Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

• For promoted entries, add {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} to the bottom of the entry, replacing FILENAME.JPG with the file that was promoted.
• For entries not promoted, add {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} to the bottom of the entry.
• Do NOT put any other information inside the template. It should be copied and pasted exactly, and only the first one should have FILENAME.JPG replaced with the actual filename.

[edit] 1937 American League All-Stars

Original - Seven of the American League's 1937 All-Star players, from left to right Lou Gehrig, Joe Cronin, Bill Dickey, Joe DiMaggio, Charlie Gehringer, Jimmie Foxx, and Hank Greenberg. All seven would eventually be elected to the Hall of Fame.

Reason

A high quality and resolution image of SEVEN Hall of Famers on a single All-Star roster. And that's not even counting Rick Ferrell, Earl Averill, and Lefty Grove (another 3 AL HoFs on that team not pictured). And another eight on the National League team. This was a really good All-Star Game, talent wise.

Articles this image appears in

1937 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, Major League Baseball All-Star Game#History of player selection methods, Griffith Stadium

Creator

Harris & Ewing (original), restored version from this version by User:Staxringold

• Support as nominator --Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Composition issues, notably the person walking in the field to the right and the fact that the players seem to be focusing on something else. My vote could be colored by my view that baseball is pathetic, but the image still has issues.   Nezzadar ☎   16:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1.

• Support edit 1. Put about eight hours of work into that tweak. Most of which probably doesn't show up unless you view it at 200% resolution. ;) And Nezzadar, it's impossible to reshoot this so small flaws in composition aren't such a big deal as they'd be in a shot of this year's all star team. Durova³⁴⁰ 05:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for that Durova, looks great! Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support edit1 (though the original is great as well). High EV and high quality. NW (Talk) 20:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 This is a great encyclopedic image. Outstanding. ~ Arjun 20:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support edit 1, per above. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:1937 all stars crop FINAL2.jpg --ZooFari^Boo! 05:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blind man carrying a paralyzed man on his back

Original - Disabled men ca. 1889

Reason

A photo from the Levant ca. 1889, It sheds light on the life of disabled people during that period of time.

Articles this image appears in

Disability removed by   Nezzadar ☎   removed by Kaldari

Creator

Tancrède Dumas, Restoration by Banzoo

• Support as nominator --Banzoo (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This, aside from being insulting to the disabled, his just about no EV on the one article it appears on. If you were to remove the image, the article might actually improve, as the image is distracting. The image also suffers from compostition issues, such as the fact that it is exceedingly blurry, and has no clear focal point at all. Is it the face of the paralyzed man, because that seems the crispest part, but it has blur too.   Nezzadar ☎   22:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think when you assert that by showing a picture of a disabled is "insulting to the disabled" people can be understood as an insulting suggestion by itself. It's somewhat surprising to see the article about disability avoiding to show any disabled person in photos. About the blur you are referring to, it's an albumen print, whose quality degrades over time. So I suppose for albumen prints that old, you would not expect better quality if not preserved correctly. --Banzoo (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't get it do you? This image was designed to humiliate the disabled. Why else would they be in those poses, which are entirely un-normal. Much like the concept of "midget tossing" people tend to ignore the cruelty of something if it can be precieved as "funny." Want a picture of the disabled, get an image from the special olymics, they tend to be high quality, free licence, and depict people in normal pursuits, not this. To imply that I am being insensitive is, for lack of a better term, shallow and stupid. You offend me by both submitting this and questioning my intentions. I don't stand idle when people are being attacked, and I see this image as a blatant attack on the disabled.   Nezzadar ☎   04:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Here is a photo that can be put on disabled that isn't morally wrong.

I didn't expect to be offended that many times in one discussion, for this reason, I would prefer to continue a less aggressive discussion in a more civilized way. Thank you for calling me "shallow and stupid", this shows clearly how you "don't stand when people are being attacked" excluding when you are the one attacking people! You think it's all right for you to question my intentions, while showing your one sided intentions as the only ones that can hold? Anyway, the paralympics is a good picture, yet it doesn't provide a complete picture behind the life of the disabled, throughout history and different cultures. I don't think you understand the photo, they were not just posing for the photo, rather they live and take care of each other this way. I do not believe that anyone with clear mind would perceive such photo as "funny". Thank you. --Banzoo (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

See my posting below in "update."   Nezzadar ☎   07:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not for voting - an example of a photo of the disabled that is not insensitive, insulting, degrading, or otherwise inappropriate for modern society. --  Nezzadar ☎  

Would you include your signature in the caption of the photo you posted, so that it wont be understood as it is being submitted by the nominator.--Banzoo (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No need, I said it was not for voting, and said that I posted the image. That is all that is required.   Nezzadar ☎   16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a signature should be present (I added it manually), especially when you are including judgments and your own personal opinion in the caption.--Banzoo (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, encyclopedic value concerns. –blurpeace ^(talk) 01:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible if you elaborate more those concerns?--Banzoo (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• The file is only used in one article, with no direct relevance to the text. –blurpeace ^(talk) 22:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with this. The image is very disconnected from the article. On the other hand I want to make some observations that should not be taken into account because I am not an expert. I will say them with the hope of catching an expert's attention willing to do/say something. I think that the potential of the picture is very underused. Clearly it shows an interesting symbiotic colaboration between a blind (so they say) person and a paralytic (they say so) person. There are other things that I believe I can see there too. The one that is blind has also polydactyly (although not well shown) some of the fingers are clearly over grown and for sure that has some technical name and hopefully an article in wikipedia. The guy that is paralytic has the facial features of a person with William's syndrome (here the expert has to say if it is really true). Of course, if the picture is going to be added to the William's syndrome article (which needs images) it better be a crop showing only the face of the guy that is paralytic. If it is going to show polydactyly it better be a crop of the hand of the guy that is blind. All of this only if a person really knowing does it. For the moment I support the oppose since I also think the article in which it is right now doesn't need this image right now. Of course, some editing of the article can solve that. ;)  Franklin.vp  23:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Question Why was the albumen print grayscaled? Also, the edit notes are insufficient.

Durova³³⁹ 02:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a color photograph, there is no relevant reason to keep the original tone. How much details should be included in the edit notes? Including the original photo is not enough for comparison? I would value your comments, as I am not an expert like you in restoring old photographs.--Banzoo (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

An Argentine gaucho, 1868. Albumen print with colors hand-balanced and partial desaturation.

Tancrède Dumas worked in albumen; another medium that was in popular use during the same time was glass plate photography. The latter is naturally grayscaled so absolutely desaturating a Dumas could mislead casual viewers about which medium this is. I've had better results hand-adjusting the colors and supplementing that with partial desaturation. Viewers usually react better when a little warmth remains in the tone--more humanizing--even if on pure technicals your decision holds together. If you've saved an intermediate edit before the grayscaling and histogram changes then I'd be glad to give it a look. And regarding edit notes, the following is an example. Durova³⁴⁰ 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fully restored version of File:Kenyon Cox nude study.jpg. Cropped. Dirt, stains, and smudges removed. Variances in brightness and saturation corrected. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced. See also File:Kenyon Cox nude study1.tif (partial restoration) and File:Kenyon Cox nude study2.tif (full restoration, uncompressed).

