Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/April-2010

Reason

Okay, this time I'm sure . . . sharp and clear!  :-) Great resolution. (I'm atoning for previous sins, :P)

Articles in which this image appears

Church of Saint Ildefonso

Creator

Joaquim Alves Gaspar

• Support as nominator —Maedin\^talk 13:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice, but why ruin it with the tight bottom crop? --Dschwen 17:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe if Joaquim sees the nomination, he'll have a good explanation for us, :) Maedin\^talk 18:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think this is just awesome even with the way it's cropped. Not the easiest thing to review, but I at least found no stitching problems. Detail was preserved in the shadows - good job. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Outstanding. Durova⁴¹² 20:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this viewer: (flash/no flash) may be useful for review. --Dschwen 21:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful, weak oppose. Very good detail, but regarding the composition I agree with Dschwen, the bottom crop is really painful. The staircase is quite an important element of the building. --Elekhh (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Dschwen... btw where did you find that viewer? that's great... And how do we/I use that for all the pics? Gazhiley (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The viewer is based on IIP. I wrote a little wrapper on the toolserver that takes care of the image fetching and preprocessing. You can enable the ZoomViewer gadget in your commons preferences to have the viewer links appear on every image page on commons. --Dschwen 23:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose per Eleknh. It's visually jarring how it cuts off the gate and stairs. The people ( especially that one bewildered guy) are somewhat distracting, but forgivable if there were no other problems. Per Eleknh's link, the church is more elevated (or the courtyard more sunken) than this crop would lead you to think. Fletcher (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd like Alves to comment on the bottom issue. If this image cannot be for some reason taken with the bottom not cut off, I will go ahead and support it.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhm, look at the picture Elekhh linked to in his comment above. It is basically the same angle with the stairs. --Dschwen 03:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not notice the linked image. Sorry. Then it is of course Oppose--Mbz1 (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the flag(pole)s cut off at the top. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you suggesting a choice has to be made between flag poles and stairs? --Dschwen 12:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm flag-ergasted that a more obvious answer to this question is not stair-ing us in the face... Maybe suggest re-take from 10 paces further back? Gazhiley (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's a stitched image. Simply pointitng the camera down and a few more clicks would have done the trick IMO --Muhammad(talk) 13:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, yes, I completely agree. It was more of a rethorical question ;-). It also is worth pointing out, that the Elekhh image is taken from further back which effectively lowers the fence line in the picture and shows a bit more of the roof. --Dschwen 14:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Info - Yes, I did include the whole stairway but a couple of tourists going up the stairs ruined the bottom row of pictures... Thanks for the nomination Maedin but I wouldn't have done it myself due to the poor framing (not only in the bottom). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that the stairs were such a feature. I apologise if you're disappointed by the nomination. The article was the important thing, though, and the image will be on the main page soon with its DYK hook, :) Maedin\^talk 21:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not disappointed at all! Good to be friend of optimistic people... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A nicely executed graph, with high EV. Well documented, with sources and source code provided.
The individual scatterplots are described and contrasted in our Correlation and dependence article.

Articles in which this image appears

Correlation and dependence, Anscombe's quartet

Creator

R Development Core Team, Schutz (original version), Avenue (alts 1-3), Papa Lima Whiskey (alt 4)

• Support as nominator --Avenue (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've struck my support here to indicate my preference below. -- Avenue (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sorry, but it just doesn't seem good enough. For the criteria, click here. The Utahraptor (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about what you dislike about it, please? --Avenue (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's resolution isn't the best. The Utahraptor (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an SVG. Resolution is not that great a deal since it can be scaled to any size. --Muhammad(talk) 01:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The Utahraptor (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand on Muhammad's point, you can easily view it in higher resolution by clicking on the "2000px" link under the image shown on the file description page (or just click here). -- Avenue (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still opposing, Utahraptor, could you please say why? I think we have addressed the only concern you've raised. -- Avenue (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This image is a classic in illustrating statistics, and rightly so. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seen it before. Its something that really needs an image. The point is that you should plot data and look at it before performing regression blindly. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I didn't know that you could make R plots look pretty, or output SVG for that matter. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've expanded a bit on my nomination reason above. -- Avenue (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This can be labelled much better, currently no chance of standing on its own merit - only information about what is being displayed is "x1", "x2", "y1" etc., i.e. no information at all beyond what is extremely trivial. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Given that these are not real measurements, but consist entirely of made up numbers, they have no meaning besides their appearance in this quartet. You could label them "First independent variable in Anscombe's quartet", "First dependent variable in Anscombe's quartet", and so forth, but (together with even the briefest caption) that would convey no more information than x1, y1 etc. I would have more sympathy for the argument that the axis labels and numbers are superfluous and should therefore be dropped. I'm happy to provide an alternative version along those lines, if anyone agrees. --Avenue (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe you could start by labelling it "Anscombe's quartet". Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the text "Anscombe's quartet" be added within image itself? Seems a bit pointless. The image has an image description (and filename, although that isn't as useful as it could be) that already provides this information. Labels within the image should really just be used to describe elements of the image, not the image itself IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs should always be labelled. General rule of technical writing. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure if it was a graph of something. Here we are looking at the shape of the graph itself, it isn't real data - you could label them example 1, example 2, etc., but I don't see what that gains you. If anything I'd go the other way as Avenue suggests and take out the axis labels. Kmusser (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we have captions for, IMO. --Avenue (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Time3000 (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Broccoli (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, preference for Alt 3. I'd also oppose adding extra labeling in the graphic itself, right now it is language independent which is a plus, if more explanation is needed then add it to the caption. Kmusser (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just fork it, where's the problem? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've added two alternative versions along the lines suggested. Unfortunately Inkscape has shifted the axis labels a bit in the second one, but I think it illustrates the general idea. I'll fix it up if this gathers much support. -- Avenue (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely the image has to at least contain the values for the axes? Otherwise we're left unsure if it's logarithmic or linear. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or some other scale, I suppose. It is ambiguous, yes, but I think any misinterpretation would almost have to be willful given the context in which it's displayed and the cues of the regression line and evenly spaced tickmarks. Personally I like the minimalist version best, but I think the original is probably better suited to a general audience. I can add another alternative, with values along the axes but no axis labels, if you would like. --Avenue (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Bogus license. Images are not considered derivative works of the software used to produce them, i.e. images are not software. Please see my comments below in the licensing discussion. (The GPL is not an appropriate license for images anyway, as it requires measures unpractical to images in order to meet the conditions of the license.) Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The same could be said for the GFDL, I think, yet we happily use that for images. --Avenue (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all [except Alt 3] due to error: While x1, y1, x2, y2 and so on are frequently seen, this is solely because most graphing programs do not handle subscripts well. The CORRECT way of writing them is x₁, y₁, x₂, y₂ and so on. As it is, if anything, the labels on the first can all too easily be read as (for instance) y² - and y squared would give a VERY different interpretation to the graph. If the original (which is easily the best, as that font can be clearly read in the article, which is not true for any other) can be brought into the proper mathematical convention, I Conditionally support it. Also, I should note that I Strong Oppose Alt 2: While unreadable text at thumbnail size is not normally an issue at FPC, this is an obvious exception: It loses most of its value in the articles if the reader has to click through just to find out which graph is being discussed when. Further, the positioning of the labels is uneven, which is sloppy. y1 is far closer to the graph than x1. I'd go so far as to say y1 is uncomfortably close. We can do better than this. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 14:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I warned above that the labelling in Alt 2 was messy, and offered to fix it if necessary. I only provided it as an example to see if others liked PLW's proposed approach. I've now added a note explaining this to its caption.

I've also added another alternative version, with subscripts. -- Avenue (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose the new version, but notation is not nearly as clear cut as you make it out to be. For example y² doesn't always means y squared. I wouldn't call it an error or wrong as it is. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly common for it to mean anything else, and subscript notation is by far the standard in mathematics, of which statistics is a branch.

