| | Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria. If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the nomination for delisting section. For promotion, if an image is listed here for about seven days with four or more reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s)) and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. The archive contains all opinions and comments collected on this page, and also nomination results. If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons, to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well. - To see recent changes, purge the page cache
| Featured picture tools: Featured content: | [edit] How to nominate [edit] Step 1 - Evaluate Submissions will be evaluated using the criteria listed on Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? Please read the criteria before submitting a picture to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of making it. If you are unsure if your picture will fulfill the criteria, or would like advice on improving your nomination, please consider adding it to Wikipedia:Picture peer review for initial assessment. If you find this process too complicated, see below. [edit] Step 2 - Create subpage Create a page to place the image on; this page needs to be a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. To create your own subpage, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the form below (for example Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button. [edit] Step 3 - Transclude and link Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (direct link). [edit] Too complicated? If you are unable to follow the above procedure, add your image to Wikipedia:Picture peer review following the simpler instructions provided there. You can mention that you would like to submit it to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, but that you don't know how. If someone else deems it suitable, they will add it to FPC on your behalf. Alternatively you can request a regular FPC or PPR editor to submit an image on your behalf by contacting them on their talkpage.
- If you approve of a picture, write Support followed by your reasons.
- If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image.
- If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case.
- To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly. Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version. Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person. Due to problems with disruptive canvassing, all promotion of other processes in votes will be removed. Promotion does not include directing the user to a group or pages that may help improve the featured picture candidate, such as the Graphics Lab, or mentioning awards an image has gotten elsewhere (e.g. "already a featured picture on commons"). [edit] Editing candidates If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g. add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (eg, Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied. [edit] Is my monitor calibrated correctly? In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting. On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen) the viewing angle strongly affects these images. Click on the images for more technical information. |
- To see recent changes, purge the page cache
- Your comments are also appreciated at Picture peer review and at Valued picture candidates.
[edit] Current nominations  Original - The massive, young stellar grouping, called R136, is only a few million years old and resides in the 30 Doradus Nebula, a turbulent star-birth region in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), a satellite galaxy of our Milky Way. There is no known star-forming region in our galaxy as large or as prolific as 30 Doradus. The image, taken in ultraviolet, visible, and red light by Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3, spans about 100 light-years. - Reason
- Beautiful, high quality Hubble Space Telescope image of the cluster.
- Articles this image appears in
- R136
- Creator
- NASA, ESA, and F. Paresce (INAF-IASF, Bologna, Italy), R. O'Connell (University of Virginia, Charlottesville), and the Wide Field Camera 3 Science Oversight Committee
- Support as nominator --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Impressive picture, I can see no reason to oppose. J Milburn (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality, lighting and EV. Illustrates the scavenger article quite well. Also, long time since a fly was nominated here. Already an FP at commons.
- Articles this image appears in
- Forensic entomology, Scavenger, Flesh-fly
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 08:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support There is a similar image in Flesh-fly but they are found in exclusive articles otherwise. The meat in the picture provides separate enc to the faeces. I should hope that it isn't human flesh. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support; not your best, but certainly decent. EV would be improved if it appeared in an article about the species. J Milburn (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - The movements of the human hand are accomplished by two sets of each of these tissues. They can be subdivided into two groups: the extrinsic and intrinsic muscle groups. The extrinsic muscle groups are the long flexors and extensors. They are called extrinsic because the muscle belly is located on the forearm. The intrinsic muscle groups are the thenar and hypothenar muscles (thenar referring to the thumb, hypothenar to the small finger), the interossei muscles (between the metacarpal bones, four dorsally and three volarly) and the lumbrical muscles. These muscles arise from the deep flexor (and are special because they have no bony origin) and insert on the dorsal extensor hood mechanism. The intrinsic muscles of hand can be remembered using the mnemonic, "A OF A OF A" for, Abductor pollicis longus, Opponens pollicis, Flexor pollicis brevis, Adductor pollicis (thenar muscles) and Opponens digiti minimi, Flexor digiti minimi, Abductor digiti minimi (hypothenar muscles). - Reason
- very informative
- Articles this image appears in
- Hand
- Creator
- Wilfredor
- Support as nominator --Libertad0 ॐ (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Hi Wilfredor, without reading deeply into the past, it's probably worth mentioning clearly what has changed since the last nom, which failed. If I remember right, it had to do with sourcing? ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 23:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Until referenced. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Own work is a real hand drawn with the help of a Doctor (to identify the parties) --Libertad0 ॐ (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality panorama with great EV because it shows not only the village itself, but also it surroundings.
- Articles this image appears in
- Kingswear
- Creator
- Herbythyme
- Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support and with thanks to Mbz1 :) --Herby talk thyme 16:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Nice panorama and good EV, although I feel like the left side is cropped a litttle tight, and so is the right side for that matter. Just slightly. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom.--Caspian blue 19:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Diliff, perhaps just needed that bit more width (a 4th photo...?). --jjron (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I could explain it but that would mean admitting to the fact that the left side beyond where it is was becoming overexposed (and did not add much) and that roof tops and extraneous objects were intruding on the right hand side and you would not expect me to do that on wiki would you...;) It is certainly one I will look at getting/improving on in the future. Thanks for the interest. --Herby talk thyme 16:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - Erosion is a gravity driven process that moves solids ( sediment, soil, rock and other particles) in the natural environment or their source and deposits them elsewhere. It usually occurs due to transport by wind, water, or ice; by down-slope creep of soil and other material under the force of gravity; or by living organisms, such as burrowing animals, in the case of bioerosion. Winters in California bring high tides, which causes sandy cliffs above Pacific ocean to erode. The image shows such an erosion, which in that situation prompted evacuation of the affected building. - Reason
- high EV and quality
- Articles this image appears in
- Erosion
- Creator
- mbz1
- Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- The fence is distracting. franklin 17:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the image was taken not to show a beautiful landscape. There are fences all over the place, and they are a big part of that eroding cliff. As a matter of fact I climbed over one of them for a better view, and eventually was lead out by the authorities :( Anyway I added alternative. Maybe you need log out, and log back in to see it.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Original It shows the subject very clear and the quality is good. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Original Per Massimo Catarinella and the fact that this is a high EV image of our current world and its events --Herby talk thyme 10:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support original. Love this- it's a textbook picture showing the subject, as it shows so many elements. A building close to the edge, fences displaying the danger to humans, the boulders on the beach to slow the erosion, the sea approaching the cliff- a perfect position for a shot. J Milburn (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - Bell house in the back drop of the city lights atop the Rock fort, Thiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu, India - Reason
- This image exposes the beautiful bird's eye view of the south indian city of Trichy. More over, Rockfort is the icon of this city. Wiki article has images which are shot from ground, looking up to the rock fort, but not one which looks down to the city. Here it is :)
- Articles this image appears in
- thiruchirappalli
- Creator
- Santhosh Janardhanan
- Support as nominator --ponnambalamwell known as santhosh janardhanan | talk me 11:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I dont know the technical terms but the lights in the bottom left of the picture and of course the main light have caused clarity problems - very blury around bottom left area, and cannot see the whole of the top of the tower as it is hidden behind the light. would probably be a better shot clarity wise in daylight... Gazhiley (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Lens flare and ghosts. The scene is beyond what this camera's lens can cope with - Peripitus (Talk) 12:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose That top right light is just an incredible distraction. Takeiuchi (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per above -- mcshadypl TC 00:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Very dramatic, but not awfully encyclopedic. J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - Two United States soldiers storm a bunker past the bodies of two German soldiers during World War I. - Reason
- The best digitized action shot I've yet located of World War I. Restored version of File:At close grips.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Western Front (World War I),
Trench warfare, World War I, United States campaigns in World War I - Creator
- H.D. Gridwood
- Support as nominator --Durova383 05:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- What is to storm a bunker? franklin 13:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Refer to definition 3 here. In simple terms here, the US army are making a quick attack on the German bunker. --jjron (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I can't help feeling worried about these images that get nominated claiming being in articles (and therefore claiming EV, which I'm not doubting in this case) in which it has been added just moments before the nomination. For example, this particular image has already been removed (not by me) from one of them. I read the criteria and there is nothing (I think) preventing nominators from doing this but, isn't that dangerous? franklin 14:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- This has been discussed before, and probably belongs on FPC Talk. There's differing opinions on it - will elaborate more if you wish to take it to the talkpage. (FWIW I agree with its removal from Trench warfare, certainly didn't belong as the lead image - perhaps could be judiciously placed elsewhere, though the use of bunkers doesn't seem to even rate a mention). --jjron (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Removal was done with the edit summary Undid revision 332437549 by Durova (talk) rv (does everything have to lead with a U.S. pic?[1] Actually none of the ten featured pictures of still photography from World War I depict US subjects: five are Ottoman, two Belgian, one German, one English, and one Australian. The editor who made that revert did not discuss it either with me or at article talk. I could probably find another high resolution image of two British soldiers in a trench, but Americans aren't overrepresented at this subject. Durova383 21:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Don't care whether or not it's got Americans, I just don't find it a great representation of trench warfare - the article has several better images for this subject. As I said above, couldn't even find a mention of bunkers in the article. --jjron (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per previous comment and therefore United States campaigns in World War I. franklin 03:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Is there any documentation to show that this is indeed an action shot? Anyone familiar with First World War photography field equipment would know that this shot would have been incredibly difficult to do during a battle, especially outside the protection of a trench. No information of which battle, formation or unit involved. The un-restored original certainly appears to be a stereoview, which means two cameras would have been employed to make the unrestored image? I find such a photographic achievement hard to believe. Why has the image been split given its a stereoview, that appears to contradict criteria 8? My primary concern is that the image is staged, a common propaganda practice during the First World War (Ex: Image:Going_over_the_top_01.jpg. The lack of back story on the image or any info on the author make validation extremely difficult. Oppose on grounds of criteria 6.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for the claim that this is propaganda? Stereoscopic photography was done on a single tripod the same as single plate photography and is not in itself an indicator of artificiality: this example was an actual execution taken more than fifty years before. Other FPs that have been restored and promoted from a single side of stereograms include File:Wawona tree1.jpg and File:Doubledayo.jpg. Criterion 8 does not apply. Durova386 06:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Gridwood distributed this stereographs under the company RealisticTravels. Realistic Travels is known to have staged scenes [2][3]. I also found the same image as your file [4] but with a different caption: "Unexpectedly our 'cleaners up' come to grips with a party of Germans isolated in a captured village". Neither has any unit or battle information and without that validating the "battle image" claim is not possible. Can you provide any details that would demonstrate that this is in fact a battle image?--Labattblueboy (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support GerardM (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC) journalists have through the ages taken risks that got them killed. Doubt that war photographers did not take risk flies in the face of history.