Oops! I didn't know that, I'm pretty much a beginner apparently, I started the restoration after grayscaling the image :-(. Is there no way to recapture the original tone from the actual restored image? Do you have some wiki-page with some guidelines on restoring old photographs, that would help beginners like me.--Banzoo (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I did a little starter guide at Wikiversity a while ago. If you'd like coaching email me for my Skype ID. It's a good client for collaborative media editing. Durova³⁴² 02:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Update This image is no longer in any articles. An image of the Paralympics has been installed in its place as it adds more EV to the article.   Nezzadar ☎   05:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article can have place for both photos. Or is it irrelevant to show anything in the era before the paralymics.--Banzoo (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The only place this could possibly have a legitimate contribution would be an article on the historic abuse of the disabled. This image shows nothing else. An image like this has no place outside of /b/. Yes I said it. It is of that low caliber of useless crud. I wasn't going to be that explicit, but since you keep pushing, I might as well speak my mind.   Nezzadar ☎   07:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also there is nothing natural about the photo. It is clear from the composition that the photo is staged. This raises serious concerns about what actually occurs off camera.   Nezzadar ☎   07:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not good manners in the middle of a nomination. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• On Nezzadar's Behavior I have to say I am strongly against Nezzadar's behavior here. Why should it be introduced so much prejudice in the evaluation of a picture? Is it possible avoid involving subjective perceptions in such a strong manner? In my opinion this picture is not offensive in the least of the ways. It shows disable men helping each other. I don't see much difference between this an a picture of a blind man and a Lazarillo dog. I am not claiming on the other hand the picture having value. I simply don't have opinion about this. For eons disable people have used aides in many ingenious ways, dogs, walking sticks, wheel chairs, Lazarillos... It is actually nice that in this case what is happening is collaboration between two human beings. Somethings that is needing this discussion. I encourage the next reviewers to try to avoid seeing the picture in the eyes of the previous discussion. Franklin.vp  13:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with you. It's a historical image. There are many articles and images with offensive subjects to modern society, but that should have absolutely no bearing on featuring them (or not) for their historic value, because we recognise that standards have changed. It's like not allowing education about the Holocaust because genocide is offensive, or Apartheid becuse racism is offensive. It happened, it was documented, and we can learn from it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    • If you want to put the image back in, that's fine, that's what consensus is for, but at least address my comment that it should be put in context, i.e. in a section on the history of the quality of life of disabled people. I might have acted harshly, but it is out of a genuine belief that this image is staged and is in bad taste.   Nezzadar ☎   16:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
      • It looks like it already is back in. I completely agree that it should in better context in the article though, but I don't think that anyone is going to assume that it's how disabled people are typically treated in this age. Having said that, I don't know for sure if that isn't realistic in many other parts of the world, where there are no social services and families can't or won't look after their disabled. Remember that Wiki should encompass a world-view, not just disability as it relates to prosperous western countries. What makes you so certain that it was staged? It might be a posed portrait, but there's nothing to suggest that they took two different disabled people and pretended it was their reality... It's possible, but you're making a pretty rash assumption without any basis IMO. The fact that the person on the right is held in position by a strap suggests that he was carried in that way, whether by the blind man, or someone else. It's not a stretch of the imagination to say that perhaps the blind person was directed by the physically disabled but alert and well-sighted person. That doesn't sound offensive to me, it sounds like a cooperation. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Historic depictions of difficult subjects are often ambiguous. We don't really know whether Dumas's intention was exploitive or sympathetic and the intentions of the subjects are also unknown. The actual attitudes could be surprising to twenty-first century sensibilities, but parallel examples would be digressive. It might possibly be that Banzoo's decision to grayscale the image--which is technically valid but conveys emotional connotations of coldness--inadvertently touched off a strong reaction in one reviewer. Let's chalk that up to the power of photography in the hands of a master artist. Restoration is a difficult task and the learning curve can be bumpy. as I well know Durova³⁴² 18:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I just don't see any EV here. What exactly is it illustrating? If it's just illustrating disabled people, we have plenty of images on Commons that would work better (i.e. are more up to date). There's nothing in the article discussing life for disabled people in the 1800s, or anything related to this image specifically. Without better context, the use of the image in this article is also a bit shocking. It would be like using an image of concentration camp victims as a generic illustration for the article Jewish people. Yes, they are Jewish, but we should use more generic images to illustrate generic topics, not the most extreme images available. Kaldari (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with the poor use of the image in the article. Now (and please read my first post above not to have to repeat it here) there are reasons why this image is quite interesting. And just removing it is a loss. It would be better to expand the article instead and also use the image in more places, if valid. The point in which I disagree with you is in the unhappy example of the concentration camp. In this picture these two men are not morally, or physically degraded (at least not beyond their own medical conditions). Well, I am wrong. There is one exception. They are wearing rags but well, the image is old and they are from Lebanon (I guess, or some other poor country), although even this kind of misfortune (poverty) can be seen even in richer countries. My goal is not to make you change the nature of your vote, which I think it is essentially correct, but to change a little the reasons for more constructive ones.  Franklin.vp  19:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • If a section on "history" or "disability and poverty" were added to the article, I would probably change my vote, but as it stands, I just don't think the image is appropriate in the article. Kaldari (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Just...no. Per Nezzadar. -- mcshadypl ^TC 21:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't think it's fair for me to place this vote. I am offended by the picture and the fact that this is being used to represent disabled individuals, so I can't give this a just vote in regards to its EV and quality. I just wish that the article did not use such a crude picture. -- mcshadypl ^TC 06:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am glad that you are voting (or not voting as the case may be) with your head and not your heart. The argument that there is insufficient EV as it stands in the disability article is certainly very fair, but whether you take offence should have no bearing on the nomination. IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment A shame we don't have an appropriate article for this; the photographer's article is just a stub. The elephant in the room here is our systemic bias failing to provide the proper context for images like these. The sort of collaboration depicted here was far from uncommon and certainly not "staged", as some here have suggested. Anyone who has travelled in north Africa or the Middle East will be familiar with the very different cultural attitudes to disability there. This is an important image with huge value, just not of any value to en:wikipedia :-( --mikaul^talk 22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm also rather surprised to see arguments that this photo lacks EV. To my eye, this photo illustrates the utter marginalisation of disabled people in the past. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think few people are arguing that the photo itself lacks EV, it's more that it lacks EV because it isn't integrated into the article particularly well and therefore lacks the context that it needs to add to the article. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Diliff is correct.