I agree that the subscripts are better in the two contexts where it is used here. It might be different if we were using it in a context where the variable names used in the statistical software were relevant, e.g. as an example of R's graphical capabilities. --Avenue (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Licensing issue The image is currently licensed under the GPL, but because the reasoning given is invalid, this license may also not be valid, and in any case, may not be the preferred license for this kind of content. Images created using a software are not derived works of that software. One does not require a Photoshop license to view a photoshopped image. In the same way, the GPL does not infect content created by GPL'ed software. Since the use of the license is claimed to be required by the GPL'ed software used to create the content (which is incorrect) and could be construed to have been applied for this reason only, the licensing terms are of questionable validity. Can someone please go and check what can/needs to be done about this? Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I emailed Schutz about this (since he is not most active on enwiki). Noodle snacks (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree the licensing is a bit unclear. Note that R includes not just the underlying software used to create this graph, but also a copy of the data itself, and this copy was used to create these graphs. Although Schutz executed the graph nicely, and R was very useful, I think the most creative part of producing this graph is Frank Anscombe's creation of the datasets. I'm not clear about exactly when copyright attaches to data, but this case (synthetic data, created primarily for graphical display) seems on stronger ground than many. Should we nominate the graphs for deletion?

We could create similar datasets to get around this issue if necessary, although this would not be entirely trivial. The graph would then lose some historical value, but it would still have good encyclopedic value in our Correlation and dependence article. -- Avenue (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the data presented by Anscombe is only one part of the overall publication, I would argue that use of the data constitutes quotation of an excerpt, which is permitted. Furthermore, providing data for re-analysis is a basic courtesy if not part of professional codes of conduct for pro bono research results. The American Statistical Society, in whose journal the work was published, is, to the best of my knowledge, a public charity; Anscombe was employed by Yale (charity? Harvard is...), and the work supported by public funds via the Office of Naval Research. I think we're on pretty safe ground using the data. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good fair use justification, but featured pictures should be under a free license. -- Avenue (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, without a free license, we can't feature any of these. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Noodle snacks for letting me know about this issue. Here is my take on the licensing questions:

First, the question of the GPL: the image is not licensed under the GPL just because I used R to generate it, the reasoning is more complex: the script used to generate the image actually comes from an example script provided with R and I have only made small modifications to it. The image is thus a derived work of this little piece of R code, which is under the GPL. The description of the image indicates this, although it used to be more clear, but some of the latest modifications removed useful information; I'll correct this ASAP. I would much prefer to licence it under a CC-BY-SA licence, but think the reasoning here is correct.

About a possible copyright on the data: the data is presented in the original paper as a table of 66 meaningless numbers; it seems unlikely to me to qualify as a "work" in itself. Or, in other words, it looks difficult to me to separate the idea (not protected by copyright) behind the dataset from its actual expression (the numbers): as mentioned above, we could easily create a similar dataset with different numbers (so the expression would be different), but the resulting graph would still be the same (no individuality). All in one, I don't see a copyrighted work here.

Cheers, Schutz (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in (and for producing the original graph!) I had been assuming that Anscombe's original paper would have included graphs, so if it didn't, that puts a different complexion on things, and I think using some sort of free license for our graphs is justifiable.

Actually, the paper contains the graphs, sorry if I wasn't clear. But the data itself is just the bunch of numbers in a table. The layout of the R graph is quite different from the one from the paper (as different as can be, given that there is only one basic way to do a scatterplot). Schutz (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made various changes to the code to produce the Alt 3 version; for example, I saw no need for two separate loops. But my code is still a derived work and should be under the GPL too (when I finally get around to uploading it). I've now reviewed the example provided with R (available e.g. here), and I think the R project should be acknowledged as a creator here, so I'm modifying my nomination statement above accordingly (and to reflect the various alt versions). -- Avenue (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple points that need to be clarified:

1. Images are not considered derivative works of the software used to produce them. The copyright in images lies in the expression of the data, not the data itself or the algorithms or programs used to produce an expression of that data. In other words, only people are granted copyrights, not programs. As the producer of the graphs and sole copyright holder of the image, Schutz can choose any license he wishes irrespective of the license of any software used to assist him.
2. In the United States at least, data cannot be copyrighted, only unique expressions of that data.

Kaldari (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think Schutz is not the sole copyright holder of his image, because it is a close derivative of the example produced by the R developers. The dots have been enlarged, an overall title removed, and different tickmarks placed on the x-axes, but the colour scheme and layout are identical. --Avenue (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the (unknown) person who wrote the original script is an author as well. I think this is made clear in the description of the image (and I have improved it even more yesterday); let me know if this is not the case. Schutz (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; sorry if I have implied at all that you claimed more than due credit. The fault in initially not giving the R people credit in this nomination is mine alone. I should have checked how closely your graphic was based on their work at the outset. --Avenue (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, but you're still not getting it right. Programming examples given in teaching materials may be freely used - check the SCO lawsuit, where it was made clear that examples that Kernigan and Ritchie had used in textbooks had thereby essentially entered the public domain, as the purpose of the textbook was teaching, i.e. the intention in publishing the tutorial is to allow others to use it. Hence it is assumed that copyright on the code is relinquished at that point, and the tutee is free to use what he has learnt from the tutorial, without any need for additional variation or obfuscation. I know of no legislation or case law that treats online tutorials differently in this respect, so it should be assumed that the GPL does not piggyback on the teaching materials provided. (However, any part of the tutorial that isn't code may still have copyright attached to it! However, I see no text or illustration that illustrates the logic behind the code, included in the image. The image is just a presentation of Anscombe's data.) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I would prefer it this way, I am not sure about your reasoning (if it is correct, I would love having a page on Commons describing this, with pointers to the relevant references, as a reference: there is plenty of interesting material we could reuse in this way). But I am not in a position to comment on it at the moment; the best I can do is update the description page of the image to confirm that all my modifications are under CC-BY-SA; this way, if anyone thinks this image could be relicensed, there is nothing in the way of doing so. Schutz (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add CC and GFDL licensing for my contributions too. I still think we have a moral obligation to give the R people a share of the credit for the graphic, though. --Avenue (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the CONTU rule, Schutz and only Schutz is the author of the image (by US Copyright law at least): "The question has been raised whether authorship or proprietorship of the program or data base establishes or may establish a claim of authorship of the final work. It appears to the Commission that authorship of the program or of the input data is entirely separate from authorship of the final work..."[1] In addition, section 102b of the US Copyright Act specifies that a work must be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" in order to be copyrighted. Thus a computer program can be copyrighted, but the output of that program is not copyrighted by the author of the program unless they themselves create the output. Of course many legal scholars consider the CONTU rule to be outdated and suggest that in many situations it should be possible for program authors to successfully claim full or joint authorship of a work generated by their programs. No updated rule has been created, however, to adequately deal with this issue. If Schutz or the authors of R lives outside of the United States, the situation is even less clear. Regardless, I personally don't believe that the GPL is an appropriate license for an image, so I'm going to have to oppose for now. I would recommend contacting the authors of R and asking them to explicitly renounce any authorship in the work. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be easier to simply redraw the graphics from scratch without reference to the example code. I may not have time before this closes, though. --Avenue (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for what it's worth, many of the R core team are not based in the US. R was initially developed by two people at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, but has grown a lot since then. --Avenue (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt 1 since the units are arbitrary. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above though, as far as I can see the units are not arbitrary for two reasons: Firstly, it is not self-evident that the scale is linear (only vaguely implied by the even spaced tickmarks and the straight regression line) without values. Secondly, the values are of historical importance. The theory may be equally valid with other equivalent values, but Anscombe specified these values. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support alt 3 then. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt added Alt 4 explains the graphs in Anscombe's own words. I know that it will not be possible to give full consideration to alt 4 before this nomination closes, but I'm adding it just so that whoever has more experience with SVG can fix the remaining problems (apparently caused by Inkscape). Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems a bit messy. Different fonts used, text pushing up against the margins of the graphs and merging with the values, convoluted image description etc. Also, is there a web reference for the text? Nowhere on the image page does it specify that the text is Anscombe's own words. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Dunno why you feel the need to bash the shortcomings when they've already been acknowledged. As for the reference, it's in the article, and you can't get it without a JSTOR subscription. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't 'bashing' the shortcomings, I just listed them so that they could be acknowledged and improved on if possible. I don't think you really did acknowledge the problems I mentioned at all. You mentioned problems but did not specify what they were and I guess I misunderstood as a result of that vagueness. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if you get past the typefaces, it just seems messy. It's hard to read in a thumbnail. I think the point Anscombe is trying to make is plenty clear without making us squint at text that should be in the caption. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 14:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did it occur to you that I'm asking for help? How about chipping in instead of acting high and mighty about being able to see flaws that I already know are there. Some people, really! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for the legibility of text, I refer you to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams and Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 3, well executed and excellent EV. Modest Genius ^talk 15:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 3. Most appropriate of the three IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 3 - Sorts my concerns. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 17:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 1 or Alt 3.--Avenue (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: as the uploader, I won't vote on the image. Just two comments:
  • The actual values on the axes are pretty important, since they show that the data represented on the four plots is on the same scale (e.g. the x values for plots 1-3 are exactly the same); the dataset is important not only because of the pretty graph, but because the averages, standard deviations, etc, across graphs are the same — the values are required to convene part of this information.
  • The use of a subscript for the variable names is definitively the best way to label them; as such, I have modified the image (and cleaned up the description at the same time), so that the original image and alt 3 should be more or less the same.