- Weak oppose. Sorry, but I'm with Labattblueboy- this looks like it's staged. It is a very dramatic shot, and it does evoke emotion, but, even if it was posed, it's not really showing anything that needs to be shown. I'm not convinced that it adds much to the articles in which it is used. J Milburn (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I find it hard to believe that this photo isn't staged - it would have been almost impossible to bring a World War I era camera that close to the front line. The Australian military had a small team of suicidally brave official photographers who took extreme risks to take action shots, and they were only able to take photos from fixed positions in trenches or shell holes - as a result the soldiers they depict are typically tiny figures advancing across fields. For this photo to have been genuine the photographer would have had to set their camera up in the direct line of sight of a German bunker while operating ahead of the forward infantry. That simply isn't credible without a reliable source stating that they did it (a medal citation would seem appropriate!). Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am amazed to see that this picture is failing due to "original research" by the voters. It could just as easily be American soldiers advancing under cover of a smokescreen into a empty German position which was previously reduced by mortars or shell. I notice, though, that the description on the LOC page is wrong again: "Three American soldiers viewed from behind, near ruins, World War I." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- This photo was included in Time magazine's "Year in Pictures" and otherwise appears to meet the criteria. More information about the photo is in a Military Times article.
- Articles this image appears in
- USS Annapolis (SSN-760), Ice Exercise 2009
- Creator
- Photo was taken by US Navy photographer Petty Officer 1st Class Tiffini M. Jones.
- Support as nominator --Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. The image doesn't appear to be very well integrated into the article. Perhaps a "Recent deployments" section could be created in the article, especially since some of the material under the History section is from 2008. Kaldari (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I think the quality could be better. I'm not convinced of the advantage of representing the submarine partially submerged under ice like this. -- mcshadypl TC 00:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I really like the picture, but the quality is lacking. Not sure where this picture can fit into a article (besides the page for the submarine). Tim1337 (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- According to criteria with one good fit in just one article is enough. (also preferred to weak fits in several articles) franklin 02:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment What's the strange "tv aerial" looking markings in the ice behind from? And what's it for if man-made markings? Not sure about this pic yet as not sure of EV as mentioned above as sub is not visible enough to know which sub it is... Gazhiley (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This image's home article is really ICEX 2009, to which I've added it. That should increase the EV. upstateNYer 15:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. High EV for Ice Exercise 2009. Spikebrennan (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - not sure what would be a better image for Ice Exercise 2009 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: The Ice Exercise article really needs updating. Is the picture of the submarine taking part in the exercise? If so, then it may have merit. Otherwise, I'm seeing nothing of value. Consider this an oppose pending clarification and updating of the article. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Illustration from the first published work of archaeology about Aztec culture. Restored version of File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Aztec calendar, List of calendars, Mesoamerican calendars, Felipe de Zúñiga y Ontiveros, Antonio de Leon y Gama
- Creator
- Antonio de Leon y Gama
- Support as conominator --Durova382 22:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support as conominator --Garrondo (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support, Durova and Garrondo really brought out the illustration's original qualities. Well done. –blurpeace (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support good picture for the author's article. franklin 02:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Conditional support. Quite nice, but can I get something cleared up. There seems to be a discrepancy between the image page and the article caption: Image page says "The images depicts an aztec sun calendar" (sic), the article caption says "A late 18th-century representation of a calendar wheel...". Perhaps the caption is just a little unclear, but is this a genuine Aztec calendar (redrawn in the 18th century), or an 18th century conception of what they might have looked like? I would also recommend an English translation of the book title on the image page (should be easy enough to do and I think it may be meaningful for the image). --jjron (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC) - I believe it's based partly on this calendar stone, discovered two years earlier, and partly on other calendars. Thus it is a Spanish representation of what, in genral, Aztec calendars looked like. If I'm wrong Durova or Garrondo can correct me. Chick Bowen 21:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- This image is a generalized representation of the Aztec calendrical system, as an introduction to specific concepts and artifacts presented later in the book. The famous Aztec calendar stone had recently been excavated and studied for the first time, and this was arguably the first work of archaeology about Aztec culture. Durova386 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support, adds a lot to every article in which it is used. J Milburn (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support fabulous image.--Caspian blue 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- EV+Quality
- Articles this image appears in
- Schreierstoren
- Creator
- Massimo Catarinella
- Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Good job separating the important building from the others. Why is it that you need the big chunk of black area in the bottom of the image? franklin 13:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. That dark area is a brick wall which is a part of the canal adjacent to the road on to which the tower is located. I could remove a part of it if you like me to. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Probably needed it doesn't look well that black part. You also need to leave some of it since part of the importance of the image comes from the claim about Hudson (which I am guessing means that he parted from that canal). If this is the case then that canal should be better lighted too. I was looking at the article. It is a very little stub (probably a redundancy to say that) without citations. Even the info you provided in the caption was not there. I think some work on the article is necessary in order to claim EV. franklin 21:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- The situation has changed since Hudson sailed out. The tower used to stand adjacent to the water and it was part of the harbor front of Amsterdam. In the last century the harbor moved westwards out of the city center and the front was widened greatly and a major thoroughfare (Prins Hendrikkade) was constructed on the newly claimed land (one of the busiest roads in the city). The body of water we're talking about is also closed of from the Ij due to the rail tracks running eastwards from the Central Railway Station, which also wasn't built in Hudson' time. It is true that the information isn't present in the article but some minor research on Google shall tell you the same as I do ;). The tower is also a landmark structure in Amsterdam and in that respect it has enough EV to justify FP status imo. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support but recommend cropping some of the black out. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hey How did that happen? I was editing and your vote was not there. I saved and there was no edit conflict. Is it because you placed your vote below the line? Can someone explain? franklin 21:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Most likely he saved just before you hit edit and you didn't notice his vote there as it was below the line and out of view...? --jjron (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support but would prefer a crop around the building. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- comment the crop in alt1 begs for a tiny little crop from above and maybe (judge after cropping from above) a crop from the left. franklin 12:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- A crop on the left would cut off part of the building (look at the white terrace).... --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Question Why is it that the thumbnail of the crop is different from the actual crop? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose although I like the isolation of the subject the black band in the bottom brings something odd to the image that doesn't seem to be solved by cropping. A new approach should be made. franklin 02:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. I think the harsh light on the right could be cropped out, the adjacent background building does not look historical. Brand[t] 13:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- What harsh light are you referring to? Every building in this image was built before the year 1900, so they are all historical. Even if there was a modern building in the background... this is Wikipedia, so the photograph should be a depiction of what this part of Amsterdam is really like. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Then support alt 1. I'm referring to high street lamp, maybe it is fixable. Brand[t] 19:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Original - map from the Battle of Mount Sorrel, a minor First World War battle of June 1916. - Reason
- There is currently no WWI trench maps amongst the FPs, so here's one suggestion. I would alternatively suggest the WWI barrage map Image:First Battle of Passchendaele - barrage map (colour balance).jpg
- Articles this image appears in
- Battle of Mount Sorrel
- Creator
- Canadian Corps staff
- Support as nominator --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Provided that there isn't any undocumented restoration going on. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see anything obvious. Here's a link to the original that should work. Chick Bowen 17:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't make image edits. The image is a direct download from Here. I have updated the image details to include the link.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose – sorry, but there is no obvious reason here not to restore the image, at least fix the torn corners. The image has great EV as it is, but it is a problem that no work was done on this image. —Ynhockey (Talk) 01:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- I find it a little worrying that historic material has to be restored in order to be accepted - particularly in a case like this when the map is perfectly readable. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I was under the impression that criteria 8 would make such edits inappropriate because it would cause the main subject to be misrepresented. The subject is after all a WW1 battle map, by its nature and use it is torn and beat up. This one is in fact a fairly good example in that it doesn't contain any large stains, holes and the paper discolouration is even. Colour balancing to remove paper aging may be appropriate but I don't think anything beyond that is appropriate under the current FP criteria. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ynhockey. If the map itself isn't notable, I see no reason not to restore/use a better image. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I second what Noodle snacks says above. The FP criteria say that minor digital manipulation is acceptable to correct flaws; nowhere do they say that damage renders an image unfeaturable. Why would it? Both aesthetically and historically, damage should be understandable as part of an image as it exists. In the case of photographs, it may make sense to try to get past the flaws of a particular print, given that a photograph transcends any given print anyway. But that logic doesn't apply to this map. Chick Bowen 16:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- I agree with that opinion as a general principle but, there is damage there that is not part of the aging or the use of the map, but a poor handing at the time of scanning. I am thinking in those places in which the map is simply folded over itself. There is no historical reason to be that way. I will weak oppose original and weak support re-touched(the second is weak because I wouldn't know whether the restoration is optimal) to try to force some (more) improvement in that direction. franklin 02:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - The Hazards (Left to Right: Mount Mayson, Mount Amos, Mount Dove and Mount Parsons), From Hazards Beach, Freycinet Peninsula, Tasmania, Australia - Reason
- The Hazards dominate Freycinet National Park. This angle also gives a look at Hazards Beach. This is taken from the beach on the far right hand side of the wineglass bay image. The evening light shows the pink granite well.