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  04:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, I agree with Diliff also, but then the question is 'why is this image being singled out for this offence, when so many others with the same issue pass unnoticed?' Or if it is noticed we see things like 'will have sufficient EV when the article is expanded'. --jjron (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Not to add fuel to the fire, but this time an admin removed the image. I guess that the two options are to level the same comments placed on me onto an admin or declare the nomination moot until such a time as the image gains a place in an article.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  04:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well I would tend to suggest that the reason given in the edit summary speaks again of a personal value judgement on this image, to quote: "removing image - it has no context in the article". While this may be true, in short, how does the wheelchair basketball photo have any more context than this? It doesn't, yet that one was left there. --jjron (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually the wheelchair basketball image does have more context, it was just posted at the wrong section (now fixed) and that's not the case for this one. The proper place might be a history section, except it has a quite localised social/cultural context possibly beyond the reach of the article; the only historical thing here is the fact that it's an old photo. It's a tough one to place, basically, in an article drawn from an explicitly modern western perspective. OTOH the subtext of your question provokes the response, because some people are disturbed and/or offended by graphic depictions of human deformity. How/if/whether this should be looked at from a WP:CENSORED angle is probably a bit much to debate (even) here, but there are similarities. --mikaul^talk 19:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, has more context where you've moved it now, but not where it was left. FWIW I have actually seen other images similar to this in the past, and suspect, at least in a historical context, it's not as unusual or staged as many seem to think. Yes, that answer would seem to be correct - my question was somewhat rhetorical (in view of comments already posted here) - but my basic point was that in terms of an FPC candidacy this has hardly had an unbiased run. --jjron (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • An admin is just a Wikipedian with access to restricted technical features, which means that his/her edits are not necessarily more or less valuable than the contributions of others.--Banzoo (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Request suspension until the article is improved with a history section.--Banzoo (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If you intend to do so in the next few days that would probably be worthwhile. If you mean suspend until someone just happens to come along and improve it, then not. --jjron (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • IMO it probably makes more sense to close this with no consensus for now, especially since there were no support votes other than the nominator. A new nomination will clean the slate once the EV is improved, unless, as Jjron says, you intend to do it immediately. It might take some collaboration and time to bring it up to speed though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not an expert, so I'm not sure how long will it take to do a relevant research on this subject. I also agree with Diliff that this task requires collaboration. Are there any rules on how long a suspension would last?--Banzoo (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • There aren't really any rules AFAIK. Nominations have been left suspended for months in the past, although I don't really see any good reason why. Unless you want to keep the existing votes (there are no supporting votes other than the nominator, most of the opposition was a bit irrational, leaving few genuine relevant votes), it just seems far cleaner to create a new nom once the EV is improved. You can link to the previous nomination to provide background. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
      • What are the other options if we wont suspend the nomination? Should we simply wait until voting period is over?--Banzoo (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
        • You could just let it expire as per normal and it would not be promoted. Then you are free to re-nominate it when circumstances change (normally we discourage re-nomination shortly after, but for this one, it probably has a good case for re-nomination with more EV. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I'd advise against diving in and creating an appropriate section at disability. AFAICS this will require a good deal of research, possibly an entirely new article, as there's no obvious place for it in current article mainspace. I'd suggest Social model of disability might be a better place to start. Certainly the right way to go about this is to find collaborative editors there by posting the image on the talk page, per WP:PRESERVE. Good luck! --mikaul^talk 19:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Just put a bold 'Withdrawn' with your sig if you want to pull it early. --jjron (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• FYI - I found a book that apparently discusses these pictures by Dumas through some internet searching. (See Focus East: early photography in the Near East (1839-1885)‎ - Page 107 - Nissan Perez - Photography - 1988 - 256 pages - ISBN 0810909243, 9780810909243 - Link to book) Unfortunately the snippet view from Google books provides only a hint about the (perhaps explotative) history of these pictures ("A second image by Dumas, which he titled Aveugl Portent un Paralitique (sic) (fig. 90), is a straight studio photograph featuring freaks and circus-type..."). If someone could check this book out, they may be able to find out the history of this picture and related pictures. Remember (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The rest of the paragraph: "In this Dumas illustrates the cliche of the time that equated the Orient with all sorts of degenerations, both mental and physical. The photograph reinforced the European notion that the Orient was a zoo; how superior a Westerner could feel confronting such a scene." I question this opinion of the author especially when French poet Jean-Pierre Claris de Florian had a fable with a story of a blind and a paralyzed helping each others, or this drawing by Auguste-Barthélemy Glaize. No "degeneration" nor a "superiority" in this fable, but only a moral. I wonder if the book's author is familiar with the work of these French artists before giving this assumption.--Banzoo (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, yes. If I had the time or the will to do so I could find you a dozen wonderful academic papers with my access to JSTOR. However I have an academic paper of my own due tuesday, and as such you are on your own. Jjron's comment still stands though. Unless you can get the context in quickly, I suggest that for now you move this to suspended nominations or withdraw it.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  00:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Well at least he is doing something productive. Even if the nomination is withdrawn or suspended. Editors can find here some references. Why you can't behave nicely. A good number of wikipedians are also academics themselves and even having to do research take some time to edit wikipedia. If you have to write a paper do so and come back afterward to illuminate wikipedia with what becomes known of your results. But even when you are busy you find some time to come and fill every single nomination with nothing (scroll dawn and you will see that the number is not small). If you have nothing to say listen, and listening you always learn something. You are trying too hard showing us all your ignorant side and if you keep doing it we are going to get convinced that is your true nature. Wikipedia is a place of learning. Look how many interesting things we have learned with this unsuccessful nomination: About a photographer, about a poet, about medicine, about costumes. Let us all wake up next day willing to listen and to learn from the other. It won't make us less. Franklin.vp  01:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Sorry. moving to the appropriate talk page. Franklin.vp  03:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Well if the comment is going to stand, I might as well respond to it in the clearest way possible. Shut up. If you took the time to read my comments, you would realize that I don't contribute "nothing." I see that as a personal slight, and have made it clear that I do not respond kindly to those. Your comment is summarily discounted, and I see no need to ever communicate with you again. Please, for both our sakes, do not ever try to speak to me again. It will not end pleasantly. Nezzadar [SPEAK]  23:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I encourage you to refrain from further discussions when angered. –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Let's maintain decorum here, please. Durova³⁵¹ 00:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Probably a good idea. Sorry to those caught up in this and not involved.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  02:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --ZooFari^Boo! 05:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] In honor of Halloween (...yes I know it's November 1) I present: CANDY CORN!