  Cheers, Schutz (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a strong view on this myself, and will quickly note that Anscombe did not use subscripts. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Anscombe's quartet 3.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

One of the most useful images in Wikipedia. Scalable svg format. Also available in economy sizes. Seen here in its native habitat (except for the image frame).

Articles in which this image appears

Elections, Addition, Talk:Wikipedia biography controversy, Talk:New Jersey Turnpike

Creator

Zscout370

• Oppose as nominator --Spikebrennan (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not really all that useful. Tom™_(2¢) 16:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Used much too rarely, especially on WP:FPC. --Dschwen 16:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dschwen.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Clearly tilted to the left. Ever heard of a tripod?! Jujutacular ^T · C 18:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No one ever uses it. Reach Out to the Truth 20:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think there's potential for the "oppose paradox", in much the same way as we have the liar paradox. If we oppose, we prove how useful it is... J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pragmatic self-refutation". There's a term you don't hear every day. Opposing (with the oppose symbol) becsause it is not used is an example of pragmatic self-refutation. J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per nom. Fletcher (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Muhammad(talk) 00:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good focus on the little one.

Articles in which this image appears

Colobura dirce, Colobura, Nymphalini

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator —Maedin\^talk 20:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice composition, a little soft in places but sharp where it counts. Fletcher (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport per nom. Durova⁴¹² 15:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice DOF, background and pose. I can only ask for a red spot on the butterfly. Anyways, that zebra-patterns is still eye-catching. Abisharan (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks good to me. Kaldari (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dirce Beauty Colobura dirce.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution image (36MP), good lighting, no disturbances in the image, stable in the Alamo article for months now. ZoomViewer (flash/no flash)

Articles in which this image appears

Alamo Mission in San Antonio, Oldest buildings in the United States

Creator

Dschwen

• Support as nominator --Dschwen 23:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely... Even has Sheriff J.W. Pepper in attendance... Gazhiley (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator too. The Utahraptor (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support sharp, good EV, and I like the hidden cowboy too. --Elekhh (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator. Miyagawa (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Alamo pano.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 00:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Original - The Dharmaraya Swamy Temple located in Bangalore is known for being the place where the Bangalore Karaga festival takes place. It is the only festival that is brought about in the temple
• 
  Edit 1 0.34 degree clockwise rotation and curves adjustment

Reason

Good quality, lighting, resolution(>11mp) and EV. We have very few Indian related FPs. Already featured on commons without any opposition. To view using Dschwen's handy ZoomViewer (flash/no flash)

Articles in which this image appears

Dharmaraya Swamy Temple, Bangalore Karaga, Hindu temple, List of Hindu temples in India

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 15:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency :) -Elekhh (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Needs counterclockwise rotation. Durova⁴¹² 05:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the exposure boosted (I didn't check the rotation thing). Noodle snacks (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it requires a clockwise rotation of 0.34 degrees. I have the edit ready awaiting your confirmation. NS, exposure boosting is overexposing some of the parts. --Muhammad(talk) 09:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If by overexposing you mean causing clipping, then use curves rather than levels. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Edit1 Uploaded OK? --Muhammad(talk) 11:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Huh?! The edit is more tilted than the original. I don't see an improvement. Am I missing something? --Dschwen 14:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's a complex one. There seems to be little consistency in the vertical (eg the seam down the middle of the building) and horizontal lines. My guess is that it is the building that isn't quite perfectly straight, but it's hard to know for sure. The horizontal lines seem tilted counter-clockwise in the original and are largely corrected in the edit (barring structural issues), so I'd say it's an improvement. Did you actually measure the tilt or was it just an impression? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I looked at the horizontals right above doorframe level. Taking the vertical at the center as a reference is a bit dangerous, as the building looks recessed backwwards the further up you go. I believe a slight off center position of the photographer would distort that vertical much more than it would distort the horizontal. And well, I checked, because the edit now looks tilted to me :-) --Dschwen 01:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • True, although if the photo was taken from an off-centre position, the vertical lines would remain vertical. It's the horizontal lines that would tilt, an extreme example being this. But as you say, there aren't any reliable vertical lines due to the recession of the building. Yes, the edit looks slightly tilted, but the horizontal lines are straighter. It's good enough for me anyway! Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. Thank you. Durova⁴¹² 19:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. Interesting and underrepresented architectural style, with good detail. Edit 1 improves the tilt and brightness. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation above --Muhammad(talk) 17:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support E1 Wonderful Indian architecture. If there is any tilt it is barely discernible and you may notice (or imagine) it only when comparing it with the original. Fletcher (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Has a nice, National Geographic-like look to it that will give Wikipedia’s Main Page a worldly affect for a day. Greg L (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, prefer edit 1. --Avenue (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dharmaraya_Swamy_Temple_Bangalore edit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Here's one of those images that speaks volume to what war leaves behind, and like the other image I have this one just seems to speak to a gentler side of my soul. This is a big image, and old, but it looks respectable to me at full size and from where I sit could earn a star, so here I am again with my find.

Articles in which this image appears

Korean Army Korean War, Battle of Inchon

Creator

Pfc. Ronald L. Hancock. (US Army)

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 07:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Lately I've been wondering whether this sort of photo is good for an encyclopaedia. It's the sort of photo that elicits emotional responses, but you don't really learn a lot from it. OK, war can have a devastating impact on civilian populations, that's common to almost all wars. But this photo doesn't teach me anything else in particular about the Korean Army or the Battle of Incheon. The child could just as easily be living in poverty than be the victim of war. Feel free to convince me otherwise though. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: it exists in the Korean War article, not Korean Army. I've changed the nomination to reflect that. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean Diliff... I also think that it has nothing in this that specifically dates it to the Korean War other than taking the say so of the photographer... It could easily be a modern picture photographed in a way that makes is look aged and authentic... I'm sure that it is genuine though... But also it just doesn't do enough for me to help paint a picture of he event it is meant to... So with regret I will start the ball rolling with an Oppose Lovely picture just lacking in EV... Gazhiley (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The I respectfully ask that the nom be withdrawn and closed as unsuccessful. No point in running the picture here past this point. Not once in my nearly 6 year history here have I ever had a photo bounce back at a first vote of oppose, so I already no this will fail, and I see no reason to waste everyone else's time when there are other more deserve FPCs that are in need of attention. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a bit hasty - this is just my opinion, and possibly a shared opinion of Diliff - others may disagree... Gazhiley (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see below, it is as I said it would be. There will be no support votes for the picture, so lets just close the nom and be done with it. 75.46.197.55 (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I'm inclined to agree with the above, I'm afriad. However, if this picture was famous in its own right, this would be a different story. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Hmmm... is that kanji? Has it been vandalised? I can't quite tell, but it might add to the EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Diliff. Questionable EV. --Dschwen 16:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Diliff.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —Maedin\^talk 09:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed per WP:SNOW and nominator's wishes. Maedin\^talk 09:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, DOF and very good EV. The genitalia (the plum like red stuff) are quite clear. Image is also well id'd and can be accommodated in species article if and when created Flesh flies are among the most important flies in forensic science due to their reproductive habits on decaying matter, and this is the best mating picture wiki has of them mating. FWIW, in my experience, it is very rare to find them mating.