- Articles this image appears in
- Freycinet National Park, Freycinet Peninsula, The Hazards
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, it's a good picture, but low angle shots like that are seldom the best illustrations of the subject in my opinion. I must prfer the higher angle of your other two. I understand that you want to show the rocks of "the Hazards" but I think from a higher height would better illustrate the amount of the rocks than this image. gren グレン 18:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Guess I will have to man up and climb Mt Freycinet and/or Mt Graham (which isn't the most fun with a 18kg pack :P). Noodle snacks (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- You make me feel like a slave driver :x You're lucky if you live close enough to something that pretty that you can go back! Of course, I'm just one opinion of many. :) gren グレン 03:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is maybe 3hrs drive and 3hrs walking one way. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support: attractive image, good EV. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support. I like the image per nom, but weak because I think the other one that shows this is a peninsula has slightly better EV (though is not as good a photo) - this one just clips that end bit of land and captures some random bush at the other side. Question: the other one looks like it was taken from the other side of the peninsula? From a boat? Just trying to picture this. Or am I hard of seeing? --jjron (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Same side of the peninsula really, but other side of the Hazards. Both pictures show up with the geocoding. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ah yes, good point. Have photographed this myself from Coles Bay, but didn't have time to go into the NP, and I guess didn't get a good feel for the overall landscape. Thanks. --jjron (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - Wineglass Bay from Lookout.jpg - Reason
- High quality image of a beach which is quite nice and very notable.
- Articles this image appears in
- Tasmania, Freycinet National Park, Freycinet Peninsula
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Lovely view and I wish that when I was there I had good light, a good camera, skill, and more time. I do recall though that Wineglass Bay is best viewed, not from here but from where you can see the shape of the bay - Peripitus (Talk) 12:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is mt amos. But there is an annoying rock in the way (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogertwong/3393644587/). Noodle snacks (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- File:Freycinet Wineglass Bay And Promise Bay.jpg from the article, also taken from Mt Amos, seems to show more what is being suggested, though I'm not sure that quite nails it perfectly (I think yours shows that it is a bay better than the other one). Also, is there something very funny going on with your metadata? 1/80 at ISO 200 in the early afternoon in summer? The Hazards one also seems odd. --jjron (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- A polariser was used, which probably knocked about 2 stops off. Take that into account and you are about a stop off what Sunny 16 rule would suggest. The hazards photo was taken after the sun had gone down (you get warm directional light that is still fairly soft). Noodle snacks (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, fair enough, only thought later you must have whacked a filter or two on which could have made the settings realistic. And also only checked later what time the Hazards one was taken, still it says a 30sec exposure, which did seem high even for that time. --jjron (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support: good picture with good EV of several subjects. I'd be grateful if you added the date and a geotag to the Commons description. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. (By the way: I converted your date to ISO 8601 format, which can be understood by the wiki software, since 08/12/09 has different meanings in British/US English.) NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Excellent picture and I cannot see any technical issues myself... It's pictures like this that make me question my city-living lifestyle in favour of running away to somewhere like this... Stunning scenery... Gazhiley (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm willing to change to support the nom if the photographer presents an alternative that cuts out the 1/4 of the height of the original image. I think the hill on the bottom part is distracting and blocking the blue coastline.--Caspian blue 11:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, you would like some of the bottom cropped out? Noodle snacks (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - Lake Pedder From Mt Eliza - Reason
- The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area covers about a fifth of the state. This panorama has a field of view that is roughly 180 degrees and covers a sizeable chunk of that area. It is also an important illustration for Lake Pedder. I've marked some of the mountain ranges and peaks at commons:File:Lake Pedder From Mt Eliza.jpg (assuming that it will work here eventually).
- Articles this image appears in
- Southwest National Park, Tasmanian Wilderness, Lake Pedder, South West Wilderness, Arthur Range
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support due to nice images contributed by our Australian photographers, Australia has been on my must-go-there-list. :-) Caspian blue 07:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support: good EV, outstanding quality. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support, stunning, gives a great sense of the park. gren グレン 19:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Peripitus (Talk) 03:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - WanderNauta (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - wonderful image... as per Caspian, except that for me it's a must-go-BACK-there... Gazhiley (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lovely. Durova382 22:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Great picture, however it also demonstrates how misleading an image can be, by aesthetizing an environmental disaster. I think the caption needs to provide more background info, both here and in the article. Elekhh (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not aesthetizing anything - the view from the top is absolutely spectacular. Environmental disaster is a POV, so I wouldn't use those words in a caption (even though I tend to agree with you). The lake pedder article has paragraphs of information about the damming (and has some mild pov issues imo). I think it is probably appropriate to specify the 'new' lake pedder in that article, and leave the other ones as is. What do you think? Noodle snacks (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I dont understand this - what evironmental disaster is the above user refering to? If it's the evolution of the landscape well surely a picture of any valley or mountain is the same? And even if it is what the user is refering to this why should that stop a picture of it being an FP? It's not like Noodle snacks is using it for any political or propagander reasons... Gazhiley (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with NS. While Elekhh is correct, it's not up to the image to document the environmental conflict (I guess the caption could mention that the current lake is the result of damming or something). The article should (and does) discuss the conflict, if a bit briefly (and POVy). Re Gazhiley, in short the Tas government and hydroelectricity commission were big into damming these remote wildernesses during last century, particularly after WWII; the Lake Pedder damming in the 70s led to significant protests and the birth of world's first green political party, and was a precursor to the Franklin Dam controversy, which about 10 years later became what is probably still the most significant environmental campaign in Australian history. --jjron (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough... Thanks for the info! I reiterate then that this should not affect the FP now then as we are assessing a picture for its quality, not whether the subject should exist or not... Gazhiley (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- No it should not affect the FP, which I support as well, just reading the reactions, I had the impression that not everybody is aware that this is a landscape significantly altered by human intervention, which resulted in massive change to the local ecosystem, including species extinction. I would find useful to have a hint in the caption , as suggested by Jjiron, explaining that the lake in its present size and form is the result of the 1972 dam. Elekhh (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Amazing Picture Tim1337 (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support – Wladyslaw (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support, ooh! --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Pile on support. J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - The Mitchell Map, a map of the British and French dominions in North America circa 1750 - Reason
- This is the most comprehensive map of eastern North America made during the colonial era. It was used to define the boundaries of the newly independent United States at the Treaty of Paris, and to resolve numerous border disputes. Thanks to the Library of Congress, we now have a 11,686 × 8,255 pixel version of this important map. Warning: The file is 97MB.
