't be opposed. --Muhammad(talk) 16:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose what Fir said. Not that it makes it ineligible, but this is a VP now, so it's not like ZooFari's feelings are hurt or anything. wadester16 | Talk→ 19:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Relisting this picture was a mild and civilized way of dealing with a gross closing mistake. After this agressive striking action, the question is: shall we continue with the poll or just promote the picture, as it should have been done before? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Stop the presses. Strongly object to the strikethrough of my previous support. That action (as well as, probably, other strikethroughs) was taken without permission or notification and creates a false and prejudicial impression of massive withdrawal of support. This present FPC is therefore tainted and invalid. Please do not make a bad situation worse by creating further problems in what is already a procedural nightmare.DurovaCharge! 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)- Although I still have concerns that unauthorized strikethroughs prejudiced this relisting, the removals are appreciated; thank you. DurovaCharge! 23:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fir. --jjron (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The behaviour of do the original votes count yes-no-yes-no has ruined any chance of this having a fair run anymore. Per talk page, provisionally promoting per original votes, but listing as a delist nom. Promoted File:Lomatium parryi.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please play fair. wadester16 | Talk→ 16:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Edith Bolling Galt Wilson, the wife of President Woodrow Wilson, was arguably the most powerful First Lady in United States history. President Wilson suffered a stroke in 1919 and remained disabled for the rest of his life, although he also remained president until his term ended in 1921. After the stroke his wife Edith filtered the information that she deemed necessary to bring to his attention. Here, in his first posed portrait after the stroke, Wilson signs a document while his wife holds the paper steady. He was paralyzed on his left side.
- Articles this image appears in
- Edith_Bolling_Galt_Wilson#Acting_Presidency, Presidency_of_Woodrow_Wilson#Incapacity
- Creator
- Harris and Ewing
- Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 05:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think this meets the resolution requirement - as soon as you go above 600px height, you start noticing utter lack of sharpness in this picture. You may have captured the photographic grain perfectly, but that's not much help if the original photograph is unsharp, or perhaps of excessively coarse grain. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Papa Lima Whiskey. It's jut not a good enough photo, technically.--ragesoss (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - However, I think we should recognise the work Durova put into the photograph to get it to this state. It's a useful, encyclopedic addition to the articles, it's just a pity the original photographer sucked, but was there for such a perfect scene. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 08:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Baseball player Babe Ruth in 1920, shortly after he joined the New York Yankees. Found a high resolution portrait in public domain with his signature. Restored version of File:Babe Ruth unrestored.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Babe Ruth, New York Yankees, History of baseball in the United States
- Creator
- Irwin, La Broad, & Pudlin.
- Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 23:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good EV --Muhammad(talk) 04:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Clear resolution. Nicely framed. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Despite the weird background choice (what is with that?) - a more natural or action shot would be nice, but probably unlikely to get. Adds to our limited supply of sporting FPs and a good contribution to WP. This is the type of 'old stuff' we need. --jjron (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. For the reasons stated above, plus the fact that it's a signed picture. Spinach Dip 21:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support — neuro(talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I'd prefer an in-game shot, but this is still great. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Babe Ruth2.jpg MER-C 06:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- The first battleship of the United States Navy. Restored version of File:USS Texas.jpg. Very high resolution; smaller version available for viewers with slow connection speeds at File:USS Texas2 courtesy copy.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- USS Texas (1892), Pre-dreadnought battleship, Battleship, History of the United States Navy
- Creator
- Detroit Publishing Co.
- Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 17:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -MBK004 19:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - considerate restoration - Peripitus (Talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support — neuro(talk) 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:USS Texas2.jpg MER-C 06:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Conway's Game of Life is really quite fascinating, and I'm not sure our current FP quite captures the complexity possible with it. I think this animation helps rectify that problem. As Conway's Game of Life is based around squares, this image is infintely scalable.
- Articles this image appears in
- Conway's Game of Life, Breeder (cellular automaton), Cellular automaton
- Creator
- User:Protious after User:Hyperdeath's original still image.
- Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support - beautiful. If only we could have the animation qualities of GIF with the smoothness and scalability of SVG. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Technically, in this case we can: The Game of Life takes place on a square grid, with square cells. Images use square pixels. So if you enlarge this any integral number of times, it will still have everything exactly in the right shape. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm also fascinated by the Conways automata, but this is way too small and I see no justification for it -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Shows a large scale automaton, no need to have more than 1 px per grid. de Bivort 20:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Even as a gif it is scalable (because each cell is a square anyway). I seem to recall that the growth was asymptotically quadratic and would like to see a refed mention in the caption if that is indeed the case. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's a ref at [[Breeder (cellular automaton)] - I thought that might be too much information for an already crowded caption. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. DurovaCharge! 02:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support de Bivort 20:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. I would like to see it larger. As it is, it is hard to see anything other than a collection of grey blobs moving across a screen. Spinach Dip 21:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Conways game of life breeder animation.gif MER-C 08:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Because of a lack of images depicting the Russian space program in the Aeronautics and aviation section. This image depicts a historic event, the first docking of a Space Shuttle to a space station (Mir), and is a one-of-a-kind because this is the only time that a manned spacecraft was undocked from a space station while a Space Shuttle was still docked to the same space station. (The current mission rules of the International Space Station make this type of image impossible to obtain)
- Articles this image appears in
- International Space Station, Space Shuttle Atlantis, Spacecraft, Mir, Russian Federal Space Agency, STS-71, Shuttle-Mir Program, Space rendezvous, List of spacecraft and crews that visited Mir, and numerous others through Template:Shuttle-Mir
- Creator
- Anatoly Solovyev and Nikolai Budarin/NASA
- Support as nominator ---MBK004 06:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This image is currently on Commons. Since I am rather inpet with images, would someone who deals with images regularly deal with the process of placing {{FPC|Shuttle-Mir}} on the image page? -MBK004 06:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Create the page here and just paste the template. I have done this one --Muhammad(talk) 07:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - It might have EV, and we might need a MIR image, but upon close inspection the quality of this image is awful.
- Support per nom. I particularly like the composition. I disagree with the unsigned comment above-- this is the level of sharpness that you get with space mission images. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Good enough EV, but I don't really think it's FP quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 06:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Nice shot of a collection of dried mushrooms. It would be hard to do the "single fruit and cross section" shot for a dried mushroom, as they are already sliced, but this does well illustrate dried mushrooms, and looks good at high resolution (even if the resolution isn't massive). It's already featured on Commons. Also, while I'm here, I'll just slide in some spam- valued picture candidates could do with more nominations and comments, so feel free to head over there, comment and nominate.
- Articles this image appears in
- Edible mushroom, drying (food)
- Creator
- Aka
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support I don't think all mushrooms would be dried out this way for eating, so EV seems weaker, but acceptable. Quality seems nice. A bit soft in the back but that's par for the course with macro photography. Fletcher (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Well, certainly it's not uncommon to see dried mushrooms in Asian shops. Just because it doesn't apply to all mushrooms is not a real reason to doubt EV. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Do we need a species ID here? I notice that this was from the time COM:FPC wasn't too rigorous on these things. MER-C 06:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Right, I would personally guess they were Boletus edulis, but I'm certainly not an expert. A few people seem to think they are chanterelles on Talk:Cantharellus, but I doubt that myself. I have contacted the author on Commons, and will leave a message at the fungi project. J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm now fairly sure they are Boletus edulis- there aren't many species that would be available commercially, and these are clearly pored (rather than gilled) and in the traditional mushroom shape. That would seem to rule out chanterelles or the button mushroom, which are an unusual shape and gilled respectively. Also, top center would suggest the stipes are thicker at the bottom, which would be consistent with a Boletus species. Briefly looking through the species we have listed on edible mushroom, there doesn't seem to be much else it could be... However, I would reccomend waiting for someone more knowledgable than myself to take a guess. J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also take a look at this. Admittedly, they are fresher, but the shapes are very similar. J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm now fairly sure they are Boletus edulis- there aren't many species that would be available commercially, and these are clearly pored (rather than gilled) and in the traditional mushroom shape. That would seem to rule out chanterelles or the button mushroom, which are an unusual shape and gilled respectively. Also, top center would suggest the stipes are thicker at the bottom, which would be consistent with a Boletus species. Briefly looking through the species we have listed on edible mushroom, there doesn't seem to be much else it could be... However, I would reccomend waiting for someone more knowledgable than myself to take a guess. J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not hugely sharp, low res. Looking at images of some of the possible IDs above I get the impression that the contrast has been turned up too much. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not especially high res for a staged shot. Contrast seems too high. Not very high EV either. Kaldari (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 09:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- possibly the best band photograph I've ever taken, slightly cropped from the original for effect. That kid just so makes that shot.