Original - Candy Corn is a popular candy given at Halloween in the United States.

Reason

A good image of sufficient size, illustrative of candy corn. Was looking for a holiday submission, found this three (seven) hours late though.

Articles this image appears in

Candy corn and a lot of userpages

Creator

From Flickr, uploaded by willc2

• Support as nominator -- Nezzadar [SPEAK]  08:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Where did you get the text for that description, the article makes no mention that it "has no resemblance to corn." It clearly does. Is this WP:OR? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Apology I'm sorry. I was trying to be jovial for the holiday. It seemed like common knowledge to me. Removed. :(  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  08:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak OpposeThis is a trick I use with my pictures to detect blown out lights. I take the burn tool in GIMP (or Photoshop) and burn over the zones I suspect are blown out. If I never get detail in an area then I assume the light are blown out there. Probably professionals can correct me if what I am doing is wrong or if there is a better way. In this picture some (at least 3) of the tips of the candies have blown out lights.  Franklin.vp  08:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no need to 'guess' if the highlights are blown out, there is an eye dropper tool that will tell you. There are lots of sites explaining how to use it, but here's one. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. AlexanderMegarrido (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: Personally, I think this kind of shot works best when there is only the candy corn (or whatever) visible- in this, some of the surface on which it is lying is visible. I've never seen this stuff before- what does it taste like? J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Waxy sugar. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • A little goes a long way. Candy corn has some magical ability to grab the attention of a passerby, to which the passerby goes, "Oh, candy corn!", then eats it, then realizes that in the past 364 days, they forgot how bad candy corn is. Or maybe that's just me... upstateNYer 17:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, that's me too.

WITHDRAWN It seemed like a good idea, but it's November and the image is crap. Ah well.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  17:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted -- Nezzadar [SPEAK]  17:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] John Shea

Original - Emmy award-winning actor John Shea, known, among other things, for his role as Lex Luthor in Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman.

Edit 1 - Crop to centralise subject

Edit 2 by jjron - Tried to recover skin tones; cropping a bit truer to original composition

Reason

Another professional quality publicity shot released freely through the image submission system. This is an adult releasing an image of himself, and I contacted the subject to get some explicit details on the author, as this was raised as a potential problem in my last nomination of this sort. As such, I hope that all discussion will be kept to a discussion of the technical merits of the portrait. Furthermore, this is a slightly more well known actor, which is another concern that has been raised in conjunction with these images before.

Articles this image appears in

John Shea

Creator

Photograph produced by Michael Calas in his studio in LA listed under Michael Calas Photography. Work owned by John Shea, who has released it.

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Original, Weak Oppose Crop and Edit He fades out of focus way to quickly. It's one thing if the background is blurry, but the person himself falls out of focus as well, such as at the neck and the jacket.   Nezzadar ☎   15:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom --Muhammad(talk) 17:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Fulfills the criteria well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Edit 1, Weak Support Original I like the original composition better in the original, it's not a standard portriat composition, so it stands out, looks nice in my opinion. After closer inspection the flash has washed out the normal skin tone on his face and he could of used a lint brush on his black shirt before the shoot, so weakly supporting due to some technical issues. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Added Edit2. --jjron (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Note: redid my edit off the original to try to get better quality and gave slightly different crop. --jjron (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose atm. The crops work better in the article, so did an edit based on that. However while doing the edit to try to bring back some skin tone (looks too flashed in others) I noted quality issues due to excessive downsampling. In particular there's quite bad artifacting (look at his shirt, especially the shadow areas). If it's possible to get a higher quality original to work from I would probably weak support a version equivalent to Edit2, but we would not accept the current quality from a Wikipedian, so why have different standards? --jjron (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Switch to full oppose on further consideration - in for a penny in for a pound...there's a few issues on quality, but as noted above would reconsider a less degraded version. --jjron (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support original, oppose both edits Centering isn't necessarily a good idea. Or to be more specific, the seam in the concrete wall balances the composition and gives a gritty feel to the setting. Without that element, the background behind the subject's right cheek becomes distracting. Durova³³³ 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support original, weak support edit1, oppose edit2. Maybe it is just me, but edit1 has lost some of the neat background that adds something to the image. However, the skin tones in edit2 make it seem a bit too different from how Mr. Shea usually looks. NW (Talk) 16:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Admittedly Edit 2 is overdone. I originally edited off the first crop, but then redid it off the original with the same settings. Looking at the original and crop it seems his skin is further washed out in the crop, thus my re-edit off the original went too far. Didn't bother redoing it as none of them meet technical expectations, but would redo off a better quality original. --jjron (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I've no idea why it's more washed out on the crop, all I did was crop it... J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Possibly lost quality in the jpg saving - for a similar res mine is almost twice the filesize, and I didn't use the highest setting. I've seen that type of result before. --jjron (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Edit or Crop Meets criteria limo. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose edit 2 per NW and jjron. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:JohnShea.jpg --ZooFari 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ash Dunes near Tarvurvur Crater

Original - Volcanic ash dunes next to Tarvurvur Crater at Rabaul Volcano, Papua, New Guinea

Reason

Spectacular image. Saw this over at Commons and added it to the article. Excellent EV and good technicals, too.

Articles this image appears in

Rabaul caldera, Stratovolcano, Volcanic ash

Creator

Tarotastic (flickr user)

• Support as nominator --ceranthor 00:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support but it could be added to more pertinent articles such as Volcanic ash, Tarvurvur, Stratovolcano and Dune to increase the educational value? The only one article that has the article is very short in length, so even with the very nice image, the EV does not look high at this status.--Caspian blue 01:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree that it's not well-used in the article and that it could be spread across other articles. upstateNYer 02:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Wow. Durova³⁴⁰ 05:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I added it to stratovolcano and volcanic ash. ceranthor 11:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This is not technically perfect, but I think it is easily worthy of FP status. A stunning photo. J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support beautiful image, meets FP criteria. ~ Arjun 20:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Regretful oppose When looked at this with a lower res and speaking as a geologist, it looked amazing, a truely fantastic image. But when you look at full res the technical quality is just way, way, way too low to support this as an fp. Sorry dude. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 21:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what you're mentioning. I see some minuscule areas where its not sharp, but they're not the focus. ceranthor 21:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Seddon. This is overblown all over the place, and none of the image is sharp. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral Too interesting to oppose, but yes, blurry. Much of the loss of sharpness comes from the bright light and reflective surfaces, although the smoke is horribly out of focus.   Nezzadar ☎   05:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Quite nice but significant technical problems, chiefly that large area of blown sky is unappealing at anything above thumbnail and going on the horizon it has a significant tilt. I would suggest there's more impressive images of this already on Commons so wouldn't say that aesthetics or EV are enough to compensate. --jjron (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per jjron. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral Jjron and Seddon makes good points; however I can't oppose this one - it is too good to oppose. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted -- Nezzadar [SPEAK]  05:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I voted neutral on this, which should not disqualify me for COI reasons since neutral is essentially the same as commenting. If my assumption is incorrect, please contact me at my userpage.

[edit] Erasmus Bridge, Rotterdam

Original - A panorama of the Erasmus Bridge and the River Meuse in the Dutch city of Rotterdam.

Reason

Major bridge, iconic for Rotterdam; important 20th century architectural design. Good representation of context. Good composition and lighting. Meets all FPC criteria.