- Articles this image appears in
- Mitchell Map, Isles Phelipeaux and Pontchartrain
- Creator
- John Mitchell
- Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent reproduction. There are divisions between the "pages" but as they don't necessarily follow straight lines, I'm not sure whether stitching them together is possible. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support Uff, If you keep doing this they are going to set a max size requirement. ot readable in thumbnail, still not completely readable in the image page and takes some time to download. Has anyone an idea of how to reduce file size without loosing too much quality? franklin 02:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- The original file was 300-something megabytes. I compressed it down to 97 so that it could be uploaded to Commons. Kaldari (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- :-O franklin 18:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support: This is exeedingly large, but I'm assuming that it is fairly close to actual size, as the text is of a good size when maximised fully. I have not viewed the whole thing (I'm on the bottom end of broadband, for a start...) but what I have seen is good- hence the weak. It's clear that there isn't a better way to illustrate this map. J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - A wide panoramic view of Crib Goch, a notable arête en route to Mount Snowdon around the Snowdon Horseshoe in Snowdonia National Park, Wales. - Reason
- It's a detailed and aesthetically pleasing view of an interesting arête in Snowdonia National Park. The arête is formed when two glacier carve steep parallel valleys on either side. The climbers along the knive edged summit provide interest and scale. Unforunately, yes there are blown highlights in the clouds, but I don't think they're too distracting personally. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Crib Goch and Arête
- Creator
- User:Diliff
- Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful photo and has a lot of EV. I agree the blown highlights are minimal enough to ignore. Jujutacular T · C 18:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support I've heard of this (I think I watched a helicopter rescue from the top on youtube :D). Noodle snacks (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support, lovely shot. Looks like a lovely day for it too. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support, per above. Elekhh (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per se. franklin 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support – great shot, no obvious flaws. —Ynhockey (Talk) 01:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - You holiday everywhere!!! Nice for you to visit my part of the world, hope u enjoyed the visit... Oh yeah, pic's great, good EV and if anything the amount of clouds are a good representative of the weather in that area... Gazhiley (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- What can I say, I'm drawn to the hills, and they don't come much better than the Lake District and Snowdonia in the UK! Well, apart from the Scottish Highlands anyway - haven't had a chance to get up there. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great as usual. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - Pinnacles National Monument is located near the San Andreas Fault, which had a hand in creating the unique formations the Monument protects. The Pinnacles are part of the Neenach Volcano which erupted 23 million years ago near what is Lancaster, California today. The movement of the Pacific Plate along the San Andreas Fault split a section of rock off from the main body of the volcano and moved it 195 miles (314 km) to the northwest. - Reason
- EV
- Articles this image appears in
- Pinnacles National Monument
- Creator
- mbz1
- Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support: good EV, good technical quality, nice composition, interesting subject. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support definitely - good image --Herby talk thyme 17:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Durova386 01:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose the sky is not optimal. I don't know the place but the composition doesn't seems to be optimal either. Why to take so much of the hill on the left (applies to original and alternative 1) and not more of the pinnacles showing more of the dark volcanic rock? Maybe even a different direction or altitude can help. franklin 02:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose due to the awkward composition, especially the sky along with a bit unnecessary strong contrast in level. If you adjust the level, and then manipulate to increase the upper space (the blue sky) by clone-stamping, I'm willing to change my vote.--Caspian blue 19:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Added edit. Is it what you meant?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - Quiver tree ( Aloe dichotoma) in Namibia - Reason
- Good photograph. Peer reviewed.
- Articles this image appears in
- Aloe dichotoma
- Creator
- Original photograph: Le Grand Portage. Modified version: Fletcher
- Support as nominator --Snowman (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Peripitus (Talk) 01:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Saw this on PPR and thought it had good comp and enc. value. Fletcher (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Certainly makes one want to read more. Terri G (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support very nice. --Caspian blue 07:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support I said I would. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality and very attractive image of the historic Queenscliff Pier taken just before sunset. I was intrigued by the fishermen and their long poles as well when I took it and thought they added to the image, and a fishing-type friend informed me what they were doing; I believe it's a useful illustration of this technique as well so have included it in some fishing articles thus adding further EV.
- Articles this image appears in
- Queenscliff, Victoria, Jiggerpole, Jigging, Fishing techniques
- Creator
- jjron
- Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support: sharp, good lighting, good composition. Encyclopedic. Durova379 20:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per durova. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support - the photo is well done enough but I think the encyclopaedic value a bit wobbly. I think it works well in Queenscliff, but the appropriate subject matter is too small, and consequently lost in the image, for the fishing related pages. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Very nice image. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - The Sossusvlei in Namibia - Reason
- Seemed to be a very good image of the subject to me
- Articles this image appears in
- Sossusvlei, Namib Desert
- Creator
- Ikiwaner
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak
oppose support - The trees don't look crisp and the ones towards the left appear to be in motion blur. Maybe it's the heat effects of the desert due to the distant shot? And are you sure that's water? It looks like a drought to me :-/. ZooFari 01:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC) - You could be right on the water point. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. There's water underground here; that's why the trees and shrubs are growing. It isn't unusual in arid environments for the water to surface intermittently after heavy rain. Hard to say whether that's water; if I were guessing would estimate that the center depression is mud. The white deposit at the periphery looks like a thin playa. The basin has a smoother and less whitish tone, which suggests that it hasn't dried out completely. Durova379 21:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, but the caption in the article could be clarified. Maybe it's just "muddy" but who knows. ZooFari 01:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 Closeup of the Vlei's ground, not for vote *Support nice image and scenery.--Caspian blue 07:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC) - Support per nom. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. An area of the world underrepresented at FP, though having said which I was surprised by how many images there were on Commons of this area. --jjron (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm happy to see my picture nominated here. But why do you think there is mud or water? The Vlei is hard like concrete and even after years you don't see footprints. There were quite heavy winds so don't be surprised to see som motion blur or flying sand. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- That caption was wrong. This version is with water. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, changed to weak support. ZooFari 17:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Nominations older than 7 days - decision time! Nominations in this category are older than seven days and are soon to be closed. Votes will still be accepted until closing of the nomination. Please close nominations from the bottom up.
[edit] Older nominations requiring additional input from users These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.
[edit] Closing procedure When NOT promoted, perform the following: - Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
- {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
-
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} to the top of the section.
- Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the December archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
When promoted, perform the following: - Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
- {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~
-
- Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
-
- Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Add the image to Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
- Add the image to Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom.
- Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
- Don't forget to update the count too.
- Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian) - newest on top.
- The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
- Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
- Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{FeaturedPicture|image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/image_name).
- If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
- Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
- If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} to the top of the section.
- Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the December archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
[edit] Nominations for delisting | Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Please leave a note on the talk pages of the original creator/uploader and/or FPC nominator to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture. For delisting, if an image is listed here for about seven days with five or more opinions to delist or replace (including the nominator), and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Note, however, that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. - Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s.
Use the tool below to nominate for delisting. - Please use Keep, Delist, or Delist and Replace to summarise your opinion.
|
 Libration of the Moon promoted in 2005; higher res version was promoted last week - Reason
- A new version of this was promoted last week (File:Lunar libration with phase Oct 2007.gif) - higher res & quality. During the nom no one seemed to notice this existing version, however it seems unnecessary to feature both. Have already discussed this with the creator.
- Previous nomination/s
- Original nom: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Libration of the Moon
- Nominator
- jjron (talk)
- Delist — jjron (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delist agreed. upstateNYer 15:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delist per nom. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- By current standards, it's a fairly soft, blurry, noisy, and slightly low-res image, and you can hardly even discern from it the actual shape or structure of the globe that the plasma is in. As with most of our delisted images, it's clearly not awful, but I don't think it would ever pass these days, and that should really be what we need to ask ourselves with delistings. It's clearly used in a number of articles, but we're not debating the usefulness of the image, just its status as FP. We do also already have this video which I think is superior in illustrating the subject.