- Articles this image appears in
- Silverstein (band)
- Creator
- Wehwalt
- Support as nominator --Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not really suitable as a portrait, as you can't even see his face. Great shot, but not a particularly high encyclopedic value. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per J Milburn. Fletcher (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose too busy/distracting, although it does show him on scene; would have prefered a shot of him straight-on, while performing to prevent all of the extra crowd. The men jerking his trousers down aren't exactly appealing either. SpencerT♦C 00:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment my first try at a FP, and I see this is not going to win, but the people "jerking his trousers down" are actually security stopping him from falling into the crowd. I'll try again with another shot.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I should have guessed. In another shot, try to get him performing onstage, without all of the excess people in the photo (other performers in the group would increase enc., though). SpencerT♦C 21:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not a problem. I just felt this one was exceptional because of the kid. They rarely perform outside and when it is inside, the lighting can make it tough to get really good shots. Still, I will look through my band picture archives and see what I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Incidently, it is incredibly hard to get five performers clearly showing their faces. I kinda cheated with the article's lead picture and got them during soundcheck; still it was not quite what I wanted. Will keep trying and bring back one when I have one.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not a problem. I just felt this one was exceptional because of the kid. They rarely perform outside and when it is inside, the lighting can make it tough to get really good shots. Still, I will look through my band picture archives and see what I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I should have guessed. In another shot, try to get him performing onstage, without all of the excess people in the photo (other performers in the group would increase enc., though). SpencerT♦C 21:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Lacking in EV - in particular, you can't see his face. — neuro(talk) 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 06:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality image with good EV. I'm probably going to get some flack for the blown highlights but like most berries a ripe boysenberry is very shiny - matte ones are usually overripe and have begun to decompose.
- Articles this image appears in
- Boysenberry
- Creator
- Fir0002
- Support as nominator --Fir0002 06:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The more or less direct flash in this case looks harsh and unrealistic (compare) Noodle snacks (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your link doesn't seem to work... But here's one to support my own claim: [1]. Flash was pretty much just filling in shadows (it was a bright day - compare with no flash) - and being the MT it was pretty good in terms of off axis flash. --Fir0002 09:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose per NS; one of the petals above the berries also seems blown. I think some shininess of the berries should be acceptable if it can be toned down a little. The flash also seems to have reflected a fair amount of... I don't know, dust or dirt on the berries. Fletcher (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - It's definitely the lighting that I don't like. If it were more like this or this, I would be able to support it. Interestingly, I would be more likely to support your alternate, if the DOF wasn't so shallow. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣TC♣ 00:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 06:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality + high ev
- Articles this image appears in
- Grapefruit
- Creator
- Fir0002
- Support as nominator --Fir0002 07:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
OpposeWeak Support Over exposed again. Stitching line is visible (goes from grey to white on the left 1/3rd of the right grapefruit). Also a long yellow line top right. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)- Fixed --Fir0002 09:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but I think there should be a view of it cut through horizontally, as you would if you were eating it for breakfast.Terri G (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you think there is any advantage to cutting it horizontally (in terms of EV)? --Fir0002 04:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment to edit 1. I agree with Terri G about the cross-section. Also, are those dark marks on the skin of the uncut fruit, or is that debris? Is there any practical way to get a size reference in this image? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty sure they're part of the fruit - I gave it a quick wash before I started. See my response in the mango nom too with regards to perfection vs realism. Nature has blemishes, get used to it! :) With regards to size reference I could do something like this? --Fir0002 04:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe that a scale bar like the one in your spider pic would improve EV-- I'm assuming that for each of your fruit still lifes, your "model" is a typical-sized fruit. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yup all my fruit were hand picked as the best specimen I could find at the green grocer :) (the peaches I actually went out to an orchard to get) --Fir0002 07:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support edit 2. May I suggest scale bars for the other fruit images? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yup all my fruit were hand picked as the best specimen I could find at the green grocer :) (the peaches I actually went out to an orchard to get) --Fir0002 07:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe that a scale bar like the one in your spider pic would improve EV-- I'm assuming that for each of your fruit still lifes, your "model" is a typical-sized fruit. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty sure they're part of the fruit - I gave it a quick wash before I started. See my response in the mango nom too with regards to perfection vs realism. Nature has blemishes, get used to it! :) With regards to size reference I could do something like this? --Fir0002 04:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose agree with cross-section idea. Also can the cross-section be taken without it seeming to deform at the bottom? And agree with size ref idea: you could mistake it for a lemon! Fletcher (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well actually a lemon has a distinct bulge at the base (I think it's a remnant of the flower bud). Refer to this. I can also assure you that the bottom was in no way deformed by the cross section cut - that's just the way grapefruits look like. [2] [3] [4] --Fir0002 04:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think what he's referring to is the marked difference between the cut fruit and the whole one. Perhaps a picture could be made that is a composite of a whole fruit and a cut one, shot from the same angle so that it's recognisably the same fruit, and external and internal features can be matched up more easily? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well that's no problem because as it happens this is a composite of a single fruit - the line NS pointed out earlier was an artefact of joining the two images. --Fir0002 07:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think what he's referring to is the marked difference between the cut fruit and the whole one. Perhaps a picture could be made that is a composite of a whole fruit and a cut one, shot from the same angle so that it's recognisably the same fruit, and external and internal features can be matched up more easily? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well actually a lemon has a distinct bulge at the base (I think it's a remnant of the flower bud). Refer to this. I can also assure you that the bottom was in no way deformed by the cross section cut - that's just the way grapefruits look like. [2] [3] [4] --Fir0002 04:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 06:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support as nominator --Fir0002 07:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 Correct overexposure Noodle snacks (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 Clear pic that illustrates well.Terri G (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 although a size reference would be nice. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support E1. Quality and EV. Fletcher (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Edit1 as above --Muhammad(talk) 05:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Either version. Spinach Dip 21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:White nectarine and cross section02 edit.jpg MER-C 06:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support as nominator --Fir0002 07:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Edit 1 White peaches are generally quite pale and this specimen was no exception - the edit oversaturates things (too red). --Fir0002 06:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 - Fixed over exposure. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support Edit 1 Not sure about the placement of this in the article, seems a bit imposing, but the picture itself is fine.Terri G (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment is it helpful to the article to show a cross section of a peach, and also a cross section of a nectarine? Also what's the advantage in three samples rather than just two? Full peach and cross section would make for a smaller image, addressing Terri's concern about it being "imposing". Fletcher (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think the article needs a picture of both a nectarine and a peach and the cross sections are a good way to have that picture. Also having them as both whites clearly shows that nectarines and peaches are the same fruit (despite what many people think). For me the advantage is aesthetic - but I guess there's also extra EV as you get a better overall impression on the shape of the peach thanks to the two different views. --Fir0002 06:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support edit1.--Avala (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support either - Fir really is the master of this type of image. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:White peach and cross section edit.jpg MER-C 08:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Hyper product shot - a lot of views but I think it balances out well. Very good technicals + good ev
- Articles this image appears in
- Mango
- Creator
- Fir0002
- Support as nominator --Fir0002 07:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Edit Two Red channel is quite blown across most of the fruits, and generally it is over exposed. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Umm yeah there are some areas blown in the reds but the detail is there and the fruit looks very natural (to me anyway) so I don't really see the need to prevent that kind of minor clipping. If there's a consensus that they need to be recovered I can do that - although it'll probably come at the cost of off whites. Personally I don't see it as an issue at all and am quite happy with the lighting (kinda an obvious thing to say given I nominated but anyway!) --Fir0002 09:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- You could muck about with masking to achieve both goals. That is a pain though. I'd rather it a bit below pure white on the background and preserved highlights on the subject. I might try fiddling around with a light box in the near future. The aim would be to get the background significantly brighter than the subject in order to reduce the work in post processing. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm thinking of using more reflective paper in the future - that should "blow out" the background before the subject. But like I said I'm pretty happy with the lighting I'm already getting. --Fir0002 05:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Really shiny reflective paper might give problems with reflections from the item, but semi-gloss stuff might be a good idea. I have heard that black material works better for black backgrounds. I still have some speaker cloth somewhere from my diy audio days and might try that. Next time I am photographing some rocks (still have a big collection to go through), I might try some glass underneath the item (see http://jellybeanracing.com/John/Misc./Canon%2010D/Light%20Box/R8glass_2.jpg for an example with a toy car). You can tell that the author did some cloning on the LHS at the glass edge though. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Toy car looks really good - I'd had that idea at the back of my head for a while too but never got around to trying it out --Fir0002 08:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Inevitably someone would oppose due to distracting reflections though, haha. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Toy car looks really good - I'd had that idea at the back of my head for a while too but never got around to trying it out --Fir0002 08:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Really shiny reflective paper might give problems with reflections from the item, but semi-gloss stuff might be a good idea. I have heard that black material works better for black backgrounds. I still have some speaker cloth somewhere from my diy audio days and might try that. Next time I am photographing some rocks (still have a big collection to go through), I might try some glass underneath the item (see http://jellybeanracing.com/John/Misc./Canon%2010D/Light%20Box/R8glass_2.jpg for an example with a toy car). You can tell that the author did some cloning on the LHS at the glass edge though. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm thinking of using more reflective paper in the future - that should "blow out" the background before the subject. But like I said I'm pretty happy with the lighting I'm already getting. --Fir0002 05:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- You could muck about with masking to achieve both goals. That is a pain though. I'd rather it a bit below pure white on the background and preserved highlights on the subject. I might try fiddling around with a light box in the near future. The aim would be to get the background significantly brighter than the subject in order to reduce the work in post processing. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Umm yeah there are some areas blown in the reds but the detail is there and the fruit looks very natural (to me anyway) so I don't really see the need to prevent that kind of minor clipping. If there's a consensus that they need to be recovered I can do that - although it'll probably come at the cost of off whites. Personally I don't see it as an issue at all and am quite happy with the lighting (kinda an obvious thing to say given I nominated but anyway!) --Fir0002 09:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question-- any particular reason that the leftmost fruit is cut like that? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's a common way of eating the fruit - expanded the caption --Fir0002 04:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Since the article already includes an image of the "hedgehog" cut, it seems redundant here. Also the middle two shots seem somewhat redundant as well. How about an image using just the 2 rightmost shots (similar to your other fruit photos)? Kaldari (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- The existing hedgehog image is far inferior technically - so I'd argue it rather than this shot is redundant. This series packs a huge amount of EV into a single shot rather than spreading it out into several moderately useful shots. The primary reason for the middle shots is to balance out the "internal" shots - makes for a more pleasing composition IMO. But yeah it would be pretty easy to just make the standard two shot product - I was just trying to be a bit more creative with this one. I've posted an edit anyway. --Fir0002 04:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Weak OpposeSupport E2 A normal and bisected version could be more appropriate. Quality seems good though. I'm not sure if the dark spots on the skin are representative of the mango or if a better sample could be found. Fletcher (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)- I think the dark spots are in fact quite common - certainly on all the mangos I've seen. I could clone them out, but I think that would be unnecessarily sacrificing reality for a perceived "perfect mango". --Fir0002 04:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support original--Avala (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Noodle snacks. Contrary to nominator's comment, the clipping is not minor. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- The clipping is minor, we're talking the almost imperceptible difference of 253 vs 255 - check out the edit and you'll be struggling to see much difference. Judging a picture purely by its histogram is quite foolish --Fir0002 05:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Edit 2 I uploaded a mild curves over the top, as it was still looking over exposed and polluting the nomination with a dozen edits is a bit pointless. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry NS but your version looks over done saturation wise. I've overwritten yours with a more restrained darken which is more faithful to the original scene. --Fir0002 09:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't touch the saturation, buy a monitor calibrator :P Noodle snacks (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Levels has the effect of saturating the colours of the image [5]. Funnily enough I have actually had my monitor calibrated recently with a borrowed Spyder 3 and have access to four other monitors to double check on :P --Fir0002 10:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. I have four well calibrated monitors sitting on my desk, and a shitty laptop lcd that shows up shadow noise like nothing else. I have wondered about your calibration though, most of your images seem a bit on the bright side, but I guess its preference. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Levels has the effect of saturating the colours of the image [5]. Funnily enough I have actually had my monitor calibrated recently with a borrowed Spyder 3 and have access to four other monitors to double check on :P --Fir0002 10:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't touch the saturation, buy a monitor calibrator :P Noodle snacks (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry NS but your version looks over done saturation wise. I've overwritten yours with a more restrained darken which is more faithful to the original scene. --Fir0002 09:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Why no pit/stone/seed? I think one of the views should have been a cross section showing the stone. Maedin\talk 18:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Primarily because it's not a free stone fruit - nor is it practical to saw down the middle through the seed (that kind of force is likely to deform the fruit - and beyond the scope of my rather feeble kitchen knife :)). I think there is sufficient value in seeing how thin the skin is and what the inner flesh looks like --Fir0002 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- So in summary, mangoes have no pit. Not sure why you'd go into sawing down through a non-existent seed. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣TC♣ 07:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Primarily because it's not a free stone fruit - nor is it practical to saw down the middle through the seed (that kind of force is likely to deform the fruit - and beyond the scope of my rather feeble kitchen knife :)). I think there is sufficient value in seeing how thin the skin is and what the inner flesh looks like --Fir0002 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Do we know what species this is? SpencerT♦Nominate! 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll try find that out next time I go shopping - it was some kind of small seed variety... --Fir0002 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support edit 2, but I would've prefered to know the species. SpencerT♦Nominate! 21:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- They must be out of season as I couldn't find any. I'll try email Coles and they might reply... --Fir0002 08:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support edit 2, but I would've prefered to know the species. SpencerT♦Nominate! 21:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll try find that out next time I go shopping - it was some kind of small seed variety... --Fir0002 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose For something as common as a mango, I think a natural setting picture would carry greater value. --Muhammad(talk) 07:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be difficult to show a cross section in a natural setting! :P I think there is a place for a shot on the tree in the article, but that's not the sum total of what the mango article needs - there's value in a clean and uncluttered image of the fruit and it's cross section as well IMO --Fir0002 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I understand the value of a cross section, hence my support to the peach image but IMO the mango cross section is not very revealing, not very informative and thus IMO not very valuable. --Muhammad(talk) 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- real nature photographers bring a chainsaw. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Care to explain :P --Muhammad(talk) 11:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well sometimes when photographing there are annoying elements in the scene that ruin the composition. A chainsaw can be used to remove them (in this case, half a mango). Noodle snacks (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I understand the value of a cross section, hence my support to the peach image but IMO the mango cross section is not very revealing, not very informative and thus IMO not very valuable. --Muhammad(talk) 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be difficult to show a cross section in a natural setting! :P I think there is a place for a shot on the tree in the article, but that's not the sum total of what the mango article needs - there's value in a clean and uncluttered image of the fruit and it's cross section as well IMO --Fir0002 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support either edit This is a good series that has been created (with the variety of fruits). I'd almost like to see this as the lead, even though it's a taxbox and there is no article on the fruit itself. In addition, I think a crop including the left two should replace the current image of the hedgehog cut not only because the image is technically better, but the hedgehog in Fir's version is far superior to the other one. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣TC♣ 07:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment OK I've got an ID for the type - it's a Calypso Mango --Fir0002 07:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that's the species, it looks more like the brand name: See this. However, the website does mention that it is of the "Kensington Pride" cultivar (mentioned in List of mango cultivars). SpencerT♦Nominate! 20:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Using that, I discover that is of the Mangifera indica species, based on this and this. SpencerT♦Nominate! 21:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I added the image to those 2 articles, Mangifera indica and List of mango cultivars. SpencerT♦Nominate! 21:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Using that, I discover that is of the Mangifera indica species, based on this and this. SpencerT♦Nominate! 21:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that's the species, it looks more like the brand name: See this. However, the website does mention that it is of the "Kensington Pride" cultivar (mentioned in List of mango cultivars). SpencerT♦Nominate! 20:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Mango and cross section edit.jpg MER-C 03:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- I'm pretty sure it's obvious: A stunning scanning electron micrograph of an interesting representative of a fascinating class of unicellular organism
- Articles this image appears in
- Alga, coccolith, coccolithophore
- Creator
- ja:User:NEON, with colour by User:Richard Bartz
- Support as nominator, strongly prefer original --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment What is the true color? ZooFari 02:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's not really answerable with an 8µm organism. Colours just aren't entirely meaningful at that size. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since it's an alga, green is a good guess - although they really come in all sorts of colors (red, blue, ...) If you have enough of them, their color will show in the medium, or you can spin them down (or separate them out, if you have other things suspended in your medium) in a centrifuge, and look at the color of the pellet. More advanced work would be needed to determine the color of each different component of the cell; such work is not usually undertaken as the coloring, as Shoemaker has hinted, at or below the µm (micrometer) scale is not usually deemed interesting. In the case of coccolithophores, they seem to mostly be green. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's not really answerable with an 8µm organism. Colours just aren't entirely meaningful at that size. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Comment I feel this got a little too dark in the coloring process. Can you ask Richard for the uncolored restored version?. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Couldn't that be adjusted simply by tweaking the levels slightly? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Going back to the original would be less destructive. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Couldn't that be adjusted simply by tweaking the levels slightly? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. DurovaCharge! 02:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with PLW that this is too dark in the coloured version, I would support a non-coloured non-stripey version.Terri G (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC).