Articles in which this image appears

Flesh-fly, Sarcophaga

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 13:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova⁴¹² 19:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Would have prefered slightly more space at the top though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what he said! Yeah, ok, I'll get my coat... Gazhiley (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for quality and EV. Fletcher (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. J Milburn (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not surprised it's rare to find them mating.Every time they get it together,some goon with a camera appears and starts snapping away.You'd hide away somewhere too if it happened to you ;) Lemon martini (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sarcophaga ruficornis fleshfly mating.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Topical, illustrates an FA, is of high resolution, historic.

Articles in which this image appears

Daylight saving time, United Cigar Stores

Creator

Commissioned by United Cigar Stores Company, artist unknown; cleaned up by Eubulides

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 13:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good enc. and quality. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 17:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No quorum. Likely worth nominating again at some point. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think that a 16th-century work is interesting in its own right, but this one also illustrates a fascinating bit of mediaeval Christian mythology. It is (arguably - I am NOT a fan of the Yorck Project's rather slapshod work) the only high-quality image in Tiburtine Sibyl, and, as Wikipedia's only work by Antonio da Trento, is our sole image for illustrating discussion of him.

Articles this image appears in

Antonio da Trento, Tiburtine Sibyl, 1508 in art, 1550 in art.

Creator

Antonio da Trento

Note: A version of this, under the same filename, was nominated before, while unopposed, it did not reach quorum. This is, however, a completely rethought restoration. As this is five centuries old, there's some extensive damage, some of it not really practical to repair, but I can improve it significantly.

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 06:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV and resolution. Fletcher (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular ^T · C 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very fine. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and EV. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 22:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Antonio da Trento - The Tiburtine sibyl and the Emperor Augustus.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great EV, captures behavior like spinning, tale splashing, swimming in packs

Articles in which this image appears

Midway Atoll; Spinner dolphin

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great video. Informative, and well-shot. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Our photographs meet if not exceed professional quality standards. The background noise in this video does not meet the same expectations. I don't mean to be harsh, but I would expect the production of some short clips of dolphins to be something close to the quality I'd see on the Discovery Channel. Not saying it needs to be 1000 mb (and I know it can't be) and in HD, just saying that the presentation should be better to be a featured video. upstateNYer 00:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Channel!!!! Please have some pity on me :) I would like to point out that my $700 video camera cannot be even closely compared to $50,000 video cameras Discovery Channel crews are using, not to mention their editing software, not to mention I'm required to use "OGG" format only, which reduces the quality of course. No, my video is not and could not have the quality of the videos taken by Discovery Channel, but my video is good, encyclopedic video and it has a free license! --Mbz1 (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the OGG format that reduces quality, it's the compression and codec used that determines the quality. The OGG format is just a 'container' format for the actual video data. You could have (but I wouldn't recommend it for file size reasons) used a much lower compression and the quality would be better. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I crossed out my statement about OGG format, but not about the quality of Discovery Channel cameras. The thing is I saw and even hod their cameras, when I went cage diving with great white sharks. We had two person crew from Discovery channel. I've never seen such cameras before! They had one that was put into water by a pole. As a matter of fact they filmed me in the cage with sharks using that camera, and copied their video to me. Too bad it was not me, who took it, and I cannot upload it here. Their other cameras were even more complex, and rather big. Once, when of of them was getting out of the cage, one of those video cameras was dropped into ocean by an accident. It did not sink, and they wanted to swim after it, but the dive master did not give his permission because 3 active sharks were around the cages. So the camera got lost. I asked them how much it was. I do not remember the price exactly, but it was very, very expensive. They said that home-owner insurance will probably cover the cost.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but all that aside, your $700 video camera is also over 10 years old judging by the date on the video. You can get a HD video camera these days for not much more than $700 now, and it would almost match broadcast quality cameras used by documentary filmmakers. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sure could, but I do not think I will ever again to go to Midway Atoll to study Spinner dolphins because it is what I was doing there - working as volonteer in the study group. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per UpstateNYer. To qualify: I don't think videos necessarily have to be pro quality: the difficulties introduced by motion and sound and cost of equipment may make it harder for unpaid contributors to produce pro-quality work, relative to still photography. It will be interesting to see if DSLRs with video can change this equation somewhat. But this video seems too close to the home movie end of the spectrum. Fletcher (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Fletcher. Also, there is a rather abrupt series of cuts at 25-26s. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with reasoning above. Video is definitely harder than still photography, but I'd like to see the dolphins without the chatter of tourists in the background. That's what I took from UpstateNYer's comments. It's not necessary to have Discovery Channel's camera equipment (besides which, the BBC does infinitely better nature documentaries!), but rather the attention to detail. More stability in the footage (admittedly difficult shooting from a boat and without a tripod), less non-natural noises in the background, etc. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh-hem, BBC and Discovery work together to create great documentaries! :) We somehow get stuck with terrible narrators, though (Sigourney Weaver on Planet Earth and Oprah on Life). Feel lucky that you have David Attanborough. upstateNYer 03:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem indeed. :-) BBC did do all of the filming, Discovery just helped to pay for it. And as you say, put their own narrator in. As the Planet Earth article states, "Sigourney Weaver was brought in to replace David Attenborough as narrator, as it was thought her familiarity to American audiences would attract more viewers". Enough said. Anyway, I was talking about the Discovery Channel documentaries that they've done themselves. They seem to be sensationalist, appealing more to the short-attention-spanned kids than a mature, intelligent audience. Just an observation. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 06:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment sound is an absolute pain. So too higher standards in that area is likely to result in a situation where featured videos are mostly going to show things that can be portrayed with the sound stripped out entirely.©Geni 15:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It's a little low on the wow, but I think it's a complete, well presented panoramic view of the village of Glenridding, nestled amongst the hills in the Lake District, England. It does a good job of showing the location and geography of the village.

Articles in which this image appears

Glenridding

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EV and also looks nice --Muhammad(talk) 17:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support again a nice pano. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good picture of a village, but needs more rope. Fletcher (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Didn't even need to look at who created this... Great shot, hig in EV for me (tis a picture of the village and shows the village... Ticks my EV box) and another annoying reminder what I'm missing being daan sarf... Gazhiley (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Hooray for more Cumbria FPs! More than enough wow for me; a beautiful picture. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering when you and Gaz would chime in! ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What can I say - I know what I like! And I like what I see... Gazhiley (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, that topic again ;-), but isn't this image somewhat tilted CCW? I know that geographical features are really tough to judge, but in combination with the cloud band on the to left (which I guess is a result of atmospheric stacking, and in that case should be horizontal) it just looks that way. Well, there is probably not much that can be done... --Dschwen 14:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short answer is I don't know. Longer answer is I'm pretty sure it's basically straight. I know from experience that when I'm shooting hand-held, I generally manage to keep the camera pretty flat (good internal spirit level?). Obviously that's not fool proof though. The cloud band on the left may be horizontal, but due to perspective be tilting one way or the other since it's above the horizon. The houses look roughly upright, but it's hard to tell since they're so small. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful, encyclopedic. I studied it a while to see the tilt, but I don't see enough evidence to justify rotating it. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just one little thing mars the picture - that woman in red, lower right. Clone? (Away, not duplicate... ;) -- Lurker 88.194.175.69 (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it really mar the photo? It's so insignificant, and besides, the path up the hill is the start of the walk to Helvellyn as per the article: "The village is popular with tourists of all kinds but especially mountain walkers who can scale England's third highest mountain, Helvellyn". I'm not convinced it's justifiable to clone her out. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that you really need any backup here, but: no, in my opinion it does not "mar" the picture. And I would even go as far as calling the demand for cloning the woman away rather absurd. --Dschwen 22:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—I see what you're saying about the woman bottom-right. But this is slightly improved, compositionally, by the presence of camping tents (blue). The possible relationship between temporary human habitation and a brisk walk in the landscape works for me. Tony (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Beautiful and encyclopedic. - Darwinek (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A very stunning image. Miyagawa (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- nice shot. It does seem like the picture is rotated slight CCW, but I'm really bad at judging this sort of thing, so am happy to support unreservedly. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Glenridding, Cumbria, England - June 2009.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I believe this would be a good FP for the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe on 8 May. I did not take this picture, and I have limited experience with the FP process, so I cannot do much if the picture is found technically wanting. The uploader seems to have put up a single-purpose account, and is not active. I still think the picture meets the criteria though, and it is already featured on Commons, and on both German and Spanish Wikipedia.