- Articles this image appears in
- Anisotropy, Potential energy, Plasma globe, Degree of ionization and Plasma (physics)
- Previous nomination/s
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plasma lamp
- Nominator
- Ðiliff «» (Talk)
- Delist — Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why? There is a better picture now? --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't about whether there is a better picture, although that would certainly be a good reason too and as I said, we have also featured this video which I would argue is more illustrative. The issue is mainly just about whether this image meets the current standards we expect of a FP now. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 Bald Eagle at Combe Martin Wildlife and Dinosaur Park, North Devon, England. - Reason
- Better image available: File:Haliaeetus leucocephalus LC0195 edit 1.jpg
- Articles this image appears in
- Bird of prey, Accipitridae, Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania
- Previous nomination/s
- Original nomination from 2004
- Nominator
- Samwb123T-C-@
 This is the better image available. This picture is of a bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) on a bird show on the castle Augustusburg, Germany.  Alt2: Different pose: featured on spanish Wiki. - Delist and Replace as nominator — Samwb123T-C-@ 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: proposed replacement is the same one recently proposed (and not approved) at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bald Eagle. One of the commenters in that debate suggested running this image as delist and replace, however. Chick Bowen 16:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose replacement We just voted on this. -- mcshadypl TC 00:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Added another option, with better pose. Elekhh (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. On the balance I actually prefer the existing version. Quality of original and proposed replacement is similar, but I have a slight preference to the composition in the original. Quality of Alt2 is lower, especially noisy and possible artifacting in the background, and scattered white blotches all over the bird (I think they may be water droplets, but they're not really clear enough to tell for sure). --jjron (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Delist closing procedure Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s. If consensus is to KEEP featured picture status, perform the following: - Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
- {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~
-
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
- Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Retained section of the archive.
- Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.
If consensus is to DELIST, perform the following: - Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
- {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~
-
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
- Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} page to the bottom of the Delisted section of the archive.
- Replace the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
- Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
- Decrement the count at the top of Wikipedia:Featured pictures.
If consensus is to REPLACE, perform the following: - Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
- {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
-
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
- Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Replaced section of the archive.
- Replace the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
- Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{FeaturedPicture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
- Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
- Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.
[edit] Recently closed nominations Nominations in this category have already been closed and are here for the purposes of closure review by FPC contributors. Please do not add any further comments or votes regarding the original nomination. Nominations will stay here for three days following closure and subsequently be removed.  Original - A panoramic view of Eastbourne, England as seen from the west on Beachy Head - Reason
- It's a pretty interesting and detailed view of this English seaside town from a good vantage point. It's not a perfect landscape panorama (the lighting is a bit flat due to the overcast day) and I know it would have been nice to have a clearer view without the trees and grass in the foreground, but trust me, this was the best possible view along the South Downs Way just outside of the town.
- Articles this image appears in
- Eastbourne
- Creator
- User:Diliff
- Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Nice caption. upstateNYer 21:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sue me. :-) Somehow missed that step. Fixed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Also uploaded new version of this image as I felt that, looking at it with fresh eyes, it was a touch overexposed and washed out. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Durova379 18:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very enc. view of the town. Question about the beach, those are docks that are usable when the tide comes in? Fletcher (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Good question, I've often wondered what the purpose of them is too, but they're not docks. A lot of other British beaches tend to have them - possibly to prevent erosion of the beach? I seem to notice them more on beaches with fairly steep inclines. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, they're groynes. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Word of the day, thanks. I didn't really think they were docks.... Get any good snaps of Beachy Head while you were there? It looks spectacular. Fletcher (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not Beachy Head, as it was difficult to get a good photo of it while standing on it, but I did take this one of the Seven Sisters cliffs a few miles further along the coast. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Very nice, sorry I missed that one earlier. Fletcher (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Eastbourne Panorama, England - May 2009.jpg --jjron (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - After the War a Medal and Maybe a Job, anti-World War I cartoon by John French Sloan, 1914. - Reason
- Period political cartoons can be effective at drawing readers into a subject. This depicts antiwar sentiment at the outset of World War I. Restored version of File:After the war a medal and maybe a job.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Opposition to World War I, John French Sloan
- Creator
- John French Sloan
- Support as nominator --Durova379 01:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Opposition to World War I needs work though. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great image. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support GerardM (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not convinced of the EV for this one: it's not clearly opposition to WWI, and in fact on the artist's page, near where this image appears, he is quoted as denying that he draws with a political subtext. Instead this article can be seen as a general commentary on the human condition. Or if it does have a subtext, it could be about the treatment of veterans or about social classes in capitalism, rather than opposition to the war as such. It does have EV for artist Sloan, but it's not clear this is among the most representative examples of his work, which the article identifies as a kind of realism similar to Hopper. Fletcher (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- What the article says is that he disliked overt propaganda. He published for various news periodicals and was quite active in politics. A distaste for polemics doesn't necessarily mean complete absence of political subtext. Durova379 22:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's true enough, but I stand by what I said that the subtext isn't clearly opposition to WWI. Fletcher (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would say that saying this is original research might technically be correct, but it's really streching the bounds of it. The cartoon is about a wounded soldier asking for money from a rich capitalist. I would say that it might be original research to say that it is a pro-Socialist cartoon, but I feel it is fairly evident that there is no way this could be a pro-war or even a neutral-war cartoon. Perhaps I misunderstood your point, what else could it possibly be? NW (Talk) 03:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm saying it would have just as much EV if not more in Criticism of capitalism. I'm saying that while one might suspect the author is anti-war, this particular cartoon addresses social classes rather than the war directly. I would think more topical antiwar cartoons were produced, some of which should be in the public domain. Fletcher (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support NW (Talk) 22:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:After the war a medal and maybe a job2.jpg --jjron (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- A high quality image displaying the subject as best as it possibly can be. Co-nom with Durova, who was a great help with some larger pieces of damage I found difficult. Restored version of this image.
- Articles this image appears in
- SMS Moltke (1910)
- Creator
- Harris & Ewing, restored by Staxringold and Durova
Not promoted - no quorum --jjron (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - Cover art for Vanity Fair magazine, June 1914. Scanned from the artist's orignal drawing in India ink, gouache, and watercolor over pencil. - Reason
- Occasionally we're lucky enough to get a scan from the artist's original design for a mass produced artwork. Cover art for the June 1914 issue of Vanity Fair magazine. Restored version of File:Vanity Fair June 1914b.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Vanity Fair (magazine), Ethel McClellan Plummer
- Creator
- Ethel McClellan Plummer
- Support as nominator --Durova379 18:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support This is the kind of picture that has the merits for a FP. A picture that I do not really care for but that really shows the breath of the selected material by Durova for the pictures she restores. GerardM (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support excellent. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good historical EV both for the magazine and artist.Fletcher (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Nice work. Good EV. Kaldari (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk)`
Promoted File:Vanity Fair June 1914b.jpg --jjron (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - A photograph of the North American by continent, taken via a NASA satellite in orthographic projection - Reason
- Easily on par with those of Ireland and Australia. Was nominated in 2008 and wasn't promoted. If this shouldn't be, then Australia should be delisted.
- Articles this image appears in
- North America, List of extinct languages of North America, List of North American countries by population density, Water export, World population
- Creator
- NASA
- Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Durova379 18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Tim1337 (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Surprised it didn't get more votes last time (whether support or opposes). Per nom. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Classic map of United States from grade school done by NASA satellites. Nice. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:North America satellite orthographic.jpg --jjron (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - People on Nias Island in Indonesia move a megalith to a construction site, circa 1915. - Reason
- Rare photograph of a megalith being moved to its initial installation. More information available here. Restored version of File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM 'Het verslepen van de steen 'Darodaro' voor de gestorven Saoenigeho van Bawamataloea Nias TMnr 10000952.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Nias, List of megalithic sites, Megalith
- Creator
- unknown
Promoted File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM 'Het verslepen van de steen 'Darodaro' voor de gestorven Saoenigeho van Bawamataloea Nias TMnr 1000095b.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - Red-browed Finch ( Neochmia temporalis), Cleland Wildlife Park, near Mount Lofty, Adelaide, South Australia. - Reason
- Good quality and (I think) well composed shot of this species. Shows the bird in a natural setting—although this is at a wildlife park this bird is not caged but was photographed in the open. All significant parts (colouring, beak shape etc..) are visible and in focus.