- Comment do we have any prior consensus about using false color SEM images? Seems like perhaps the B&W would be more encyclopedic, if not as pretty. Fletcher (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Electron micrographs are never coloured. However textbooks normally use the coloured version, so I dont think it is less encyclopedic. This and this are two examples of falsely coloured FPs, with one being just promoted yesterday. --Muhammad(talk) 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- They're usually preferred, as they make details stand out more. There's issues with things blending together in many B&W electron micrographs. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Electron micrographs are never coloured. However textbooks normally use the coloured version, so I dont think it is less encyclopedic. This and this are two examples of falsely coloured FPs, with one being just promoted yesterday. --Muhammad(talk) 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good EV. I must start saving for the electron microscope ;) --Muhammad(talk) 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose all except a lighter version without artefacts. Black and white would be acceptable. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support any of 'em. — Jake Wartenberg 19:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support prefer B&W -- Colour is good for creating separation between elements, but that's completely unnecessary in this case. —Pengo 00:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support any: All three work for me. Maedin\talk 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Gephyrocapsa oceanica color.jpg MER-C 06:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Lewis Hine was a photographer who worked during the early twentieth century to effect social change by documenting conditions, particularly among factories and child laborers. It's unclear whether this was a really tough baseball team, or a street gang that played some baseball: the long object at left is a firearm, not a bat. Yet each boy's face shows a different personality. An unusually good group portrait.
- Articles this image appears in
- Lewis Hine, Timeline of young people's rights in the United States
- Creator
- Lewis Hine
- Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 00:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Mmm. Maybe they only had one bat. Synergy 02:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Relevance to the second article is tangential, and Lewis Hine is filling up with FPs. This might be a good point to diversify in other directions. Also, the boys with the gun are motion-blurred. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Happy to find that relevant photographers are filling up with featured pictures :) GerardM (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- WP:undue weight: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints." and: "This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Having two photographs at the biography of a famous photographer isn't undue weight. DurovaCharge! 15:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that you're nominating the image for FP. Please correct me if that's wrong. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- However, there's little on children's history - which one could well argue is underrepresented in images. If these weren't nominated on their strength in their other respective articles, then I think you'd be right. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that you're nominating the image for FP. Please correct me if that's wrong. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Having two photographs at the biography of a famous photographer isn't undue weight. DurovaCharge! 15:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- WP:undue weight: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints." and: "This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support I'm on the fence with this one as quality is just so so, and EV not extremely high, but I think the group portrait is a rare find... interesting to see the range of different faces. Fletcher (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Illustrates well a period and social phenomena. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support: I agree with Mostlyharmless. Although I'd like to see this used in more articles, I don't think it should miss out on FP. Maedin\talk 19:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sure of the EV on this one. From what I've read, it doesn't seem like this is particularly representative of Hine's work. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Baseball_glass_workers2.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- This image illustrates and memorialises the most important industry in the small Wiltshire town of Calne, i.e. bacon production; I think it is well-composed and lit, and has good colour-balance; in particular, the highlight on the tiling behind the mother pig emphasises the sculpture to good effect. I'm not a professional photographer, probably not even a good one, but I like to think this is amongst my best work. Taken with Canon Sureshot Zoom XL.
- Articles this image appears in
- Calne
- Creator
- Rodhullandemu
- Support as nominator --Rodhullandemu 00:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Hello, here are some of my "inspections" (analysis):
- Improper lighting The lighting isn't equal, which makes the reflections behind the pig bothersome. The pig is also too dark to distinguish the details of it. The corners are dark as well, which contributes to improper lighting.
- Tilted Somehow the image appears to be tilted to the left. It annoys me seeing it like that. The tiles to the right-top corner also contributes to this conflict.
- Composition not good The posture and composition isn't good either. There is more left than there is right. Perhaps the photographer could have moved along to the right a bit more to center the subject. It could have been better if the photographer took the picture at a higher altitude to prevent unwanted bothersome background (extra tiles, wall, etc.)
This has good value and recommend nominating at Valued Picture if consensus is to not promote. ZooFari 02:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks; I'm not up with the grammar of photography, and the lighting is what was there at the time, but "Valued Picture"? I've never seen an analogue of a WP:GA for images. --Rodhullandemu 02:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Valued Pictures is a project similar to Featured pics, but focuses more on value for its articles than quality. You can nominate here. Note: The image must be in an article for atleast 1 month.
- Oppose I'm unconvinced of its encyclopedic value. It shows a sculpture, not the town; the sculpture could be representative of any bacon-loving town. Fletcher (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not loving; producing. How many bacon-loving-towns are there? My count is 12,417. Bacon--producing; much fewer. --Rodhullandemu 00:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is the religious symbol of Ayyavazhi, a South Indian Dharmic belief system. This Image, I feel, the best, and of highest-resolution among all the similar Ayyavazhi symbol images uploaded here in Wikimedia. It was also used in a large number of articles and forming the conceptual centre of many Ayyavazhi articles; It looks good too. So i feel better to nominate it to FPC.
- Articles this image appears in
- Ayyavazhi series. (In Infobox)
- Creator
- Vaikunda Raja
- Support as nominator --Vaikunda Raja (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - as noted at the Graphic Lab entry, this really should be an SVG. Maybe with the greater exposure it gets here there'll be someone able to fix the problem that GL have come up against, namely that the central rose is made of 8571 separate paths that need to be combined/merged and smoothed before it will render properly upon export. Any takers? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lovely, and very encyclopedic. DurovaCharge! 18:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Wouldn't this work well as an SVG? Also, would it be possible to show an image of this symbol in use to help provide context? Are there large paintings of this in places of worship? Is it worn in jewellery? J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand "to show an image of this symbol in use to help provide context?" Can you please reword the contents?. And there are paintings of this in worship centers; and was also worn in jewellary. And for the SVG issue, I tried but failed.- Vaikunda Raja (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Part of the problem, I believe, is vectorizing it, the actual making of the file. However, with so many paths, rendering also becomes an issue. Can we use gradients and such to come up with something simpler?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- What I was meaning was that I don't know what context the symbol would be used in- I was trying to understand the significance by seeing a picture of it in use. For instance, if File:Christian cross.svg was the candidate, you could show me File:Normandy cemetery.jpg to provide some context. J Milburn (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Yes, I understand; Following are some images which could be examples as you told
- Sorry, I don't understand "to show an image of this symbol in use to help provide context?" Can you please reword the contents?. And there are paintings of this in worship centers; and was also worn in jewellary. And for the SVG issue, I tried but failed.- Vaikunda Raja (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- On building structures
- At Nizhal Thangal of Attoor, File:Thiru Nizhal Thangal of Attoor.jpg
- At Nizhal Thangal of Nelli-ninra Vilai, File:Nelli Nintra Vilai Thangal.png
- At Swamithope Pathi, religious head quarters, (flagmast) File:Flag mast of Swamithoppe.jpg
- On wall painting from worship centers
- Painting from a road-side wall at a worship center near Kanyakumari, File:Madhavapuram Ayyavazhi lotus.JPG
- Painting from a Nizhal Thangal (worship center) at Nagercoil, File:Ayyavazhi lotus painting1.JPG
- Painting from the same Nizhal Thangal File:Ayyavazhi lotus 3.JPG
- Another painting from the same Nizhal Thangal File:Ayyavazhi Lotus Namam Painting 2.JPG
- Light illumination of the symbol from a Nizhal Thangal near Thiruvattar, File:Ayyavazhi Light lotus.JPG
- From Akilathirattu (Holy book) Cover
- The Image from the cover of a DDP version of Akilam; File:DPV Ayyavazhi lotus.JPG (In the same image, notice the building (Detchanathu Dwaraka Pathi - an important worship center) below the main lotus - the symbol is sculptured over the top of the structure.