Articles in which this image appears

Gunnar Sønsteby

Creator

Arnephoto

• Support as nominator --Lampman (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support, very nice. J Milburn (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - excellent portrait. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a fine portrait. Miyagawa (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- very good EV, excellent technical quality. Initially I had reservations about the composition, but I think the simple and straight-forward composition is actually quite appealing. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Impressive.-Avenue (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - illustrates the subject quite well. Neutrality^talk 04:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent portrait photo Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:GunnarSønsteby.jpg --Lampman (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

I think it is captivating, reflects well upon Wikipedia, and highlights the virtues of an electronic encyclopedia. I believe it meets the eight criteria for a featured picture. The 1000-pixel minimum doesn’t apply to an animation. The native, 400-pixel width used for the animation is one of the standards for Theora animations (there are two of those in the same article this is in) and I used every trick in the book (like 6-bit depth—not eight, 20 fps, and frame optimization) to keep the file size reasonable.

By the way, if you are using Safari (which has a goofy way of handling animated GIFs) and the animation isn’t playing smoothly for you, try pretty much any other browser, such as Firefox.

Articles in which this image appears

NURBS and Cobalt (CAD program)

Creator

Greg L

• Support as nominator --Greg L (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fnagaton 05:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• support extremely well done.©Geni 15:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Such a nice animation would look fantastic as a featured picture. Kudos, Greg L. SteveB67 (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very well done. It isn't immediately obvious what it's showing though, and relies fairly heavily on the articles to explain it. But that's the nature of the subject, and not the fault of the image. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point, Diliff. I didn’t think the caption through. What I originally had was a close approximation of the caption as it appears in the NURBS article. What I should be showing here is the proposed caption for this animation as a Featured Picture on the Main Page, which receives a more general-interest readership. I’ve accordingly added a revised caption. Greg L (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What does the grid and the square/diamonds (depending on the angle) represent (info in the caption please)? Noodle snacks (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You too; good point. Addressed now. Greg L (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:NURBS 3-D surface.gif —Maedin\^talk 21:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great night panorama with high encyclopedic value. Featured picture on Commons and Spanish and Turkish Wikipedias.

Articles in which this image appears

Old Quebec, Quebec City, Château Frontenac

Creator

Martin St-Amant (User:S23678)

• Support as nominator --Darwinek (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular ^T · C 16:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support This is a beautiful image with strong EV. upstateNYer 02:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Elekhh (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too much haloing going on. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yea, I didn't notice that. I guess I can tolerate though. Switch to regular support (noted on my original vote above). upstateNYer 03:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per Noodle snacks... Shame though, an otherwise brilliant picture... Gazhiley (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose very good picture but NS is right. I dowsampled for preview purposes but the haloing,lack of sharpness is still apparent. --Muhammad(talk) 17:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: It's lovely, but the halos, :( Maedin\^talk 20:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original - Panorama of Sacsayhuamán with the city of Cusco in the background

Reason

Wide panorama with high encyclopedic value. Featured picture on Commons and TR Wikipedia.

Articles in which this image appears

Sacsayhuamán

Creator

Martin St-Amant (User:S23678)

• Support as nominator --Darwinek (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I can't bring myself to support, because of the composition. Too much is cut off the top. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jujutacular. --Elekhh (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jujutacular... Not great as there are paths and walls that dissapear off the top of the picture that would be better to see where they go... Gazhiley (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and EV. IMO the most encyclopedic image of a ripened fruit in the article.

Articles in which this image appears

Avocado, Persea

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 09:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- nice shot, meets all the criteria. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- clear and crisp. Neutrality^talk 04:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Doesn't look green enough to be ripe? Or is this a different type of avocado than I'm used to? upstateNYer 02:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ones here have bumpy skin. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a different cultivar that you are referring to. The skin turns black as it ripens. This one was ripe and very delicious :) --Muhammad(talk) 09:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I mean the meat, not the skin. The meat seems very white. I'm used to it being a very deep puke green (for lack of a better term). upstateNYer 03:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yours must be a different variety. I ate this after photographing it. It was ripe. --Muhammad(talk) 09:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • http://ucavo.ucr.edu/AvocadoVarieties/VarietyFrame.html has a list of avocado varieties with photos. Perhaps that might help in identifying the particular cultivar. howcheng {chat} 17:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I went through that. I am certain it is of mexican parentage. It fits 3-1-1 variety the best IMO --Muhammad(talk) 18:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, would be nice to name the cultivar. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Noodle snacks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Avocado with cross section.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Big, interesting, FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Milky Way, Paranal Observatory

Creator

ESO (more specifically, H.H. Heyer)

• Support as nominator: There are annotations at Commons, too. Maedin\^talk 12:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer edit 1. Maedin\^talk 12:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Very nice, very interesting, very noisy. Edit please? --Muhammad(talk) 12:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Won't be able to for a few hours. I'll see what I can do when I get home. Maedin\^talk 12:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, what are all these white specks? Zillions of hot pixels?! Suggest aggressive denoising to remove them all!!1!!one!eleven

• On a more serious note. The blending around the 360 degree seam is screwed up. This makes it an eyesore in a pano-viewer. This is a complete mystery to me, how you can taint such a nice image with such a mistake. --Dschwen 16:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You didn't do your (flash/no flash) thing for me! I was counting on you for that, ;) Maedin\^talk 17:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no matter what. Great image, high EV.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 1 added: Noise reduced. Maedin\^talk 17:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning. Miyagawa (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to add that I prefer the original, I think the contrast between the sky and the colors is more pronounced. Miyagawa (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's no Lake District, but it'll do... ;-) hehe Seriously tho, Miyagawa said it best - stunning... Gazhiley (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Obviously a highly technical picture originally produced by a talented astronomer. Will look good for a day on Wikipedia’s Main Page. Greg L (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I support either. Edit1 is clearly better if one bothers to zoom way in and meanders about looking at the telescopes. My vote may be added to the larger consensus for either picture since I find both to be suitable for the intended purpose as an FP. Greg L (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Mbz1. --Avenue (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC) (struck as part of clarification below)[reply]

• Hmm, I thought edit 1 was part of the April 1 joke, but perhaps not. To clarify, I support the original version, but very strongly oppose edit 1. The "noise" is not uniform, and much of it is from fainter stars. Zoom in on the Small Magellanic cloud, as just one example, to see how crippled edit 1 is. --Avenue (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't like to disagree. When I'm home I'll change the edit to de-noise only the features on the ground and leave the sky intact. Maedin\^talk 05:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry if my comment seemed harsh. Thank you for listening. --Avenue (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's fine, :) If it was an April Fool's joke, then it was Muhammad's on me. Maedin\^talk 17:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Now I support either version, and prefer new edit 1. Thanks again. --Avenue (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support Edit 1 And I like the notes on the file as well; they were very helpful. upstateNYer 02:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Both variants very nice. I support both, but edit 1 is tiny better --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspend so I can fix my edit. Maedin\^talk 12:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on edit: Considering Avenue's comments, I've altered the edit so that the ground only is somewhat de-noised and the sky has been left intact. Please update your vote if this changes your preference, though it looks like the original is in the lead anyway. Thanks, Maedin\^talk 17:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the edit, please. Which do we prefer? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit 1. Fantastic image, nice edits. Eusebeus (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, prefer edit 1. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:360-degree Panorama of the Southern Sky edit.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The panorama shows a well-known view of the subject and has very good technical quality, adding to the articles

Articles in which this image appears

Serra da Estrela, Serra da Estrela Natural Park

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Horizon looks curved and too much sky/cloud IMO --Muhammad(talk) 10:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I'd support this if it weren't for the problem with the horizon. You might try restitching it with some horizontal control points along the horizon. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A lot of fringing in the shadows at the bottom of the image aswell, thats easy to fix though Benjamint 23:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^T · C 17:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No quorum. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Image is of high quality, and adds significant value to the article of the same title, On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away.