- Articles this image appears in
- Red-browed Finch
- Creator
- Peripitus
- Support as nominator --Peripitus (Talk) 00:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The back of the head and the "torso" are blurred. Is that bird real? It doesn't seem to have nostrils, does it? franklin 00:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The back of the bird is just at the limit of the depth-of-field but I don't see that this detracts from the image. As for the nostrils I cannot see any visible ones in any of the commons images - Peripitus (Talk) 00:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Good picture and high res, but the focus is too much in the front, leaving the back of the bird unsharp and melt into the background. Also the backround doesn't provide enough contrast, the most prominent element in the image being not the bird but the branch. Elekhh (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support. Focus is on the face where it should be (if a compromise has to be made); difficult angle. Durova379 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support GerardM (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC) nice clear picture
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- Nice picture of a striking, but little known, feature
- Articles this image appears in
- Notch Peak, House Range
- Creator
- QFL247
- Support as nominator --Qfl247 (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - A nicely composed quite good shot. Unfortunately the lighting is poor and there is a what seems a lot of haze. This has robbed the subject of colour, contrast, and hence wow. Look here for what it looks like at a better time of day. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree the first pic is hazy, but I don't agree the lighting is better in the pic you linked. As someone who has spent years in the area, the constant haze and angles the sun takes (north-facing feature) makes a picture of it challenging. What are your thoughts about the other two? It's such a unique and picturesque place, I feel obligated to promote it!--Qfl247 (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Have a look at the talk page. I've done a quick-and-dirty edit to show what could be done. With some judicious work the images could be much improved. In Alt 2 and Alt 3 I think that the main subject is rather overexposed - Peripitus (Talk) 23:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks --Qfl247 (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- A polarising filter would get rid of most of the haze. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't the haze basically aerial perspective? Circéus (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- You get more haze when you further away from something, which you tend to be from an aerial perspective. However that is not what haze is. Haze is caused by particles in the air. Mie Scattering gives a mathematical explination of what is going on. This has some information as to why a polariser is helpful under 1346 ("if the incident radiation is unpolarized then the scattered radiation exhibits partial polarization, with the degree of polarization depending on the angle of observation."). Noodle snacks (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose all The quality could be better. -- mcshadypl TC 00:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - Central Park Bridge (view from Bridlepath looking southwest), Gothic Arch, Spanning bridlepath south of tennis courts at north, New York City, New York County, NY - Reason
- It is a FP in Commons (nom here) the subject seems to be important as it is used as example of a view of Central Park and as architectural style. Personally I like that the subject is not presented in the usual way for Wikipedia. The subject is not isolated by the frame, or the color, or the DOF but by a tree that is also mimicking its shape. Thanks to Elekhh for bringing it to our attention. Note: I don't think the existence of this image limits in no way the other nomination of a picture of this bridge.
- Articles this image appears in
- Central Park, List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City
- Creator
- Jet Lowe
- Support as nominator -- franklin 05:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think that the tree is under exposure. --Xavigivax (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose This really isn't a picture of the bridge or a picture of the tree. It needs to illustrate something for it to have enc. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Well, I guess Lowe and I disagree on this point. It is just that it is a smart way of presenting the subject. It is true that the tree takes most of the picture but you simply can't look at it. The gaze is pulled to the bridge (and that's part of the brilliant composition). The other part is the fact that the shapes are related. I think (even if this picture doesn't get promoted) that more FP should try to introduce non common ways of presenting the subject. No for not being a frontal, or a trivial isolation of the subject (through color, or DOF or simply because there is nothing else in the picture) or a schematic picture is not giving all the elements of the bridge, its relation with is ambient or not catching the viewer's attention (and catching it to what is important). Against the first oppose I can't say nothing. It is possible that the tree is indeed underexposed. Maybe it was necessary to achieve the purpose of the picture but that much I don't know. franklin 11:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Also this picture was done for the Historic American Engineering Record. I think such a pictures would be precisely encyclopedic. They should show the subject such as it is, in a non misleading way. Usually architectural elements are or should have a nice relation to its environment . The fact that this tree is so related to this bridge makes it part of its architecture. Lowe has a name in this area, which doesn't imply he screwed up this one, but, at least, I (Mr. no one) don't see a mistake this time. franklin 11:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Just because it was taken by Jet Lowe for the HAER does not imply it has strong enc. As far as I can tell this was as well, and it really isn't useful for anything. Perhaps the image might find enc in Jet Lowe? The golden gate bridge image there is really not anything special (I prefer this image). Noodle snacks (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- What can I say? That image is indeed useful but is completely out of topic and context. When you are addressing a subject usually you take pictures that show it as a whole (if possible), in its context, and pictures to show relevant details. This picture is one of those and as a member of a collection or a sequence it is useful. It is just that is taken out of context. The one in the nomination is one that shows the subject as a whole, even more, integrated to its environment. That tree is part of the bridge (its architecture) in some sense and is there as a necessary element of the bridge and also as a resource for isolating the subject of the photograph.
-
-
-
- I agree this picture is not as good as it could be. The bridge can be more in focus for instance. But my main interest with this nomination was to assess the current opinion of the reviewers on FPs having a slightly different approach. Right now most of the user-created FPs are a display of technical skills. It would be good (I think) if on top of that more FPs come with the extra value of some more elaboration from the part of the photographer. How to say this? For instance, for this bridge a picture could have been taken right in front of it close enough to not risking missing any detail, the plain an simple portrait of the bridge. Instead the photographer decided for his own view. A personal intension and reflexion is leaved in the creation. Such a thing (if it doesn't go as far a misrepresenting the subject) I think is very desirable for a FP. That's why I wanted to encourage the picture makers do try this and to see how ready are the reviewers to start having nominations of this nature. franklin 01:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Noodlesnacks. -- mcshadypl TC 00:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Suspended nominations This section is for Featured Picture (or delisting) candidacies whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.  This paper clip which was under the water level, has risen gently and smoothly. Surface tension prevents the paper clip from submerging and from overflowing the blue glass. - Reason
- This image sole use in an article is in surface tension. Its use there is being challenged since the water doesn't look like water but like rubber. I have been reverting its deletion from that article mainly on the basis that is a FP and that the creator affirms that surface is water and looks like that because is refracting the blue of the glass. I don't think I am right when reverting on the basis that it is an FP alone and it is true that it doesn't look like water. If that issue gets reassessed I will fill with more reasons to revert its deletion from the article. If it gets replaced by a better image even better.
- Articles this image appears in
- surface tension
- Previous nomination/s
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Paper Clip Surface Tension 1.jpg
- Nominator
- franklin
- Delist
and Replace — franklin 13:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC) - Replace with what? For a delist and replace you need to identify the proposed replacement. --jjron (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Oh, I see. I was trying to show my encouragement to photographers to produce a replacement. What is FWIW? Never managed to guess the meaning of this acronym. (the people in the talk page are noticed already if that is what you meant) franklin 13:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- I always read it as "for what it's worth". This page also lists "for whoever is wondering". J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, 'for what it's worth'; in other words, it may or may not be relevant to this discussion, depending on who you ask :-). --jjron (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- FYI (For Your Information - sorry, another acronym) Franklin, there's nothing to stop someone from removing a FP from an article. It would be frowned upon if it was removed just to make way for another lousy image, but if there are genuine reasons, the fact that it's a FP should not be a factor. So I don't think this delist is necessary if the purpose (as per the surface tension talk page) was simply to remove it from the article. But as you also say, Surface tension is the only article that it illustrates currently so if it were removed and another appropriate home for it could not be found, it would also become ineligible to be a FP and the delist nom would have a much stronger case. As for my opinion, I'd vote to Keep it, unless consensus is that it be removed from the article. I don't think it does such a poor job of illustrating the subject, and while I agree that it looks somewhat like a membrane, that is sort of what surface tension creates, does it not? It sounds like the fault is perhaps the clarity of the caption, rather than the image itself. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Info The image has been removed again (not by me) then the nomination makes sense, I guess!? franklin 14:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sort of. I raised my objections to the removal on the talk page there. No conclusion has really been reached on the subject yet. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Suspended until consensus in Surface tension's article's talk page about its removal from the article. franklin 16:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 Original - Balinese dancers wearing elaborate headgear, photographed in 1929. - Reason
- High resolution period portrait of dancers in traditional costume. Restored version of File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Portert van twee jonge Balinese danseressen TMnr 10004678.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Bali, Headgear, Balinese dance
- Creator
- unknown
- Support as nominator --Durova379 22:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not enough EV IMO, and I don't feel convinced with the restoration. Since you've completely manipulated the background, I feel that a better job could have been done to make the tones as even as possible. I'm specifically talking about the left portion next to the girl's arm. I also see some smudges that were not visible in the original (if you'd like, I could leave some image notes on Commons). ZooFari 01:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Question What advantage does this offer over a contemporary (and colour) photograph? I've seen holiday snapshots that look quite similar. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- As per Gerard, a period piece offers a more authentic image. A guy dressed up as Napoleon may match the costume to near perfection, but it's not the same as a picture of Napoleon. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- I'm not entirely sure that the analogy works - Napoleon is a historical figure, these girls are not (and I don't think the costume has changed a great deal). GeraldM does make a fair point about the ear piercing though as far as a cursory look around can tell me. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Ok, so don't use Napoleon. An authentic Mayan [insert object] is likely worth tens of thousands of dollars while a reproduction, even if made from precisely the same materials, to the same pattern, etc, etc is likely worth little more than the cost of materials. Why? The history itself provides value. A print made by Ansel Adams will always be more valuable than one made from his negatives by someone else, even if they think they've matched it perfectly. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Would you be willing to keep an open mind regarding the encyclopedic value? This image was one of six that the Tropenmuseum curators selected per a request that they choose material of great importance. The six files arrived last Friday with my first cup of coffee, which due to time zone differences was nearly the end of the business week in Amsterdam. They did not include the reasons for their selections. Last night I emailed the museum with a request for information. Received an auto reply from their media liaison which seems to say (if I can make sense of Dutch cognates) that she has taken the day off. The encyclopedic value of this image seemed good enough to nominate without better information, but more will probably be forthcoming soon. Please be patient. Durova380 17:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- (on Staxringold's) I would like to add to that comment that the use of "history", IMO, should be understood as some value added by some extra information known about the subject, e.g., inn the examples provided, knowing it is really a Mayan thing or knowing it is a Ansel Adams' and not only the date. We do need the info that the museum is going to provide. franklin 01:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- FYI our contact person is out of the office untill Wednesday.. GerardM (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. a picture requested to restore by the Tropenmuseum. Shows the young age of the dancers when Balinese dances were not yet a tourist attraction. Also have a look at the ears of the girl.. another thing you do not see any more. GerardM (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support There are a lot of advantages to a contemporary, colour picture (the costumes are colourful). But per myself above. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support I'm not convinced with the argument that a color image of the same subject could be easily obtained, so the black and white image has less values than color photos. If we already have such image, please present to here. I searched for a free image of Balinese dancers in high quality at Flickr, but well, could not get one. Of course, color images of the luxurious gold headgear or costume would be very nice if we can get them, but I don't agree with the notion that a black and white photo has less values depicting the same subject. The photo captures its own nice mood, and I actually prefer more dramatic manipulation in the level. One thing that gives me curious is that the girls look very young as compared with Bali dancers commonly found in the present. If any editors knowledgeable of Bali culture or Indonesian culture tell us about any possible changes on the dancers' costume, and activity through time, that would be very nice though.--Caspian blue 07:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- My mum has dozens of photos of them from her last trip there. They are not of high quality, but they are extremely easy to obtain. Some of the photos have dancers of a similar (young) age. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose for dancers a different crop is needed. This looks like they are riding an elephant or sitting. franklin 14:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but a crop is what you do to a picture... the original picture has not been cropped. GerardM (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks very much. The word should be the one for when you decide when taking the picture. Composition maybe? Let me try again. For dancers a different composition is needed. This looks like they are riding an elephant or sitting. franklin 19:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Gerard. 22:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Votes must be signed to be counted. --jjron (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- That was me[5]; sorry about that. NW (Talk) 04:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- adding to my vote: limited EV in both articles in which it is used. In Bali it is competing(with respect to information provided[not necessarily in quality]) with a similar image. Would like to hear more about the museum claim for restoration. So far, from what is said doesn't seems to be a reason to claim EV. About the time, and black and white topic: I see the value of dated items as showing lost values. This image is showing Balinese dancers in some sort of traditional costumes but, is it showing Balinese dancers in 1929 as opposed to what dancers wear (or can wear) now? Is it 1929 specifically important year for the dance in Bali or for this kind of costumes? Are these two specific dancers important in some sense? If none of these has a strong Yes as answer then how is the EV claim supported? The preference for a 1929 picture has to be like the difference between a picture of a newly invented shirt or a shirt that is no longer used as opposed to a picture of a tie in 1929 that is equal to one in 2009 but only old. Where this costumes started to be used in that year? Maybe the people of the museum can answer some of these. The placement of the picture in headgear and in bali is very resent. Although it looks very well there (for headgear only) it is not very clear yet whether it will last. franklin 00:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- comment A little of (maybe original) research, shows that hands are a key part in the Balinese traditional dance (see Balinese dance and these are not shown in the picture making the choices of the photographer not so happy ones. On the other hand, the dancers are young and this is emphasized by the third article (newly added) and shown by the image (OR here too or at least using Wikipedia as source). franklin 02:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Had expected a reply from the Tropenmuseum staff by now. No further explanation for the selection has yet been forthcoming, although they chose this specifically per a request for high ev material. Perhaps suspend the nomination pending further information? Durova382 01:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Suspended pending further information. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC) - Comment. Bali's culture is now, for better or worse, influenced by the needs of representing it to the tourist industry, an industry that only really got started in the 1930s. (See Adrian Vickers, Bali: a Paradise Created for further reading). Voters interested in the EV this image may or may not have should take this into account. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- 576 × 461 pixels, file size: 175 KB. Encyclopedic, but not even close to minimum on the technical side. A 2005 nomination that may have been the site's best back then, but just isn't up to par anymore.
- Previous nomination/s
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bison skull pile, ca1870.png, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Bison skull pile, ca1870.png
- Nominator
- Durova351
- Delist — Durova351 05:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delist Fails current criteria, by a long shot. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 07:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delist I remember this being used recently as an example of where historical value trumps dimensions. That's a bad lesson to be teaching people, interesting image but way below standards. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Weak) Keep I tend to agree with the arguments put forth in the previous delist attempt--historical value trumps the size in this case. The information is conveyed acceptably. Cowtowner 05:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- The previous delist attempt was two and a half years ago. It's been a very long time since editors have promoted a nomination with technical shortcomings as severe as this (been a regular since late 2007 and can't recall it once). No one is suggesting deleting the image from the project, but if this were a new FPC nomination it would probably be speedily closed. This simply isn't Wikipedia's best content. Not by a longshot. Durova352 15:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I completely and utterly agree with this sentiment. This is just too awful to be a FP, despite its EV. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, if someone ever finds an image to better represent such an important period in the history of the American bison, or human factors causing endangered species then I will vote to replace this image with that. As of now this is what we have and historical value does trump dimensions. If it didn't then we would have no old photos because their dimensions are usually resultant from scan quality and not the original image. This image is incredibly striking and is one of the few images of this size that deserve to be featured. An image like this is better quality but just doesn't have the same effect of scale. gren グレン 15:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- To a degree you are correct, but I thought it was a pile or rocks before reading the caption, it's that bad. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 23:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- While I can appreciate the sentiment, the caption is there for that reason; the same could likely be said about a number of other FPs. I've also changed my earlier vote to a weak support. Cowtowner (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delist It's not the size, it's the detail. I certainly can't tell that those are bison skulls. We can make exceptions for historic images, but this is too far below the standards for an exception. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- keep I am against delisting in the first place .,, it is like rerwriting history. GerardM (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Then you should abstain, as your voting skews the process. I don't think "I don't like the process" holds up that well anyways. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delist. I really don't see why everyone is so mad about this picture. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delist The poor quality image is unrecognizable without the caption. Featured pictures means worthy pictures themselves, not have to resort to the one line of "caption", but the picture is far away from that standard. --21:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Edit history says this ^ ^ ^ was Caspian blue voting.
- Delist for poor image quality. However I would consider it for a Valued Picture nomination. Is there a straightforeward process of transfer from WP:FP to WP:VPICS? Elekhh (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Touchy subject. upstateNYer 03:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - you can't retake this and there were no "megapixels" in 1870s for anyone to complain about them.--Avala (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Weak keep The wow factor has me, but not fully. upstateNYer 03:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Gren. A rare monument to such an abject human folly, it blows me away every time I see it. Would a bigger version have any more impact? No. Unique, striking, poignant, encyclopedic and irreplaceable. Keep. mikaultalk 21:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think is reasonable to assume that a better version would have more impact. One has to admit that at 250px as it appears in the articles is not recognisable that those are skulls. And even a zoom to max size is very unclear. Certainly is a great image, but its visual quality is very low. Elekhh (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Please leave a note on the talk pages of the original creator/uploader and/or FPC nominator to let them know the delisting is being debated." Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- The original uploader has not edited since 2005.[6] The original nominator has made fewer than 100 edits in 2009, most of which were in January.[7] Will notify the latter. Durova357 03:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. It's more procedural than anything. With a close nom like this, I prefer to see everything go by the book. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. Should've thought of that myself. Thanks for the catch. :) Durova357 18:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Mikaul, et al. If there's a comparable higher quality version I would be happy to support a replace, but until then this looks irreplaceable, and huge EV. There seems little reason to shuffle this sort of stuff out of FP, when things with a fraction of the EV are still going in just because they're big. --jjron (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per above. --Muhammad(talk) 15:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delist. I am going to make the assumption that this photograph is essentially irreplaceable for what it represents - photography in the field was still rare in the 1860s and 1870s, and in frontier country even more so. There are not likely to be very many any photographs that illustrate large piles of dead buffalo in this way, at least not that have survived and are accessible publicly. I also assert that this has very high EV in the sections of the articles it illustrates - it shows the deliberate extermination of a species in a very clear and visible way. It also is a powerful image that has an effect on many viewers. Despite this, it should be delisted. Some things that are amazing just simply can't be featured pictures, and this is one of them. It is a particularly bad photograph in almost every respect except for its notable subject, even for a photo taken in the early 1870s - it is not due to technical limitations of photography at the time that this is bad. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Keep On one hand this is an immensely irreplaceable image and overwhelming EV, on the other it's a horrible resolution. Presumably the original for this scan still exists, if only it could be tracked down and digitized by today's standards. I'm still in favor of keeping these historic images around, do we even remotely have anything better to illustrate the bison slaughter during this time? — raeky (talk | edits) 07:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Screw the idiotic size guidelines, if a picture has high EV and is irreplaceable which this is then there is no good reason to delist it and those who want to delist this should really go through the archives and see the spirit of the older days of FPC and if they can't then in my opinion they should stop coming to this page. Cat-five - talk 05:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. For reasons given. I also like that it's inspiring. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- That's blatant OR to connect the two images. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 15:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean? It's not my opinion that the artwork I linked to was inspired by the bison skull photo, it says so under the picture. To quote: "This piece is inspired by the famous photograph from the 1870's of the great American bison slaughter." Anyway, I would have voted keep having never see the artwork. --Silversmith Hewwo 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The outcome of this discussion will have consequences for future featured pictures. Do those in support think that we should abolish all size and quality requirements for FPC, for images we don't think we can find another example of? Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't that how it already is? — raeky (talk | edits) 01:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Only for images that are already featured. Durova364 01:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Compare this alleged Featured Picture above with these images, all from 1860-1870; File:Panorama of Edo bw.jpg, File:Atlanta roundhouse ruin3.jpg, File:George Atzerodt2.jpg, File:Train station with train and coal depot by Gustave Le Gray2.jpg (most likely 1850s and represents the artistic intent of the creator), File:DutchGapb.jpg, and for reference what was possible in 1838 at the birth of photography: File:Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre.jpg.