- Support — Jake Wartenberg 00:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose IMO does not meet criterion 3 --Muhammad(talk) 04:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - IMO religious symbols, like national flags or polytical party emblems, should not be featured. There is too much involved beyond the picture itself. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, original is best I disagree with Alvesgaspar, though I can understand his views. However, this design is quite complex, and thus I think it no less featureable than any other highly significant piece of religious art. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question- is the circle with the many points part of the emblem? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, The emblem includes only the Lotus and the Namam(White flame shape). - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Then for the sake of encyclopedic value, why should it be part of the nominated image? Spikebrennan (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, But I feel, it depends upon how much priority we give for the image 'as a emblem' in relation to 'as a religious art'. The more we consider it a emblem the more the designs in the background be omitted. Myself like to prefer it a religious art rather than something like a logo, though it is the 'symbol of Ayyavazhi'. And on using it as a symbol (not logo) where ever multi-color prints and paintings are made people use to draw something like light rays etc in the background around the image(lotus and Namam).
- Then for the sake of encyclopedic value, why should it be part of the nominated image? Spikebrennan (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, The emblem includes only the Lotus and the Namam(White flame shape). - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- And if needed we shall remove the long green line which distracts the attention when it is viewed as a 'logo'. I like to know the views of other users too - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me that this image is currently used in Wikipedia as an emblem, not as religious art-- for me, the distinction is that this image was created _for Wikipedia_. In contrast, the architectural motifs that are shown in the images that you cite above can also be seen as religious art (the architectural motifs weren't created for wikipedia). In my view, since the image is to be used as an emblem (representing Ayyavazhi) rather than as a photograph or reproduction of a specific, tangible work of religious art, the encyclopedic value would be highest if the image were limited to the features that are commonly recognized as part of the religious symbol-- see image to right: . Spikebrennan (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Firstly, this should be svg. Secondly, while I appreciate the idea of art vs. emblem, I think the green spikes go too far. (The black and white goes to far the other way.) Cutting it off in a clean circle would draw focus to the important parts of the image, especially because they will be larger in thumbnail.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is this Image [Alt 2] Ok? The distractions were removed and the resolution too was increased. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Alt2I would prefer SVG, but the new image is very large nonetheless.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is this Image [Alt 2] Ok? The distractions were removed and the resolution too was increased. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment on the alternates please. MER-C 06:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Alt2. This satsifies my concerns. The so-called "Alt-1" was posted by me to illustrate a point and is not intended as a nomination. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Alt2 Vaikunda Raja (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC) (I support this too; But am not sure whether I shall vote here or not as I also supported the previous version as a nominator.)
- Suport Beautiful work The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Sophus Bie (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Thamarai-Namam2.png This does not constitute an endorsement of the Ayyavazhi religion. MER-C 10:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Shows a complete and very detailed view of the Brighton Pier along the coast on a clear sunny day.
- Articles this image appears in
- Brighton and Brighton Pier
- Creator
- User:Diliff
- Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wladyslaw (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. DurovaCharge! 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good quality as usual and qood EV --Muhammad(talk) 03:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Impressive. I find it very hard to take stitched panoramas of the ocean without getting artefacts. Also, lol at the poms sitting on a pile of pebbles and thinking they're at the beach...Stevage 04:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I lol too. Brighton is actually a pretty cool little city, but an inviting sandy beach, it is not. I've been to Brighton numerous times and I could count the number of people in the water on a single hand. ;-) And yeah I occasionally have problems with artifacts from the stitching of the waves, too. Sometimes I can fix it with a bit of creative cloning along the seam lines, but sometimes the stitching is just too poor. I do try to take the photos as close (chronologically) together as possible to minimise movement between frames. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. With this one I was lucky and didn't need to fix any artifacts at all. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support GerardM (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support A great addition to the project. Living near Sandbanks in Dorset, I too wonder why anyone would want to go to Brighton beach... Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support A great photograph, the quality is near perfect.-- RandorXeus. Remember to Be Bold! 17:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - For all the reasons given above. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Kanonkas : Talk 17:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Aesthetic, nice comp, superb detail. Do you know what the yellow thing is coming out of the dome on the far right? Fletcher (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. What else to say - good work. --jjron (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Brighton Pier, England - Feb 2009.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16♣TC♣ 07:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- A serious plan for an aviary which, upon further research, absolutely demanded a new article about the man who proposed it. Possible April Fool's Day material here: Jean Desbouvrie received international attention for his efforts to train swallows when he persuaded the French government to study them as an alternative to war pigeons. The experiments didn't go very far. He also received press coverage for one other reason: the Paris Academy of Medicine published a report on a preventive cure he claimed to have found for hangovers, which he had tested on himself.
- Articles this image appears in
- Jean Desbouvrie, Aviary#History
- Creator
- F. Meriy
- Support as conominator --DurovaCharge! 00:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support as conominator — Coren (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support GerardM (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support An odd choice for a nom, but interesting. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good quality. SpencerT♦Nominate! 22:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Suppport - Peripitus (Talk) 02:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Military aviary2.jpg MER-C 08:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Heh. God, I haven't used this source of images in ages, but remembered them when dealing with the call for opera-related images. While not, perhaps, what you're used to me doing nowadays, it's impossible for me to get these originals to a scanner (they are not mine) but I can get quite good photocopies, so this is the only way forwards.
By the way, if you're wondering why I'm so active all of a sudden? It seems that when I'm really ill, image restoration is therapeutic. Oh, well, convenient for Wikipedia.
- Articles this image appears in
- Maritana, William Vincent Wallace
- Creator
- Unknown Engraver.
- Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good, high EV. Xclamation point 02:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I'm just not that thrilled with the craftsmanship of the engraver. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's typical of the period - this was really at the start of the Victorian explosion of popular engraving - this is from what I believe is the first illustrated newspaper, and from only its fourth year - and the quality wasn't yet at the levels they would be at a decade or two later. I think it's still notable for the history: It's the first production of Wallace's best-known opera. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support High quality, good detail. SpencerT♦Nominate! 02:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣TC♣ 16:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support: EV is ok, and like Spencer said, high quality and good detail. Btw, sorry to hear that you are ill, Shoemaker's Holiday. Maedin\talk 17:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, though I'm getting better rapidly =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Maritana - Nov 22 1845 Illustrated London News.png MER-C 08:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- It is a high resolution panoramic image of virtually the entire span of the half mile long bridge and the night time lighting provides an aesthetic view (it tends to be quite hazy during the day due to the significant industry in the area) in which the bridge is able to stand out.
- Articles this image appears in
- Queen Elizabeth II Bridge and Dartford
- Creator
- User:Diliff
- Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It doesn't add anything particular to the article beyond aesthetics. Considering the nominator removed this image from the bridge article, the replacement night shot shows comparatively little, I think that article is now in a poorer state in terms of using images to convey educational value to the reader. If the idea of this shot is to convey span, this image that the panorama has replaced did a passable job in my opinion without needlessly taking up the entire width of the article. I think the width also induces an uneccessary break of flow in the dartford article, and is of questionable value there, considering the view of the bridge from that far away is not synonymous with Dartford at all. This is Wikipedia not Commons, where featured images are intended to significantly inform the reader about the subject, which this just doesn't. Having said that, it is a visually nice image. MickMacNee (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're a bit confused. I never removed this image, and it is still in the article now. I removed this image, which is a poorer quality view from practically exactly the same angle as the panorama and therefore a bit redundant in the article. And I completely disagree that it doesn't add anything particular to the article. None of the other images show the entire length of the bridge from Kent to Essex. If that doesn't make it a useful image, I don't know what does. And I also disagree that the view from Greenhithe makes it unsuitable for existing in the Dartford article, as the bridge itself is in Dartford on the southern side, and is therefore relevant to Dartford and nothing says the bridge has to be taken from Dartford. The image that I replaced in the Dartford article was also taken from Greenhithe (a different location) anyway. The only point that I can appreciate the merits of is one of aesthetics in the article, although I personally disagree that it significantly breaks the flow of the article. I think quality encyclopaedic panoramas add visual flair to an article, but I know that a number of others disagree and I am obviously biased towards them, so it isn't a black & white issue really. But please reconsider its validity on the basis of adding to the article, as I think a full view of the bridge is about as encyclopaedic as you can expect of a bridge photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Support MickMacNee's arguments are a little unusual here. "Cut-off" compositions are usually not given favourable reviews. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- To be fair, whenever a new image is added to an article, it tends to polarise the article regulars who either love it or hate its presence, and tend to navigate their way to the nomination as a result. :-) It seems that his interest in this nomination stems from his involvement in the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge and Dartford articles, rather than FPC, and his review doesn't necessarily correspond to our usual criteria and expectations... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Guilty, never been in a Wikipedia FPC before, but as I read the rules, this is not merely the same as a Commons one, featured images need to dovetail with and complement article content, and not merely be a nice picture. In my initial oppose I had made a mistake misreading what images had been added/removed, and if it had been the case that the image showing for example the concrete supports had been removed in favour of this panorama, that imo would have been a net negative to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes you're right, English Wiki FPC is different to the Commons one in that encyclopadic value is a significant portion of the criteria. You seem fairly rational so I don't doubt that you are able to make an objective decision on the nomination, and indeed the criteria is written to allow the uninitiated to get involved without too many teething problems, but it is still inevitable that without the participation, you won't have a full grasp of where the bar is set and what sort of images we're trying to feature. No problem though, you're still entitled to your opinion and no disrespect intended. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- A blank user page always has its downsides. MickMacNee (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- To be fair, whenever a new image is added to an article, it tends to polarise the article regulars who either love it or hate its presence, and tend to navigate their way to the nomination as a result. :-) It seems that his interest in this nomination stems from his involvement in the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge and Dartford articles, rather than FPC, and his review doesn't necessarily correspond to our usual criteria and expectations... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Excellent twilight panorama. DurovaCharge! 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice image, good enc., high quality. SpencerT♦C 20:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment On the monitor I'm using (not necessarily good) I find it very dark in the "thumbnail" version, which obscures the detail. Perhaps a little earlier in the day would have been better. I'll try to take a look on another monitor so I can vote one way or the other, but at the moment I agree with MickMacNee. Terri G (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- MickMacNee didn't mention that it was very dark... What part of Mick's argument do you agree with specifically? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support tending to 'Weak'. I've said before that while these twilight/night-time shots look nice, I think they compromise EV (I realise you justify the choice of time above for this one). Concerns from 'article regulars' always worry me a bit as well (which is why I'm not usually a fan of fast-tracking noms) and EV for Dartford does seem limited. Still it does seem to have value showing the whole bridge in good detail and has a certain 'wow'. --jjron (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom and convincing reasons above. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣kiss mei'm Irish♣ 19:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, Dartford, England - Feb 2009.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16♣kiss mei'm Irish♣ 19:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- A very high res, detailed view of Port Vell from a good vantage point overlooking the harbour on a clear sunny day. Good enc value.