Articles in which this image appears

On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away, List of Indiana state symbols

Creator

Charles Edward

• Support as nominator --—Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't know how much yellowing is generally acceptable or preferred, but this might be a reasonable case for a colour restoration - example added. I also think it would be nice to get some more context if it's obtainable - what does the "5" stand for? Which of the listed editions is this showing, or do they all have the same cover? etc. etc. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can colour correct it a bit. I am not positive what the five means, it is on all the versions of the cover I have seen. There are multiple versions, this being the oldest I've seen. It is from 1897 and it almost certainly an original release. Other versions are like this [4]. The only difference is the picture of the singer, and the note at the top "Sung with great success by X" The singers were compensated for use of their image, in effect the singer endorsed the song to help fuel sales. That was fairly common then. I am aware of six different versions, this being almost certainly the first. The sheet music itself is also available at this quality on the commons. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, good EV;The image was used in in the Wikimedia foundation annual report 2008-2009? see, e.g., p. 9

Articles in which this image appears

Art car

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I realise that the evening sunlight might have been quite warm when you took this picture, but the red cast is excessive. I'd prefer a version with more natural colours. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original I prefer the red tone; it gives it a more dramatic feel. upstateNYer 03:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original Nice photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, prefer edit "...neutral colour balance". Jujutacular ^T · C 00:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original per reasons stated above. Weak support edit 1 -- interesting subject matter and resolution, but the background is a bit cluttered (especially on the left). NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Distracting blurred background, and despite editing even edit is still too red for me... Gazhiley (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Questionable EV. This particular car has not been recognised as notable, hence an arrangement giving equal weight to several cars would be preferable imo. File:Asteracea poster 3.jpg shows how this might be done. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Encyclopaedic and good quality illustration adding to the articles

Articles in which this image appears

Papaver rhoeas, Papaver

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is very good to look at at thumbnail size and has good EV but the firdt picture in the series is completely out of focus. --Muhammad(talk) 00:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Ditto Muhammad. The first image needs to be in focus and it would help if the DOF of the last weren't so shallow. Great idea overall though, so if you can get replacement images, I'd be happy to support this. upstateNYer 03:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Info - Here is a new version where the issues raised above were addressed. Not so good asthetically, I'm afraid. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 3rd picture of the original is much better in terms of quality IMO. Could you replace the 3rd of the alternative with the 3rd of the original? --Muhammad(talk) 13:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's important to see the red coming through the bud, otherwise there's nothing to connect the first and second panels. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, particularly the original. Though the stem in the first panel is a little out of focus, the bud is sufficiently in focus and the blossom breaking through adds important information about the nature of the blossoming cycle. A fine addition to the Main Page for a day. Greg L (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High resolution, adds value to the accompanying article.

Articles in which this image appears

Mezcala Bridge

Creator

Jujutacular

• Support as nominator --Jujutacular ^T · C 02:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer edit 1 as well, thanks Muhammad. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support prefer edit 1 Good composition and EV. Original seems a bit overexposed. --Muhammad(talk) 03:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Both edits still show over-exposure on cements parts of bridge - most noticeably nearest the photographer... Also I don't know the technical name for it but there's a blue "fringe" around the top of the hills towards the top of the picture... Gazhiley (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I wish foreground rocks were sharper.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a bit of a bridge enthusiast. upstateNYer 03:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 per nom. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Only 4.5 out of 5 supports after 10 days. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

it's technically good and the resolution is high.

Articles in which this image appears

cassiterite

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator —Maedin\^talk 07:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support -- nice picture, but there is quite a lot of noise in the darker areas. I think this problem was made worse in the uploader's second version of the picture, in which he/she attempted to brighten the picture. Might be worth using a noise reduction program or something. Also, I'd have preferred a tighter crop. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I'll prepare an edit tonight. Maedin\^talk 08:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that I'm not at work I've had a better look at the image and I'm not sure I agree regarding noise. To me, it looks like the texture of the mineral alone. I compared it to the darker original and couldn't see much difference. If it is noise, in any case, I think it's slight, and I'm reluctant to use a filter on this that might lose some of the detail. But I'll ask Alchemist-hp about a crop. Maedin\^talk 17:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @NotFromUtrecht: "there is quite a lot of noise in the darker areas" --> no, please look at the camera exif data! Show me a much better camera and I buy me it! The "surface" from the crystals are noisy. "I'd have preferred a tighter crop" --> artistically not valued and ineffective view. Please test a tighter crop for you self and you see it. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll concede that I can't be 100% sure that there actually is noise, since I know nothing about the physical properties of cassiterite. I certainly agree with Maedin that it's not worth trying to remove genuine noise if the result is that detail is lost. I tried cropping the picture in different ways, and my conclusion was that the amount of white space at the top and bottom of the picture was excessive. I'd prefer a version where the white space at the top and bottom was roughly equal to that at the side. I am happy to support this uncropped image, if there is no consensus that a closer crop would be better. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as creator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I definitely don't see any noise, and at ISO 200 there shouldn't be. Meets all criteria. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cassiterite.jpg Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Meets all criteria and I feel that it offers a very unique view of the reflecting pool that is rarely seen (images of pool almost always show it from ground lever).

Articles in which this image appears

Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, will add to Lincoln Memorial in future

Creator

Hu Totya

• Support as nominator --Ridge Runner (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I'd like to say it's a pretty shot, well composed. Drawbacks: it's a little bit grainy. I don't see ISO speed rating on the metadata for the image, but I imagine it was higher than it needed to be. It's also not very sharp. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jujutacular. I've been undecided on this in case it was my monitor as I thought it seemed a little fuzzy, but now I know it isn't just me then oppose sorry... Gazhiley (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to apparent barrel effect (curved horizon) and composition (lake and river shore chopped off at sides, and seems too central to me). --Avenue (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose First, I'd like to point out that this is far from a rare shot. It is very easy to recreate and people do it dozens of times per day. My main misgivings about the image is the fact that it could be redone on a clearer day (that is to mean a day with a lower particulate count in the air), which would allow for a cleaner view of Rosslyn and Arlington. Also, just to point out to Avenue, while the cut off of the pond at Constitution Gardens is preventable, you can't do anything about cutting off the river... it is a river after all. upstateNYer 05:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps I could have been clearer. I meant that shifting the view right a little might have included the whole pond, and would have avoided including the small patch of highway and river shore (if that's what it is) lower left. --Avenue (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

A 1:250 000 map recently released under the OS OpenData initiative. The map illustrates the design of maps produced by the Ordnance Survey, and provides a practical example of the nature of the grid system on which virtually all OS maps are based. The MediaWiki software cannot create thumbnails of large PNG images, so this picture is presented in JPG format. A PNG version is linked to from the image page.

Articles in which this image appears

Ordnance Survey, British national grid reference system

Creator

Ordnance Survey

• Support as nominator --NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not really a lot to say about this... It's high in EV, a high quality image, no noticable errors or issues... Would prefer it to be of where I live, but that's just being fussy! hehe Gazhiley (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just a quick check on licencing, OS OpenData licence states it can be distributed under CC-Attribution 3.0 licence. Here on Wikipedia, this is under CC-BY-SA 3.0 - is this permitted? And if so, what the reason behind not matching up with the licence the OS have specified? AlexJ (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're quite correct: I licensed them wrong. I've update the licenses on Commons to CC-BY-3.0. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Would a tiff file thumbnail correctly? Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but there is currently a discussion on Commons about enabling this function. One of the reasons why I wanted to post this here was because I wondered what people thought about the JPG format, and whether the quality of this picture could be improved. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not because it's not a valuable map (it is) but because a lot of the place name labels are cut off along the left or right side. No quorum. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, EV and composition. Compare with my previous image in the article

Articles in which this image appears

Ocimum tenuiflorum

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lighting in this image is much better than the last FPC. I also like having a bit of nature in the background. The very top of the flower is out of focus, but the majority of it is there. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I find the flash lighting and dark background somewhat "unpleasant". Was there a good reason for doing it this way? Maedin\^talk 06:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small aperture was required to get the whole inflorescence into focus. Windy conditions = faster shutter = dark bg. FWIW, it's a lot better than the previously nominated picture which almost passed --Muhammad(talk) 07:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realised the small aperture and would have forgiven that on its own. Thanks for explaining the windy conditions, and I do appreciate that it's much better than the previously nominated image. But I think I'll stick with my oppose for aforementioned reasons. Maedin\^talk 07:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and EV. DOF is quite good covering the entire flower

Articles in which this image appears

Hibiscus

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The pedicel and calyx could have been shown. Abisharan (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh bokeh. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. It's nice, but I'm not wild about it- the background is a little distracting, and the area below the main subject a little jumbled. Nice work on the ID. J Milburn (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Very beautiful picture, high quality image, has a very good meaning.