- We have some reasonably bad quality images File:Buffalo soldiers1.jpg, File:Conf dead chancellorsville edit1.jpg, File:GoldenSpikev3.jpg, File:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg The first I would nominate for delisting, the second has been nominated and encountered the same arguments as are presented here (despite the fact that it is an poor piece of Civil War era photography, the third is of questionable FP status and should be delisted, and the last we give up quality requirements because its value is in representing what a first photograph is, not in its pictorial representation of the buildings. This image File:Cicatrices de flagellation sur un esclave.jpg is perhaps the closest to the one in question here - low image quality, but essentially irreplaceable and of high value for a number of reasons. I might be a hypocrite, but I think that one should be kept, and Buffalo Pile delisted.
- And just this week I nominated File:Pale Blue Dot.png, which is of low quality, but is both at the limit of technology available (no better image will be able to be produced of the Earth as seen from outside the Solar System for at least two decades) and represents its subject in an important way because of its low quality, not in spite of it. Low quality does nothing to improve our understanding of dead buffalo. I would also gladly support this if a suitably licensed version became available, because it represents the best available for the time. (I might just email them and ask them to license it under GFDL or CC). Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also I would like to thank Durova. Looking through our historic images it becomes obvious just how many have been restored and nominated by her, and how she has improved Wikipedia and established what should be a historic featured picture. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's great that libraries are digitizing their old works, but some things just either are not digitized yet, may never be, or lost, or not publicly available anymore. There has to be exceptions for historically unique and irreplaceable images that just ooze EV to be nominated. The example recently is pictures of the Kaaba, and for that matter any good image inside a Islamic mosque. Due to their religion banning cameras/photos anything of good quality would be near impossible for some of these holy sites. Why should they be excluded from FP status? — raeky (talk | edits) 02:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Many thanks to Mostlyharmless for the kind words. Since doing the buffalo soldiers restoration my skills have improved a bit and it might be possible to get a better edit out of that material, if it were up for delisting (have a very full plate with new work so haven't tried). Raeky, one of the main reasons I try to delist images such as this one is because we've got free culture volunteers talking to the great libraries. This is one of the images that stands in the way of our credibility as a project. It's cheaper and easier for institutions to rush off a mediocre job like this than to emulate the really high quality work the Library of Congress is doing. Access to historic media isn't a passive matter; increasingly we have to talk to institutions and do outreach and persuade them to digitize at a high standard. Do you want this image to convey "good enough"? Because we have to either direct away from the galleries where this sort of image appears, or else run the risk that this is as high as they aim. Durova364 04:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- You do have a point, but I doubt this one image will convince a library to JUST provide just small resolution images. I'd really like to replace this image with ANYTHING better that portrays the slaughter of the bison like this. I'm _sure_ the LOC has an image somewhere, probably not digitized yet. But anything that can show the tens of thousands of bison that was killed during this time would replace this. Sadly I think this is all we got that conveys the numbers. Thats why I don't fully support delisting it. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- There may not be anything, ever. This may be all we ever get. For many things there is precious little that can be found to illustrate them, and many articles will never get illustrations. Others will have very poor quality illustrations, because no high quality illustration was ever made. That is the way things are, unfortunately, but simply being the only illustration of something is not a free pass, otherwise we would have thousands of poor quality "featured pictures" representing "Wikipedia's best work" It has been my understanding (and I have assumed of others), that lower quality can be accepted where there are very strong reasons for it, and that lower image quality can be accepted for particularly historic images (although here we can expect that drawing, painting and other forms of illustration are given precedence as the high quality standards of their time), but that image quality is always taken into consideration. In the case of this delist, it seems to have been ignored entirely, and that arguments for keeping consist of asking users to ignore it. In practice it is expected of newly nominated historic images, but there is an inconsistency with older images such as this and the delist mentioned above, something I would suggest can be explained as loss aversion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Where does it say that new images of lower quality can't be nominated if there is nothing better to be found. Both rule #1 and #2 have those exceptions. So where do you get that only "already featured" part? — raeky (talk | edits) 02:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Is this only me thinking that how come several editors who are not WP:FPC regulars found the delist request and visit the page to support to keep the image?--Caspian blue 06:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Cowtowner, Grenavitar, GerardM, Avala, UpstateNYer, Mikaul, jjron, Muhammed, Raeky, Silversmith have all voted on this page to keep. I respect the right of every one of those participants to do so, and consider their opinions on this image sincere (even if I hope to change their minds). I don't think that is a fair statement - they all participate regularly at various times and should not have their participation questioned. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I know that most of them you're referring to are regulars, but I did talk about non-regulars. I said it because I felt odd for people who just came to oppose the delisting. Your comment is rather harsh.--Caspian blue 06:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I knew I should have checked - I missed Cat Five. Cat Five has just the same right to an opinion as any other. I thought your vague assertion of bad-faith voting (I'm not sure how else you'd like us to read your comment) was quite uncalled for. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I did not name names unlike you just to disagree with me. Moreover, don't you think that your comment is "bad-faithing" on my question? --Caspian blue 07:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure there's quite a few lurkers that don't have occasion to voice an opinion on nominations or delists, except when they feel strongly about something. If your suggesting someone is trolling to get votes here maliciously, I highly doubt that. As for this image, I'm only weekly supporting keep, but I'd be more inclined to delist this and have it voted as a VP. The quality is awful no doubt. But this particular subject enlists deep feelings in me, such a massive amount of these animals was killed in a very short period of time. This image speaks volumes to the damage man can do to an ecosystem or organism. I just wish we had a better version of it. — raeky (talk | edits) 07:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm..I did not insinuate that somebody is trolling here, so no thanks for the hyperbole and accusation. I just find the image very lower in quality than other images that meet the FP criteria. That can give false impressions that any historical image can be FP regardless of the quality and size. However, I see now that why people want to keep the image, "ecosystem" although I'm not persuaded by the rationales because the white objects are not recognizable without the caption.--Caspian blue 07:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Even if the picture was clear as day you would still need a caption to know what the skulls were since the average person can't easily distinguish one animal skull from another. Also, it is amazing to discover what looks like a pile of rocks is actually skulls IMO. --Silversmith Hewwo 23:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delist per Durova. Yes, the picture is valuable, but the quality of _this particular reproduction_ is bad. The remedy is to find a better-quality copy of the photo and do a competent scan of it. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- And if that can't be done? — raeky (talk | edits) 01:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Then we accept that we have no featured picture for that subject. It's what we normally do. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the actual image, they will scan it for you for a fee... if someone wants to pay them to get a high res version of this picture. lol. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's interesting, I live nearby that museum (relatively). I doubt I could negotiate a free scan though =(. Cowtowner (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have written the library that has the original print and requested a better version. They replied that the request is being forwarded to another person's attention and should receive a decision next week. Durova369 20:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- That would be amazing if we could get a higher quality version of this photograph. — raeky (talk | edits) 09:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- It could equally be terrible - if we simply get a larger copy of what is still a poor quality image from the time, and everyone simply votes "keep cause it's larger". I hope that doesn't happen. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Suspended pending results of Durova's request to library. --jjron (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC) -
-
-
- Received a reply a few days ago. They seemed willing to donate a higher resolution image. Replied promptly, but no followup yet. Delays might be due to the holidays (not sure). Durova383 05:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
|
.jpg)
![[4]](http://worldofstereoviews.com/images/ww/evenmoreww999998.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