Articles this image appears in

Erasmusbrug, Rotterdam, Nieuwe Maas, Ben van Berkel

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a fan of the composition at all. I'd say too much water. but it's a bridge, so that would be silly. What I will say is that the bridge isn't prominant enough in the image. First off, the building with the odd outward angled wall caught my eye too soon, second the main support, which has the highest EV, is small compared to the photo. Taking good pictures of long objects is hard, yes, but it can be done. If you live in the area or know someone who does, I suggest attempting it from the other side of the river, near the luxor building. This will enlarge the support beam and cut out the weird building.   Nezzadar ☎   05:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The picture illustrates four articles, not only the one on Erasmus Bridge and its architect but also the articles on Rotterdam and its indeed wide river.Elekhh (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Level problems, it is bowed upwards in the centre. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this is a valid reason to oppose? The only "problem" there is concerning the levels, is that the image could be made brighter. This induces more noise though. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about geometry, rather than brightness. Distorted straight lines are a misrepresentation of the scene and therefore not encyclopaedic. A restitch should be able to fix it with vertical control points. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• @ Elekh: I feel honored that you nominated a picture of mine. Thank you :) .
• @ Nezzadar: This is an encyclopedia. If a building is part of the scenery you shouldn't exclude it just to make a picture look prettier. Taking this panorama from the other side of the river....good look with that. The bridge tower is very high...that high you couldn't even make a vertical panorama from there. The only alternative location to take a photograph from of this bridge is the top of the Euromast. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Or perhaps from a boat. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • • Yeah, that would work. You see, with all due respect to your photography, when taking shots of objects with non-standard geometry, all reasonable effort must be made to get an accurate shot. This would mean capturing the shot from an angle that minimizes angle distortion. In simpler terms, it doesn't look like is should, so consider taking a shot from dead center on the river. It will look better. Also, I still say the building in the left is distracting and does not contribute to the articles the image is on, especially the bridge and the architect pages.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  22:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. New sig!
• Support at first it looks like the image is tilted but it's only the crazy architecture.--Avala (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I realized that, but to correctly capture said craziness, it needs a better angle and ideally would be closet to the subject.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  21:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Composition and distortion of the view.--Caspian blue 13:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The bridge isn't done quite enough justice in this photo. --Silversmith Hewwo 08:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Agusta SAR helicopter

Original - A rescue helicopter type Agusta A109K2 leaves mount Pilatus after having recovered a patient

Reason

I like this one because of three reasons: 1st the image looks dynamic because the rotor's movement is visible and the helicopter is strongly leaning to the front and to the side (accelerating in a curve). 2nd you see the mountains where Swiss SAR helicopters operate. 3rd I had the chance to take the picture on a viewpoint which is about the same hight than the helicopter so you see plenty of details. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles this image appears in

AgustaWestland AW109, Agusta

Creator

Ikiwaner

• Support as nominator --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Assessed as a quality image plus loud colors of the machine. Brand[t] 18:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Durova³⁴⁷ 21:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom Xavexgoem (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It is wonderful for you to be able to capture the subject. However, the "dynamic" composition makes the picture look unstable, so give uneasy feelings to me (looking like falling down). --Caspian blue 00:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your considerations are perfectly true. The helicopter landed on the moutain top where the image is taken. The destination was a hospital in the flat country. Thus it did not matter that the vehicle lost hight while accelerating. I always have this uneasy feeling when I see those pilots in the alps. In this picture you see him a few seconds before. The co pilot on the left was holding the door open and looking backward so the pilot could turn the machine without touching the wall with his tail rotor! -Ikiwaner (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support: technically good, and a great composition. A brilliant shot. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Not a scene you see every day Noodle snacks (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom, brilliantly captured image. I remember visiting Mount Pilatus last year, that can NOT have been an easy place to land! the wub "?!" 23:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support nicely done.©Geni 12:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Pilatus Agusta A109 Flug.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1950,Chinese stamp

Original - Stalin Mao Zedong historic handshake

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles this image appears in

Stalin; Mao Zedong ;Postage stamp; Economic history of modern China

Creator

Mbz1

• Comment Please feel free to corect my English and my caption :)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment We should take this to the image shop and have the black background changed to transparency.   Nezzadar ☎   16:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Chromatic fringeing?

• Comment Great to see you nominating at en:wiki, Mbz1! Feel free to contact me in the future if you want assistance with English captioning, etc. I'm not fussed about the background, but--please correct if this is mistaken--there appears to be slight chromatic fringeing on this image? Durova³⁴² 17:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind offer, Durova! I did my best with removing CA. If it is still not good, maybe somebody else would like to give it a try.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Weak support. Okay, but mild focus issues hold this back from full support. Durova³⁴² 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• The black helps to easily see the... how do you call it in English.... the teeth of the stamp. The spacing of them is an useful information for collectors. Maybe it would be good to add some size reference so that they can measure this. Franklin.vp  00:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Perforations. --jjron (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Are we sure about the copyright status of this? Commons:Template:PD-China states that "all non-photographic works enter the public domain fifty years after the death of the creator". It says nothing about state-created images (I would assume the PRC owns the copyright on the stamp). howcheng {chat} 17:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

According to this should be OK. Now it is 2009, the stamp was made in 1950 that is more than 50 years back.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're linking to the same thing I am: Commons:Template:PD-China, which says nothing about state-owned works. howcheng {chat} 18:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've nothing to add about copyright of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Supportmaybe some tweaks are necessary with the blur and the CA. But not everyday you see Mao and Stalin together. IMO iconic representative of totalitarianism.AlexanderMegarrido (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Antigenic Shift (Second Nomination)

Original - A diagram showing the process of Antigenic shift, the mutation process leading to H1N1, our current friend.

Reason

High EV and high quality illustration. Failed first nomination due to what appears to be a lack of a quorum. It appears that the accuracy of the diagram has been verified.

Articles this image appears in

Antigenic shift, Swine influenza, Influenza A virus subtype H1N1, 2009 flu pandemic in Canada

Creator

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)

• Support as nominator --  Nezzadar ☎   16:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Could this not be in svg format? I'm not sure I'd be happy to support images of this sort unless they were. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ask the CDC, they are the ones that control how they publish their work. I think it is plenty big enough, and looks good enough as a thumb. But that's me.   Nezzadar ☎   17:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not loving the big blocky lines around the person and the duck. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Previous nomination here. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I had that link on my clipboard but forgot to put it in. (Debating where and got distracted...) Thanks.   Nezzadar ☎   03:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose It is good for a FP but that means that is big and you have to open that big picture to access the information because, at least I, can not read much of the text in the thumbnail. Now, when you read it, you notice that what is said is not more than what is said in the first 3 lines of the article (at least to two types of viruses in the same host combine and you get a new one with the antigens of the original ones). The picture makes the article being an-article-with-a-colorful-picture (that is good, I like books with pictures) but only that because the information given has accessibility problems and is redundant (with the article). So, after having to open the picture and going around the diagram (a graph with 5 vertexes and seven edges. It takes a while) you realize that they are telling you the same you read in the first few lines of the article. Franklin.vp  21:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point but just looking at the cells with the arrows has high EV without the text. It is taking an abstract concept (genetic recombination) and putting it into picture form so that anyone could understand it. Considering how most Wikipedians are not geneticists or microbiologists, this is hugely useful in explaining cross-species transmission.   Nezzadar ☎   05:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support As last time. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support, as previous nominator. Illustrates a concept as clearly and attractively as I could imagine. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Highly educational illustration. I'm fine with the png file format unless somebody makes an effort for svg things.--Caspian blue 03:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:AntigenicShift HiRes.png --jjron (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel O'Connell

Original - "Daniel O'Connell: The Champion of Liberty" poster published in Pennsylvania, 1847.