Articles in which this image appears

Chicago

Creator

Hequals2henry

• Support as nominator --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 13:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, and suggest reverting back to the photo (File:2010-02-19 16500x2000 chicago skyline panorama.jpg) that was originally in the Chicago article. Gives a much better view of the skyline, without being overly processed. Also, the size you have in the article right now is way too wide for a non-panoramic picture [5]. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:2010-02-19 16500x2000 chicago skyline panorama.jpg is an unsharp mess of a panorama. --Dschwen 04:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Too stylised, and agree it's probably not even a great image for the article for that reason. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's not 'too stylised' but 'stylised' probably. It gives a great view of how beautiful Chicago looks. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 17:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• From WP:FP?: "A picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value." The stylised nature of the image may add to its artistic value, but detracts from its encyclopedic value. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the above, but I have to say that I find this kind of angle more convenient than a skyline panorama. It gives a better idea of the relative position of the buildings. It just happens that the right and the lower left are too dark. Abisharan (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Would be a great picture if what we were looking for was "artsy"ness, but as an encyclopedic image, it falls short. Tops of major buildings are cut off (in a way that makes me think San Francisco, even though I don't personally know if fog does that in SF) thereby making them not as easy to identify (the Hancock in particular is savaged, given how its antennae have been an unchanging part of its image since its erection, unlike the antennae of the Sears Tower). Also, the lighting again is very artistic but not very expository (am I using that word right?). All in all, not only should it not be an FP, it should, as User:Jujutacular states, be replaced in the article. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not really encyclopedic enough for WP, the old chicago panoramic should be restored. Astuishin ^(talk) 06:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Looks like something out of a film promo rather than a encyclopedic image... Too processed... too bright at top, too dark around lower sides... Nice picture but not for FP... Gazhiley (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Great quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Point Lobos

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Neither images really give you much of a sense of what Point Lobos is. Not enough context. In fact, I'd find it difficult to figure out that both images are of the same subject. They seem very different. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For cry out loud, Diliff:) Of course they are different. They were taken few miles apart. Point Lobos is a State Park that is stretching for many, many miles. It is not a point that is a "point". It is just the name that was given to the place. As I explained in the caption Point Lobos was called the “greatest meeting of land and water in the world” , and it is what it is a shoreline with the coves and beaches, and rock formations --Mbz1 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about the size of the State Park, but I still think to be a FP, it needs a more expansive, representative view of the area. Perhaps a panoramic stitch showing about five times as much as the original image, horizontally. By the way, I clicked through the link to the Francis McComas article and it says he was a sci-fi editor, not a landscape artist... What makes his statement about this area notable? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took the quote from the article itself. I know nothing about the man. What you're saying about the image is all but impossible to take. There are coves, divided by the hills. Anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the article refers to the wrong Francis McComas. I found this with a quick google, which suggests that the artist was born in Tasmania, not Kansas. I'll de-link it from this page and the article page. Anyway, I understand what you're saying about the limitations of the landscape, but you could certainly have included a panoramic view stretching as far as the hills allowed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've done a good job under the circumstances. The original image even has some seals, but that's OK. Thank you for your vote and your comments. and for finding the error in the article--Mbz1 (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree that a panorama would be needed here. Alt 2 would probably make a good starting point for a stitch if additional exposures from the same vantage point are available. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is panorama, and it is as good as it gets. I could not find any image on the subject on the NET, which shows much more in the one shot.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*cough* They publish a *MAGAZINE* full of encyclopaedic images [6]. Maybe ask them to let us have one? ~_–   Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they have the right resolution, but please do ask them, if you wish to.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You doubt this based on which information? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in contacting them.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Regarding Alt 3, it's the best of the four in terms of enc value, but it's unfortunate that the beach was cut off at the far right (and bottom, to an extent). For that reason, I don't think the composition is quite up to par. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. They're all nice, but not quite FPs to me. Alt 1 comes closest IMO, but the horizon is bowed. --Avenue (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality and of high encyclopedic value.

Articles in which this image appears

Valluvar Kottam, Tamil architecture

Creator

Jovianeye

• Support as nominator --JovianEye (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Has a nice, National Geographic flavor that will reflect well upon Wikipedia for 24 hours. Greg L (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not loving it. It seems to be a little cut off (and slanted?) when you look to the right. There are areas of overexposure, and that massive advert in the background to the left really detracts from the picture. J Milburn (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Information The right side of the chariot is connected to the roof of an auditorium which is 100 metres (328 feet) long. --JovianEye (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per J Milburn. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Good quality, EV, colours and wow. DOF is quit good considering the magnification.

Articles in which this image appears

Butterfly

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I find this to be an excellent shot. upstateNYer 05:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support No kidding, "wow". Would be much better encyclopedic value if it were the entire wing (IMHO), but...wow! -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 06:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the enthusiastic support :-) Showing the entire wing would mean losing the fine details of the scales. This is so "wow"y because it is of high magnification. --Muhammad(talk) 10:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I prefer because the lighting gives it more depth, and it's of higher resolution at roughly the same magnification. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At its largest size, when viewed at full resolution, the magnification appears to be the same. At thumbnail sizes, hardly can any scale or details be made out due to the wider view unlike the nominated image which due to a tighter crop shows details in thumbnails. --Muhammad(talk) 13:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A tighter crop of MichaD's image could easily be created, but it addresses Runningonbrains' concern as it is. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it covers the whole wing either. --Muhammad(talk) 10:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • But its alt does, and they could be promoted as a set. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • And File:Citrus Swallowtail Papilio demodocus.jpg shows the entire wing as well. --Muhammad(talk) 23:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • So what's up with those colours? They're completely different. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I stopped scrolling to gaze at this picture. It would be fine picture on the Main Page for a day. Greg L (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Much higher magnification, eg this, would be a lot more revealing. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a lot more expensive. That is taken through a microscope objective at around 20-40X --Muhammad(talk) 05:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova⁴¹² 01:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support' per "wow". --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note This image is not currently in the article listed above. It was pushing several more relevant pictures out of the way in an article that is quite laden with images, including already at least two of Muhammad's. It would be better to try to find articles that are actually still in need of images. Papilio demodocus is also already completely full of images. More coordination between content editors and photographers might help in this regard. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image was not pushed into the article. There was a similar picture by Fir0002 of slightly lesser DOF and I replaced it with mine which I considered to be superior. Note to others, the image was not removed from the article by any random editor but by Papa Lima Whiskey who saw the image here, commented on it here and then went on to remove the image from the article despite the consensus here. --Muhammad(talk) 12:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Muhammad, FPC holds no power over the editorial decisions made on articles. You cannot push an image into an article simply by having it promoted as an FP. You inserted the image recently into the article[7] and it was not, therefore, stable. The previous image was no more appropriate in that section. Can you please not overcrowd articles with images? In terms of EV, your image duplicates what is already illustrated at the scales section of the article, and your image has little relevance to "wing development" (that's the section that you placed it in), which the image that you displaced, File:Fifthinstarwingdisk.png, very much does. Now you've placed your image such that it displaces the very useful image of the next section down, "Pupa", showing appropriately, a pupa. If you're so keen to have your image in that article, why not get hold of a few good books or articles, and create some specific EV for your image in the article? I close by noting that the stability criterion is not being met, and ask the closer to make a decision that allows this discussion to settle down. One option is to allow Muhammad time to find a better place for the image. Simple reverts or hastened closures will not resolve this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not going to waste my time arguing with you. You put up an image here which you considered to be better. When nobody responded to that, you go on to remove this image from the article. Why don't we let a third party decide if I forced the image in the article in the first place and if it is a good practice to remove an image which is at the brink of being promoted simply because you don't like it. FWIW, the image was stable for more than 1 and a half weeks and was only removed because you saw it here. I stress, a random editor did not remove it and IMO that is stable--Muhammad(talk) 13:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Muhammad, you are not really answering to any of the points PLW made. This is about more than just a difference of opinion. This is about not putting the cart in front of the ox. Images should illustrate an article, rather than having article placements to somehow validate the "value" of an image for FPC. --Dschwen 02:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree with Papa Lima Whiskey. Images are not independent of articles. On the contrary, they are supposed to complement them and, preferably, should be referred to and discussed in the text. This is considered a sound practise in scientific writing and I can't understand why such principle is not applied in Wikipedia in a more strict way. But I'm just repeating myself: this is a recurring theme of dispute with Muhammad and, before him, with Fir0002. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support This is fantastic! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unsharp in the corner, dull colors, insufficient resolution or magnification to properly illustrate the subject. This is neither fish nor fow, and does a poor job illustrating either the wing or the scales. Sorry. --Dschwen 02:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not really necessary or relevant in the articles. The alternative is better. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, especially Dschwen and PLM. --Avenue (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

decent resolution, good historical portraits of the last king of Hanover and his family, material in good condition, FP on commons.