- Articles this image appears in
- Barcelona and Port Vell
- Creator
- User:Diliff
- Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose The port building at the bottom - I am weak opposing for composition with it being cut off as it is quite distracting and given what it is is pretty relevant to the port itself and thus the EV in Port Vell - I would guess it is just not possible to include it all from that vantage point without too much distortion? Mfield (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- To be entirely honest, I cannot say for certain why I was not able to include the entire building at the bottom, as it was taken about 2 years ago! You could well be right that it would not be possible to include it for reasons of distortion, but it could also have been for compositional reasons (I know it isn't ideal to have cut the building off in this way) as there may have been distracting elements that including the entire building introduced. If I had to guess, I would say that it was because I was shooting this through the very cramped and restrictive lookout of the Monument a Colom, and if I remember correctly, it didn't allow much vertical panning. I had a quick google search and did find one photo that managed to squeeze a bit more of the building into the frame (not all of it) but had a bit of the monument in the frame, so I'm not sure if it is possible - didn't find any other images that were able to capture the full building. I usually have a pretty good eye for composition so I'm sure I had a good reason at the time, anyway. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Port or not, this is still a stunning panorama. It could be better, but if you were to try to crop the bottom portion out you would lose the whole dock. Teque5 (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support IMO, EV is good in the articles it appears in. Quality is good and I could not see any stitching errors. --Muhammad(talk) 10:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose for composition. The subject of the panorama is the harbor, which feels off-center. The port building, being an interesting feature in the foreground, is frustratingly cut off. Both are problems you would not see in a professional encyclopedia, except in historic photographs. Wronkiew (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)After further reflection, I think I'm out of my league on this one. Wronkiew (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)- Sometimes the subject has to be off-centre in order to show it relative to its environment (Barcelona city, on the left). Also, the key word here is 'professional'. If I were paid lots of money for this shot, I'd probably hire a helicopter and get a professional quality image from the air, letting me choose my composition precisely. But I'm not and I was forced to get the best possible view from the vantage points available to the public. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt professional encyclopedias are hiring helicopters to get photographs for their articles, but I see your point. I still think the composition leaves something to be desired. The panorama should extend more to the right and to the bottom for balance and to capture the building in the foreground without cutting it off. I am open to changing my opinion if my assessment of the composition is incorrect or if this is a minor issue that should not disqualify the photo. Wronkiew (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, composition is inherently subjective, so I cannot tell you that you are absolutely wrong. Obviously the composition isn't perfect, and compromises are necessary to avoid certain elements, include certain elements, etc. I personally think this is pretty close to the best view available of the port though, and I challenge you to find a better one anywhere on the internet, if you're think a professional encyclopaedia could do a better job (Here is a starting point: iStockPhoto, Getty Images, Flickr, Pbase, Google Image Search). I had a look when responding to Mfield and all were inferior in some way (IMO) so honestly, I feel this could literally be the best image available on the internet, whether free or for sale. But as I've stated before, not all subjects have images that are capable of meeting the criteria necessary, so if you still feel it isn't up to scratch, I won't argue any further. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes the subject has to be off-centre in order to show it relative to its environment (Barcelona city, on the left). Also, the key word here is 'professional'. If I were paid lots of money for this shot, I'd probably hire a helicopter and get a professional quality image from the air, letting me choose my composition precisely. But I'm not and I was forced to get the best possible view from the vantage points available to the public. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom and discussion above. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣kiss mei'm Irish♣ 20:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose per Mfield. It's a valuable image, and does a great job of illustrating its subject in context, but that cut off building just pokes me in the eye.--ragesoss (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Port Vell, Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- An amusing, cartoonish poster from its original run, which gives a good flavour of what the production would have been like. Eye-catching and interesting. The original image, pre-restoration, can be seen at File:John_Phillip_Sousa_-_De_Wolf_Hopper_-_El_Capitan_unrestored.png - given the aspect ratios, I think that I'd best just link.
- Articles this image appears in
- El Capitan (operetta), DeWolf Hopper. (John Phillip Sousa used a different image already, and I decided to leave it to the editors there what to do)
- Creator
- Metropolitan Job Print, 222 West 26th St., New York, NY.
- Support either as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Submitted an alternate version. Recusing from reviewing. DurovaCharge! 23:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I much prefer the colour balance of the alternative, but I noticed that the lettering (particularly on the top right corner but also patches elsewhere) seems a bit faded in parts and that doesn't seem to be the case on the original. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Luckily, that's very easy to fix. I've gone ahead and done it, and just uploaded over Durova's, as it's a minor and very localised change. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I much prefer the colour balance of the alternative, but I noticed that the lettering (particularly on the top right corner but also patches elsewhere) seems a bit faded in parts and that doesn't seem to be the case on the original. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support original - Both are FP quality, but there's something (I don't know) about the first one that's more appealing. Xclamation point 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Alternate 1, Oppose original. It looks much better with the colors corrected. Kaldari (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Technically it's pretty good (perhaps a little lower res than other's you've submitted but not materially so) but I just don't see much EV in a poster for an opera. If this was illustrating some aspect of Poster I'd support. I'd like to have seen a shot of the actual production in full swing - perhaps something from the upcoming 2009 production --Fir0002 10:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support alt1. Good quality, I like the second one better. SpencerT♦Nominate! 02:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support either: great quality and I think it has good ev. That guy looks scary! Maedin\talk 19:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose per Fir. I just don't think the EV is high enough. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- ...But it's from the original production? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah I know but still... a poster is just a piece of advertisment and does not, IMO, illustrate the subject at all. As mentioned above I would much prefer to see a photo of the 2009 production in action --Fir0002 23:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah I know but still... a poster is just a piece of advertisment and does not, IMO, illustrate the subject at all. As mentioned above I would much prefer to see a photo of the 2009 production in action --Fir0002 23:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- ...But it's from the original production? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Alternate 1. Per nom. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:John Phillip Sousa - De Wolf Hopper - El Capitan1.png MER-C 08:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is a bit of a risky nomination for me as the wow-factor is admittedly low and it isn't an oversized panorama ;-). It isn't a large scale, visually-impressive memorial like the Tribute in Light but IMO it documents a wide variety of individuals' and communities' emotional responses to the attacks well and I think it is a photo that does it in a more personal and intimate way. While the individual tiles are undeniably non-NPOV, I don't think this is an issue as the image itself simply documents these views and doesn't attempt to push them on the viewer. I know it looks fairly soft in the thumbnail, but the detail is there at 100%. Also, FYI, this image shows the full extent of the memorial (it extends all the way around the fence), and while I think both images complement each other and are linked to each other on the image pages, I feel this nominated image has the better composition and more intimate feel.