Reason

Daniel O'Connell was a major figure in the history of nineteenth century Ireland. Restored version of File:Daniel O'Connell.jpg. Very high resolution; will supply a compressed courtesy copy upon request.

Articles this image appears in

Catholic Association, Repeal Association, Daniel_O'Connell#Political_beliefs_and_programme, Irish_nationalism#Early_nationalism:_Grattan_to_O.27Connell, Ireland_(1801–1922)#Act_of_Union_and_Catholic_Emancipation_.281800.E2.80.931830.29

Creator

Hoffy

• Support as nominator --Durova³⁴² 04:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support GerardM (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC) - Good to get some Irish quality material :)
• Support. Beautiful restoration, as always. Kaldari (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support I was online while you did this. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support; a gorgeous picture that is telling me a lot about the subject, and a great restoration. How was this picture produced? Is it a pencil drawing? I'm assuming this is restoration of the original, rather than just a print? J Milburn (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The bibliographic notes don't state, but it looks for all the world like lithography. Only question in my mind is whether it was chromolithography or hand painted lithography. A print, though. To get the original would be extraordinary (once in a rare while we get that lucky). Durova³⁴⁵ 15:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Daniel O'Connell2.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scrap salvage propaganda poster

An American propaganda poster from World War II produced under the Works Progress Administration which displays the anti-Japanese sentiment of the time.

Reason

I was surprised to see no proper quality propaganda posters. This displays the racism (Japanese as snakes, the buck-tooth thing, etc, etc) and artistic style (the heavily stylized eagle) of American propaganda in WWII.

Articles this image appears in

American propaganda during World War II, Propaganda in the United States#Domestic, Anti-Japanese sentiment

Creator

Phil von Phul, edited by Staxringold and Durova

• Support as co-nominator --Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support as co-nominator. Durova³⁴² 04:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support This actually has some quality issues, but I think that that is from the printing and there is little that can be done about it. The colors are not uniform, and as such, it looks like a bad scan, even though I am sure it isn't.   Nezzadar ☎   05:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This type of lithography often loses uniformity in its colors as it ages. Durova³⁴² 15:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Except it's not a lithograph; lithographs don't age that way anyway. Might I suggest what you meant to say was Early serigraphy often produced slightly textured, non-uniform colour, of which this is a particularly fine example? --mikaul^talk 10:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support it looks like a cartoon showing the streotype characters.--Caspian blue 12:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support for historic and encyclopedic value. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Now that is funny. upstateNYer 01:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Supprt--Avala (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

@Avala. I donate one free "O" to you. If you need more vowels, I sell them. Now you can support properly.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  01:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (I hope you know I am joking with you, not insulting you)

Promoted File:Salvage Scrap propaganda poster crop2.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tuskegee airman

Original - Portrait of Tuskegee airman Edward M. Thomas by photographer Toni Frissell, March 1945.

WITHDRAWN - Crop - Removed much of the metal plate.

Reason

"The Tuskegee Airmen were the first African-American pilots in United States military history; they flew with distinction during World War II. Portrait of one of the airmen by notable photographer Toni Frissell, the official photographer of the Women's Army Corps. Restored version of File:Tuskegee airman.jpg."[1] The image was nominated in early January 2009, but was not promoted due to a lack of votes.

Articles this image appears in

Tuskegee Airmen, Toni Frissell, Military history of African Americans

Creator

Toni Frissell, restored by Durova

• Support. Interestingly enough, I somehow found this image without even talking to Durova or knowing that she had restore it. It seemed to just catch my eye as I browsed the article on Toni Frissell, which I found from our featured picture on Jacqueline Kennedy. Maybe this is a good sign; featured pictures might be penetrating the encyclopedia a bit more now, to the point that you can find some without even trying. Great! --NW (Talk) 01:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. One of the harder restorations technically, but a moving portrait. A very pleasant surprise to see it caught Nuke's eye. Durova³³⁹ 03:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose The composition bothers me. The subject is detracted from by the giant, uniform, metal wall on the left. Also what the heck is in his hand on the right?   Nezzadar ☎   16:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support - not withstanding "distracting metal walls" or whatever the subject is holding his his right hand (seriously...? I mean, seriously?) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC) For crying out loud, it's a cigarette!

Hmm, I'm sorry if my opinion does not coincide with yours, but I see having a metal slab cover a third of the image as poor composition.   Nezzadar ☎   05:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also I said "his hand on the right" not "his right hand." On closer examination it appears that the thing it his hand on the right is his other glove. The odd shape of the thumb made it look more like a grenade than a glove, so I was confused. He eh.   Nezzadar ☎   05:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see :-) Sorry for lashing out like that. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support Good image, I think the highlight on the wall is somewhat distracting...but nevertheless this is still a quality image. ~ Arjun 20:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Uploaded Crop, Support Crop Alright, does this solve the problem?   Nezzadar ☎   05:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support original Quality shot, as you'd expect from such an accomplished photographer. I can kind of see the urge to crop but apart from ruining the composition it robs the image of value. There's undeniable EV on the other pages but value to the Frissell article is significant enough that I'd want to see the whole frame, as shot, per EV accorded to images on all photographers' pages. In case anyone's interested, you can see more of her work here, including (I believe) the camera she used to take this shot... also, that's clearly a wooden door, not a "metal wall", and the thing in his hand is his other glove... he's smoking a fag, fer chrissakes... --mikaul^talk 11:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support original and against the crop. Not every historical pictures are worthy of Feature pictures, but altering the original significantly for reviewer's taste is not what FP defines FP. I'm not distracted by the walls, but rather feel less satisfaction with the tight crop of the bottom. --Caspian blue 12:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support original Artisticlly there is nothing wrong with the composition. Toni Frissell is a more than competent photographer, STRONGLY oppose modifiying any of her compositions. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support original per raeky. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The wall at left is plywood rather than metal. It took quite a bit of work to restore its wood grain (the original print was probably deficient in fixative). To my eye that wall gives a sense of place to the shot: a hastily constructed wartime outpost. The context helps to communicate that this is a tired war hero. His name was Lieutenant (later Captain) Edward M. Thomas. Wasn't able to find quite enough information about him to start a biography, but republished the full text of his award for the Distinguished Flying Cross.[2] Durova³⁴² 16:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support original, oppose crop. The artistic composition of the shot shouldn't be modified. — Jake Wartenberg 19:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support I regret to say that I agree with Nezzadar but still support the original. That dark wall in the original is for me an ugly choice. On the other hand I was looking to some other photos by Toni Frissell and in many there are those wide dark spaces usually used successfully in the composition, while in this one it makes the photo (I my humble opinion) unbalanced. It is just a possibly-hastily-madē-but-poorly-donē-historically-important photo by Toni Frissell. Franklin.vp  21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes the top is more artistic but if you are choosing to illusrate an article, I would choose the bottom one. A thumb of the same size with the focus larger, and distracting elements removed has higher EV (IMO).   Nezzadar ☎   05:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Not if your illustrating the photographer's article, which it is. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support original. If this were illustrating the subject, I'd say use the crop, rule of thirds be damned, but I still wouldn't Feature it. However, the image is included as an example of the work of the photographer, and as such alterations such as cropping or, god forbid, flipping to face into the article, detract from the encyclopedic value as opposed to adding to it. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose crop per GeeJo. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Original this is a great photo which meets the criteria, and there's no need to mess with the composition. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support this picture is relevant.. I do prefer to keep the pictures as original as possible. Cropping is imho not a good idea. GerardM (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support original per GerardM. --Banzoo (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