Articles in which this image appears

George V of Hanover, Marie of Saxe-Altenburg

Creator

Lithographer Julius Giere, photographed by Michael Gäbler

• Support as nominator --Maedin\^talk 20:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Detailed portrait of the whole family. The portraitist also managed - wittingly or not - to capture the blindness of the recently acceding king (crowned 1851), although his fondness for being shown in profile may have been inherited from his father (1), and repeated in other portraits of George V (2 3) rather than being to do with an unsightly right eye (which was not much of a problem, apparently (4)). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice, good EV. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova⁴¹² 01:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and PLW. --Avenue (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Family George V of Hanover.jpg --Jujutacular ^T · C 22:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Detailed, highly encyclopedic SVG diagram of an adult mosquito (Culex pipiens). Similar in style to the current FPs of the dragonfly, wasp and ant.

Articles in which this image appears

Mosquito, Culex

Creator

LadyofHats

• Support as nominator --Anxietycello (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - High EV and very nice work --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova⁴¹² 01:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular ^T · C 17:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — I was wondering, should File:Culex restuans larva diagram en.svg be nominated too? It depicts the larval form of this species, and is just as encyclopedic an image. Is there a way of nominating a pair of images, to be displayed together, perhaps? Anxietycello (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It would need to be added to an article first of all. Also, editors have varying feelings about featured picture sets. I'd recommend finding a place for it and nominating it separately. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, a separate nomination, since it can (should be able to) stand on its own merit. The Today's Featured Picture coordinator can choose to group them together (or not). HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominated here. Anxietycello (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support And we can always make them into a set after they've been nominated separately. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent work. Kaldari (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very high EV, based on good references. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very nice work. --Avenue (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Culex pipiens diagram en.svg —Maedin\^talk 16:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This photo shows a piece of fine Chinese golden jewelry, which was one of the most beautiful antiques excavated from the Dingling, one of the Ming Dynasty Tombs. It was made during the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) in China, by using gold, ruby, pearl, diamond and other gemstones, and of the size of a human palm. It is of the shape of a Chinese character '心' (read Xin), which literally means heart. This photo was taken at the Dingling Museum by me and, as to my knowledge, the only one available online showing this piece of jewelry. The picture is sharp and of fine quality (3,200 × 2,133 pixels). It is also one of the finest photos online showing the achievements of ancient Chinese jewelry making. The only flaw is the not-so-dark background, which can't be easily fixed without using expensive proprietary software that I don't have.

Articles in which this image appears

Ming Dynasty Tombs, Jewellery, zh:明定陵, zh:明十三陵, zh:珠寶

Creator

mlogic

• Support as nominator --Elliot Li (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Beautiful ancient Chinese jewelry, and nice shot. Rjmaomao (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Technically, it's not amazing; the focus isn't stunning, the background's a little distracting, the framing's not great and it doesn't seem to have been taken from the best angle. However, my main concern is the lack of encyclopedic value. The jewellery is not discussed in the article on the tombs, while the specific dynasty is not mentioned in the article on jewellery. In both articles, it serves more as a "here is a pretty picture" than as anything genuinely encyclopedic. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The quality is so-so.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose low DOF, unsharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —Maedin\^talk 16:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in which this image appears

House Crow

Creator

Benjamint 12:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 12:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, but FP should have at least 2 megapixels.Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Seems okay. Lighting is a little harsh (flash or just sunlight?) but it's not overexposed. Maedin\^talk 19:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I did use flash but I doubt it made any significant difference, It's effectively just sunlight from what I can remember -- Benjamint 07:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, thank you for clarifying. Maedin\^talk 10:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Jujutacular ^T · C 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

The image clearly has historic value, depicting the site of the World Trade Center buildings 17 days after their collapse. It also has a high resolution and good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

World Trade Center site, One Liberty Plaza, Millenium Hilton Hotel

Creator

Andrea Booher (FEMA)

• Support as nominator --Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please ensure that your picture is stable in an article before nominating. FPC decisions cannot and are not intended to, overrule editorial decisions made in articles. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• suggest speedy close as per PLW - not in any article... Gazhiley (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the image to the World Trade Center site article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my suggestion until image is stable in the article... Is it ok to suggest this gets withdrawn and re-listed once stable in article? Gazhiley (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have we adopted a rule that it must be stable for a set time? It seems like a useful and good quality image so I'm not sure why it would be removed from the article. Fletcher (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but my vote was within half hour of someone putting it in an article... Wanted to make sure no-one took it out again before making a futher mess and having to change vote again... Gazhiley (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Benjamint 13:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good historical picture. It would benefit from some perspective correction and cropping of that black thing on the right, but we would lose too much detail in the edit. Fletcher (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more to the description to give an idea where the image is facing, just in case. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a very valuaded image, but not featured. The quality and the light are to bad. Sorry. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for historical value. I note, however, that a crop on the right would be good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped out the object in question. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, valuable but not FP per Alchemist-hp. --Avenue (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, I'm just not seeing it, quality-wise, as above. (I would additionally question our ability to call this "valued", when it was added to articles only days ago- "valuable", maybe, but I doubt "valued".) J Milburn (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, looking again, I'm getting a feel this has had some kind of 'shopping- could someone with a better eye than me confirm one way or the other? J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean the very warm color balance? The shadows suggest it's late afternoon. Fletcher (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I don't see what lets this off the quality hook. Maedin\^talk 19:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Image is of high quality, and adds significant value to the article of the same title.

Articles in which this image appears

On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away, List of Indiana state symbols

Creator

Charles Edward

Other nominations

Previous nomination of unrestored image (result: no quorum).

• Support as nominator Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Valuable and good EV; can't really think of a more appropriate illustration for the article. In much better condition than this scan of a similar cover. I can't vouch for the edit/original colours, but I assume it's been done well and correctly. Maedin\^talk 10:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High EV, good quality. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

It's a sharp and interesting view of the cliffs of Beachy Head on a nice, sunny day, just a short walk along the coast from the Seven Sisters.

Articles in which this image appears

Beachy Head

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, support edit 1 Tilt correction was needed, follow instructions given below if you can't see it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For either, particularly the original Edit 1. Very, very interesting scene. Greg L (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment FYI, the difference in rotation between these two pics is small indeed. But, for what it’s worth, the best delineation of a plumb line are the painted lines on the lighthouse and its walkway on top, all of which are probably exceedingly close to horizontal. It’s interesting to note that in aviation, if the sea surface is not visible at the horizon, IFR-rated (instrument flight rules) pilots are taught to ignore cloud formations, the leading edges of cloud banks, and similar effects and to instead focus on their instruments. Once can deduce nothing whatsoever about what is level by looking at the base of a cloud bank. Few would notice how level these pictures are, but the original appears to be more closely aligned to horizontal upon very close inspection. Greg L (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you're wrong. Increase your contrast until you can see the horizon. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well you’re blunt. Ahhh… indeed. When the contrast is set to an extreme amount, what appears to be a horizon can be seen. And the rotated one is closer to horizontal. I stand corrected. Either is fine, anyway, with a preference now for Edit 1 (as noted above). Greg L (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]