- Articles this image appears in
- Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks
- Creator
- User:Diliff
- Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Previous !votes that are no longer valid. Please Re!vote below if you voted before! | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
|
Kept on Commons. Unsuspending so we can appraise this on photographic quality. MER-C 07:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- How should we go about this, then? The majority of the opposition was based on the assumption that it was non-free, but striking them out seems a bit drastic... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Let's see what happens. Relisting should give the opposers an opportunity to update their reviews, but if they don't they won't be considered. MER-C 12:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's not valid to call photographs of other people's artwork completely your own work. I would support deletion of the image, but I do not think it is feature worthy for that reason. Further, I don't consider it particularly striking. J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming the artwork as my own work. I'm only claiming that I took the photo of the collage, which is completely different. It's pretty clear this is a collaboration and not something I created myself. I'd have been more than happy to give credit to the individuals who created the tiles, but there were no credits on the fence. You seem to be taking a moral line of reasoning rather than a legal one when you say you'd support deletion of it (you missed the boat there, anyway). If you were to take a moral standpoint on photographing works of art, then does that mean you'd like to see all our photos of artwork deleted too? I have certainly don't intend to break the law in taking documenting the world around us, but this isn't about crediting me - it's about showcasing important objects/scenes on the encyclopaedia... Deleting the image won't help us out there at all. But okay, if you don't find it striking... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, that was actually a typing error. I meant I wouldn't. Basically, from a legal standpoint, I'm sure we're alright (hence not deleting) but, from a philosophical standpoint, I don't think this is a reflection of our best work in terms of freedom. No offence was meant- it's an excellent documentary photograph, but I don't think it's really FP material. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming the artwork as my own work. I'm only claiming that I took the photo of the collage, which is completely different. It's pretty clear this is a collaboration and not something I created myself. I'd have been more than happy to give credit to the individuals who created the tiles, but there were no credits on the fence. You seem to be taking a moral line of reasoning rather than a legal one when you say you'd support deletion of it (you missed the boat there, anyway). If you were to take a moral standpoint on photographing works of art, then does that mean you'd like to see all our photos of artwork deleted too? I have certainly don't intend to break the law in taking documenting the world around us, but this isn't about crediting me - it's about showcasing important objects/scenes on the encyclopaedia... Deleting the image won't help us out there at all. But okay, if you don't find it striking... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support per my original vote(s) on the matter. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I've informed all previous voters to come back and !vote again. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support per my original vote. It's an attractive and useful image.--ragesoss (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support also per original !vote. Encyclopedic illustration of how people reacted during that time. Fletcher (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose my old rationale still stands, but I don't fully agree with it any more. I'll posit this new one: this is an important image to have on Wikipedia. It holds personal significance to many people. The problem is that it doesn't hold that significance for a lot of people. We could find a photo like this for every disaster occurring in the US. It is a very ordinary photo. PS, why was it re-nominated? thank you to ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» for letting me know i needed to vote again. ~ The Talking Sock talk contribs 13:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- It was renominated because the main reasons for opposition at the time were related to the licensing. This issue was resolved after the nomination had expired, so the nomination was re-started. I don't think it matters that it doesn't represent or hold significance a lot of people. Wikipedia isn't here to please everyone. I mean, do all of our FPs hold significance for most people? Probably not. Not everyone is particularly interested in birds, insects, or architecture for example. That doesn't mean we shouldn't feature pictures of them if they illustrate an article well. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think that theory would limit us only to images of UNESCO World Heritage Sites... ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 14:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - Same as before. Background is distracting, would look better with a shallower DOF, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- More of an issue in the thumbnail than when viewed at 100%, but fair enough. It was taken with the widest aperture available to me (f/4) at the time. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Per my orginal vote. — Jake Wartenberg 15:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, as before. Even if Commons didn't remove it as a copyvio, it still is one. It also retains systemic bias issues. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- It being a copyvio is only your opinion but it seems a pretty poor reason to oppose given it has already been discussed and resolved. The licensing/legal aspect is completely separate to this nomination. If you still have a problem with it, you should re-raise it on Commons. Also, it doesn't have systematic bias issues any more than the majority of our FPs are by virtue of the contributors being from western countries.. This was covered above. It documents an interesting and historic scene. If the scene is biased, so be it. Many scenes are. The solution to systematic bias is to encourage alternative POVs, not to reject the 'mainstream' POV. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support as before. SpencerT♦Nominate! 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support for its EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Sept 11 monument in NYC - August 2004.jpg MER-C 02:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality and EV. Similar colour with that of ground where it is usually found may also illustrate camouflage.
- Articles this image appears in
- Hypolimnas, Hypolimnas misippus
- Creator
- Muhammad
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 14:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. DurovaCharge! 04:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately this leaves me squinting. The wings are soft and the body is dark and doesn't contrast with the background. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's camouflaged, Noodle. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yes, the wings don't stand out too well, but they're supposed to be camouflaged, so I can't complain there. Very nice picture. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- The wings are soft, they stand out very well. It is the body that doesn't, and that is just a function of lighting imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Noodle snacks. It also doesn't illustrate its camouflage particularly well due to the shallow DOF. I'm sure that different lighting or another background would produce a superior image and for easily replicated shots that is enough for me to oppose. --Leivick (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. I think the whole camouflage issue is trivial. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣kiss mei'm Irish♣ 02:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Danaid Eggfly Hypolimnas misippus.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!
Nominations in this category are older than seven days and are soon to be closed. Votes will still be accepted until closing of the nomination. Please close nominations from the bottom up.
- Reason
- High resolution Japanese woodcut about the Russo-Japanese War. Good ev at the article about the war and the artist's biography. Restored version of Image:Forces returning.jpg. Restored by User:Jake Wartenberg and translated by User:Mantokun. Translation available at the image hosting page.
- Articles this image appears in
- Kobayashi Kiyochika, Russo-Japanese War
- Creator
- Kobayashi Kiyochika
- Support as conominator — Jake Wartenberg 21:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support as conominator — Mantokun (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Excellent quality, different, and very funny. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - there seems to be a lot of scratches. Ceranthor 18:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think that what you are seeing is the paper grain, and a property of the original print. Things don't always look great at full resolution, but that is not how they are meant to be viewed. — Jake Wartenberg 19:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. I've never restored prints, honestly, so that comment was more of a question than a concern. Ceranthor 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's perfectly normal for a ukiyo-e. The paper - washi, I believe - has a somewhat fibrous grain. Have a look at any of the reasonably large Japanese FPCs and you'll see similar. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment As Shoemaker affirms, this has paper grain and natural effects of the woodblock printing process. I'll recuse from reviewing because I reviewed and advised on this work before the nomination went up. DurovaCharge! 23:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's perfectly normal for a ukiyo-e. The paper - washi, I believe - has a somewhat fibrous grain. Have a look at any of the reasonably large Japanese FPCs and you'll see similar. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - beautiful example of a humorous Japanese woodcut. The paper grain does not detract, in my view. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I don't speak a word of Japanese, but I am guessing that the translation of the text could use some clean-up (some copy-editing, at a minimum). Spikebrennan (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Excellent quality. Maedin\talk 19:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Forces returning 2.jpg MER-C 06:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- There is a FP on this species, but its beginning to show its age. This one is reasonably high quality and clear.