~Withdraw Crop~ More a formality than anything else. Pwned by the community (but I'm okay with that.)  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  16:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Durova, have you seen the picture by the same photographer in which there are two afroamerican pilots loking up with the wing of a plane in the background? Can you find a good copy of that one? Although this one is already going to be promoted, if I counted right, in that one you can see better that they are african american (I had to be told in this one) and that they are pilots (also had to be told, although if it is clear the hat is of a pilot and not a tank driver).AlexanderMegarrido (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Tuskegee airman2.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Get fat

Original - An 1895 advertisement for a weight gain product.

Reason

A good piece of graphic art and a hilarious demonstration of how beauty standards can change with time. Restored version of File:Get fat.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Weight gain, Physical_attractiveness#Proportion_of_body_mass_to_body_structure, Advertising#History

Creator

The Gribler Bank Note Co. from photo by Bakers Art Gallery

What is this?

Edit 1

Edit 2 Attempt at eye restoration

• Support as nominator --Durova³³³ 15:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Those are kind of odd skin tones. I'll have a poke at the colour adjustment - learned a bit when I did the Grant nom. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 15:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Amazing to learn how the notion of what is fat has changed over time.. I would not be surprised when this is to be seen in the light of malnourishment existing at that time. GerardM (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support See below... Well now, that's the ugliest eye ever. I agree that the colors need some work, unless it is the poster itself that looks that bad. Seriously, that eye disturbs me. Is that a wink or a horrible mutation.   Nezzadar ☎   19:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a conspiratorial wink; the implication is that she's sharing her beauty secret. And--erm--could we have a little more decorum with edit notes and captions, please? Durova³³³ 20:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Changed the caption. Also, regarding the wink, that is about the most messed up wink I have ever seen. During a wink, the eye is closed and the eyebrow dips. This looks like a figure three eyelid, an excruciatingly painful birth defect which renders the eye unusable. People frequently zoom in on FPs, so I'm a bit worried about scaring people. I know WP isn't censored, but still. That eye is disturbing.   Nezzadar ☎   20:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, if it were used at the wink article it would probably have low encyclopedic value. Its encyclopedic use is as an illustration of how body mass index ideals have changed in a century, and as an example of historic advertising. Particularly in terms of the former, it would be difficult to obtain a better example. Durova³³³ 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
        • True, but I never said it had no EV, just that it was hideous...   Nezzadar ☎   16:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Why is the colour so varied behind the text? It distracts from the text itself... J Milburn (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: Skin tones completely off and greyed out, the eye under discussion has some damage in the original, which more careful repair could provide an improved result for. Text block shows signs of uneven fading which are completely uncorrected. Durova's work since she announced she was going to make a final push for the Wikicup has been fairly slipshod and well below her previous work, but I have attempted to provide fixes in order to protect the restorationist causes. Now that she is actively objecting to this, on top of an incident I will post to WT:FPC, I think it's time to just oppose. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 18:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This was uploaded in May... Xavexgoem (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Interesting image, but I have the same question on the color beneath the texts which do not look like a gradation by the artist's intention even though the image has a slight pick touch all over the image. The left black part beside her neck has some dusts that should be clean out. However, I don't agree with the the skin tone is greyed out or any damage is done. The original image has an once "white" back sheet (faded out through times), so fixing the white balance seems to be based on that. Restoration works should carefully be done to enhance the quality without dramatically altering the original for editors or viewers' taste.--Caspian blue 18:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support Edit 1 per the improvement of the uneven colors beneath the texts.--Caspian blue 03:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support Edit 1, on the right, the blue area underneath her elbow, there are a few dust and scratch marks. Also, the colors have been dampened since the original nomination. –blurpeace ^(talk) 02:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support pretty darn high EV. — Jake Wartenberg 05:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sure you're aware that there is more to featured picture candidacies than encyclopedic value. Do you have any comment on the problematic sections I've found? –blurpeace ^(talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• The poster is over a hundred years old. Durova is likely the single best restorer we have. If she says she has done all she could, I believe her. The colors were off in the original, look at the bottom of the poster, behind the text. I doubt it will ever be perfect, but it's better here than anywhere else.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  21:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support edit, weak support original The edit deals with the glow-y text nicely. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose original, weak oppose edit The whole color thing is getting to me. The edit didn't fix it well, and the original is just bad in that respect. We might need another source if we are ever to get that text area uniform. Sad, but I have to oppose here.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  16:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support edit1 - No major issues with the restoration that I can see, and the EV is high. NW (Talk) 17:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment edit 2 added, with some eye restoration, based on edit 1. Maybe shoemaker can comment on whether it's going in the right direction. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Restorative procedures aren't meant to distort the original work. –blurpeace ^(talk) 22:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Considering that a normal human eyelid cannot assume that shape, I would go with that he is fixing a distortion in the image. It is likely that such a bend was due to poor scanning or a damaged poster, rather than artist intent, although this may me WP:NOR territory.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  23:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1The problem with the color behind the text looks mostly solved. The skin color is a more subjective question. I prefer not to base my vote in this. About the eye, if the original were not like that it would be a major problem. If we only knew the image will never be used in something beside the two articles in which it is now and not also in one in which the original add is the subject then I would see well the restoration of the eye. But it is hard for me to make statements about the future that easily. Therefore I prefer the edits with the original (mis)shape. My reason is that these kind of mistakes in printed items are very important for collectors. And there are collectionists of advertisements, collectionists of posters as it is supposed to be expected. Although these conllectionists are probably a small minority it is good if the encyclopedia also take their interests into account. Franklin.vp  05:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Corbis has a version with presumably undamaged eye: [3] Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Too small to tell. Let's get off the eye folks, alright? –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Get fat3.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Trent Reznor

Original - Musician Trent Reznor, the frontman and only official member of the industrial music project Nine Inch Nails.