- Articles this image appears in
- Austrolestes annulosus
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support. Only just sharp/detailed enough, and the obvious flash/overexposure of the branch on the far right isn't ideal, but the dark background does allow it to stand out and the composition is good. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support I would have preferred a more natural background, similar to the current FP one. --Muhammad(talk) 18:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support Agree with Muhammad and Diliff on aesthetics, but let's support for better EV. Fletcher (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Seems a bit rich having two FPs for such a puny stub of an article. Perhaps a "Delist and replace" would have been more in order? --jjron (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- A delist is probably getting due for the other one. I really see delist and replace nominations as most useful for related images (say a better version of something comes along). Noodle snacks (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- But aren't two images of the same species, from a relatively similar angle, related? Or are you really just suggesting something like a better version of the same image - higher res, improved post-processing, or whatever? --jjron (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- A delist and replace would not allow the pic to be up for POTD, would it? --Muhammad(talk) 14:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think that's up to the POTD man to decide, given he's a human and not a bot ;-). But you're probably right, given it doesn't go through the same FP promotion process, it may well be overlooked. Is that a reason not to do it though? --jjron (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I mean a better version of the same image (eg higher res). Lots of species have multiple FPs and they don't go through a delist and replace with every nomination. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, they do, and no, they don't. But I wonder every time about whether the second image is necessary, and often oppose based on that (at least I used to) or comment on the delist and replace. To an extent though it comes down to the pictures - do they show something different? Are they illustrating different articles, or at least different parts of the same substantial article? Are they providing different information on the species? I would be concerned that the answer to all these is "no" in this case, in which case I'd suggest it's a likely candidate for 'delist and replace'. Just my spin on it... --jjron (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree to an extent too. A new FP should give something new that the existing one does not, but usually this is the case by nature. In fact, there are two FPs of Tower Bridge in London, and they are almost identical although the view is from the opposite side of the river. I was happy to have the new one replace the old one but others suggested that they could both be FPs. One had superior lighting (IMO) while the other had superior detail, so I suppose that is an example of showing something different, albeit not a particularly good one. Still, I don't see the real harm in having more than one FP if they are both worthy. I'm not sure that Fir0002's original image is by current standards though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would support a delist and replace. I feel this image is of higher quality than the previous. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣kiss mei'm Irish♣ 05:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree to an extent too. A new FP should give something new that the existing one does not, but usually this is the case by nature. In fact, there are two FPs of Tower Bridge in London, and they are almost identical although the view is from the opposite side of the river. I was happy to have the new one replace the old one but others suggested that they could both be FPs. One had superior lighting (IMO) while the other had superior detail, so I suppose that is an example of showing something different, albeit not a particularly good one. Still, I don't see the real harm in having more than one FP if they are both worthy. I'm not sure that Fir0002's original image is by current standards though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, they do, and no, they don't. But I wonder every time about whether the second image is necessary, and often oppose based on that (at least I used to) or comment on the delist and replace. To an extent though it comes down to the pictures - do they show something different? Are they illustrating different articles, or at least different parts of the same substantial article? Are they providing different information on the species? I would be concerned that the answer to all these is "no" in this case, in which case I'd suggest it's a likely candidate for 'delist and replace'. Just my spin on it... --jjron (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- A delist and replace would not allow the pic to be up for POTD, would it? --Muhammad(talk) 14:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- But aren't two images of the same species, from a relatively similar angle, related? Or are you really just suggesting something like a better version of the same image - higher res, improved post-processing, or whatever? --jjron (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- A delist is probably getting due for the other one. I really see delist and replace nominations as most useful for related images (say a better version of something comes along). Noodle snacks (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Existing FP shows wing pattern much more clearly. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support. The other FP has its virtues, but this one is complementary and very nice (and a whole lot better in thumbnail).--ragesoss (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support — Jake Wartenberg 01:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Austrolestes annulosus.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Older nominations requiring additional input from users
These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.
Suspended nominations
This section is for Featured Picture (delisting) candidacies whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.
Japanese river boat, 19th century (second nomination)
- Reason
- Old, original, being an example of a Japanese sampan-type boat as well as being a presumed photograph taken by Adolfo Farsari. It was previously declined (see Featured picture candidates/Japanese river boat) because of licensing issues, which have now been settled.
- Articles this image appears in
- Sampan and the gallery of Adolfo Farsari
- Creator
- Presumably Adolfo Farsari
- Support as nominator. Unique and beautiful. What was thought to be a scribbled "A" at bottom is actually a stick sticking out of the water. Color constitution may not be perfect, but regarding being 125 years old, it's surprisingly good quality. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support GerardM (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Question Why use a historic photograph to illustrate the article? Are such boats no longer used? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on this subject, but I think this kind of floating-house kind of river boat is rare, at least in Japan. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Can we suspend this? The image badly needs some cleaning, and I'm willing to try, though it may take a bit, as I'm kind of busy this week. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's ok for me to suspend it for a while. Or we make a new nomination once we have the cleaned version.Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just an update: I may be a little bit longer getting to this. Lot of things going on, and the things I normally work with use slightly different skillsets to photos, so it's going to be a little slow once I do start. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think this has had a fair bit of time...would you prefer the nomination to be closed and then renominate again? --SpencerT♦Nominate! 21:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- For my part, I think it can just as well be placed in "nominations older than 7 days", since there is (yet) no change in the picture since the beginning of this nomination. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Going once... MER-C 12:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Fug. Just close it or unsuspend it. It's in my to do list, and will get done when it gets done. I hate working with photos, so it's very for me to procrastinate on them. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Suspended for another user to restore the image. Has yet to be done after good length of time. Now requests closure until said work can be completed, at which point a new nomination will take place ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 15:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- The most successful US Navy captain of the American Revolution, and the only one daring enough to raid British home waters. From a high resolution etching made during Jones's lifetime after his victory at the Battle of Flamborough Head. Restored version of File:John Paul Jones.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Battle of Flamborough Head, John Paul Jones
- Creator
- Carl Guttenberg engraver. From a drawing by C. J. Notté.
- Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 19:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support this must have been before his glory days as Led Zeppelin's bassist. Sasata (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 06:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Though I'm having some technical issues viewing the original, are the black dots throughout the etching (for example the one when viewed top left, full-res) from the original...and what's your opinion on editing them out? If I'm being confusing I can upload a picture highlighting what I'm seeing. SpencerT♦C 02:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a crop of a section (upper left) highlighting what I mean. My upload is rather jpeggy, and you may want to compare my upload with the nominated image. SpencerT♦C 02:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Good eye. Could we suspend the nomination for a day or so while I attack that? :) DurovaCharge! 03:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Suspended. SpencerT♦C 00:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- A "day or so" is now over two weeks. Is this ready to get out of suspension yet? --jjron (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Relisting should occur soon. SpencerT♦C 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Another 24hrs is up (8 times over). Durova suggests "If it's not ready by then I'll start from scratch another time". Time to close...? --jjron (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Durova, I'm closing this, but feel free to relist once you're ready. SpencerT♦C 17:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Another 24hrs is up (8 times over). Durova suggests "If it's not ready by then I'll start from scratch another time". Time to close...? --jjron (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Relisting should occur soon. SpencerT♦C 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- A "day or so" is now over two weeks. Is this ready to get out of suspension yet? --jjron (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Suspended. SpencerT♦C 00:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted --SpencerT♦C 17:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Closing procedure
A script is available that automates the majority of these tasks: User:Jujutacular/closeFPC
When NOT promoted, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing
{{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}}
on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.
When promoted, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~
- Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
- Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Add the image to:
- Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
- Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom.
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
- Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.
- The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
- Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
- Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
- If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
- Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
- If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}}
to the top of the section. - Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the September archive. This is done by simply adding the line
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}}
from this page to the bottom of the archive. - If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.
Nominations for delisting
Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture. For delisting, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Use the tool below to nominate for delisting.
|
- Reason
- Nom'ed in 2006. Noted in the nom that it's a very abrupt animation, but I think comparing to today's animations, it just doesn't live up to the quality. This must be smoother to keep FP status.
- Previous nomination/s
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Walschaerts gear
- Nominator
- ωαdεstεr16♣kiss mei'm Irish♣
- Delist — ωαdεstεr16♣kiss mei'm Irish♣ 23:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. For mine it still serves it's purpose. --jjron (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Informed nominator of delist nomination. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣TC♣ 17:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept MER-C 01:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- There were good oppose reasons in the original nom, and I think WRT today's standards, it's too noisy, not sharp enough, and evident of jpeg compression.
- Previous nomination/s
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Joan of Arc statue, Notre Dame
- Nominator
- ωαdεstεr16♣kiss mei'm Irish♣
- Delist — ωαdεstεr16♣kiss mei'm Irish♣ 04:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh heavens yes, delist. As the primary editor of the Joan of Arc article, it's always mystified me how this passed FAC in the first place (must've been a miracle). DurovaCharge! 04:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delist I see little EV in this photo, and the overall lighting is very disappointing. It looks very mediocre to me, and not FP-caliber. -- mcshadypl TC 06:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delist per nom. SpencerT♦C 17:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- delist. — Aitias // discussion 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader and nominator notified of delist nom. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣TC♣ 17:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Delisted MER-C 01:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Delist closing procedure
Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s.
If consensus is to KEEP featured picture status, and the image is used in at least one article, perform the following:
- Check that the image has been in the article for at least one week. Otherwise, suspend the nomination to give it time to stabilize before continuing.
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.
If consensus is to DELIST, or the image is unused (and consensus is not for a replacement that is used), perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Replace the
{{Featured picture}}
tag from the image with{{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}
. - Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
If consensus is to REPLACE (and at least one of the images is used in articles), perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
- Replace the
{{Featured picture}}
tag from the delisted image with{{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}
. - Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
- Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
- Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.
Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}}
to the top of the section. - Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}}
to the bottom of the appropriate section of the archive. - If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.