Reason

High quality and illustrative of subject.

Articles this image appears in

Trent Reznor, Nine Inch Nails, The Slip (album),

Creator

Taken by Rob Sheridan

• Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Fails size criteria, background is outright blurry where it does not have to be. Main subject is also somewhat blurry. Finally, I dislike the lighting, especially on the jacket.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Nezzadar. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too stylised and as a result, poor EV. Also fails size requirement, especially since he takes up such a small part of the frame. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per other opposes. Durova³⁵² 15:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Withdraw I withdraw this nomination, per opposes. Sir Richardson (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Due to withdraw.

[edit] New York State Capitol building

Original - The New York State Capitol viewed from the southwest

Reason

It is an important building in Albany, the picture has a very good detail, very well focused and illustrates the subject apropriately. In my opinion, it deserves to be a featured picture

Articles this image appears in

New York State Capitol, New York, Empire State Plaza, New York Legislature, Government of New York, 2009 New York State Senate leadership crisis, History of Albany, New York, Albany, New York, List of National Historic Landmarks in New York, National Register of Historic Places listings in New York, List of state capitols in the United States

Creator

UpstateNYer

• Support as nominator --☩Damërung ☩. -- 20:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Is it just me, or does it look not quite centered? Also seems a tad on the dark side. Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Needs counterclockwise rotation. Durova³⁵¹ 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral Not that crisp, but that is a standard concern for me. Leaning towards weak oppose, but holding out for inevitable edit to fix angle issue.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  01:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose and request closure Thanks Damërung, but this one's admittedly not up to scratch. There's some stitching errors and projection errors that came about when I stitched this. This was one of my first stitchings and I haven't gone back to fix it (btw, it's not tilted, it actually has a bad projection). May require a completely new set of photos to stitch correctly, but for the time being, it does its job in the articles. upstateNYer 04:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It definitely deserves a re-shoot. It reminds me a lot of this one of mine actually, which I always wanted to reshoot in better light, but I've revisited it a few times and always found something wrong (unappealing shadows, too many people hanging around, construction etc). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Withdrawn - Alright. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 02:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Breault

Original - President Calvin Coolidge bestowing the Medal of Honor upon Torpedoman Second Class Henry Breault, March 8, 1924.

Edit 1

Reason

The Medal of Honor is the highest award of the United States armed forces. Henry Breault was a submariner who earned it when his vessel had a collision in the Panama Canal. The small submarine took less than a minute to sink. Breault reached a hatch and could have escaped, but a fellow sailor was trapped and could not have escaped with him. So Breault saved his shipmate by closing the hatch and remaining inside, waiting 31 hours inside the sunken vessel until a salvage operation arrived. This photograph was taken when President Calvin Coolidge bestowed the medal. Restored version of File:Henry Breault.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Henry Breault, Medal_of_Honor#Awarding_the_medal

Creator

National Photo Company

• Support as nominator --Durova³³³ 23:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Obvious EV in Breault's article, and useful EV in "Awarding the medal," surprised we didn't have such a pic. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I'm not convinced with the uneven tones. ZooFari 01:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • How do you mean particularly? Perhaps I could give it another tweak. Durova³³³ 01:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It looks okay on the right portion, but the shades from the left do not look even with the ones on the right. Any chance this can be fixed? It looks like someone put their greasy hands all over the left portion. ZooFari 01:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Very high EV. I can't see the issue ZooFari mentioned. — Jake Wartenberg 03:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by Very high EV? the medal is covered by the hand. All the faces are in strong shadow. Elekhh (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per ZooFari. And I don't think the photo does capture well of the moment of awarding the medal to the recipient.--Caspian blue 01:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, getting to this one. Spent a lot of time today on the 1937 all stars so please be patient. But fwiw the Mignon Nevada portrait has basically the same technical flaws as this image and in this one they're much less severe. She's sailing through on unanimous support, so the reaction here is surprising. Will do another edit. Durova³³⁹ 04:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Uploaded edit 1. Durova³⁴² 04:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • • Sorry, still I can't support the nom because the raised concern is not rectified.--Caspian blue 21:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support GerardM (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Can't see what the medal is, blur on the hand, weak crispness is several places, shadow issues. Overall, cannot support this. Sorry.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  16:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support nomination, Support Edit 1, prefer the contrast adjustments made in the latter. Restorations restore original works. There are inherent limitations to what modifications are possible. –blurpeace ^(talk) 17:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• True, but some images, no matter how modified, will not make the cut for FP. This may be an example of this. It has unfixable issues.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• FPC criteria allow for a balance of esthetic value versus encyclopedic value, particularly with shots that can never be retaken and for which no improved version is likely to become available. The glass plate photography medium gave photographers one chance to shoot a particular scene, unlike roll film. And early photography was not good at handling motion, hence the slight blur in President Coolidge's forearm. This is currently WMF's only illustration of a Medal of Honor bestowal ceremony. Durova³⁵¹ 21:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support edit1 - The small flaws can be overlooked, as it is highly unlikely that we are going to get a better picture of this. NW (Talk) 16:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Can opposers please clarify whether the edit addresses their concerns? --jjron (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I oppose the edit. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 19:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose both. Not quite what I was looking for, but better contrast in the edit. ZooFari 19:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose For reasons others have mentioned. --Silversmith Hewwo 08:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gettysburg Campaign Retreat

Original - troop movement diagram from the Gettysburg Campaign.

Reason

high EV diagram of a crucial battle, well composed, technical, high exposure

Articles this image appears in

Battle of Gettysburg, Battle of Williamsport, Eastern Theater of the American Civil War, Retreat from Gettysburg, Fight at Monterey Pass, Battle of Funkstown, Battle of Boonsboro, and Gettysburg Campaign

Creator

Hlj

• Support as nominator --Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 05:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose because it should be a SVG and it isn't. I also don't like the colours. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose looks messy but is unclear whether is for graphic reasons, or was the battle a mess, or both... Quite unpleasing colours. Elekhh (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. No legend to explain the brown splotches (which presumably indicate high elevation, but nothing in the image explains this. Also, if the rivers are important enough to be shown on the map, why aren't they labeled? Pennsylvania-Maryland borderline follows a longitude line in real life; why is it a crooked line on this map? Dotted and colored lines over or under text labels makes the text labels difficult to read. The B&O railroad, but not the other railroad lines, are labeled.
• This seems like a good opportunity to canvass the folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps to come up with some suggestions for general principles that ought to be given consideration when a map is submitted for FPC. Spikebrennan (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. Withdrawn Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 22:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 22:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Auditorio de Tenerife

Original - Auditorium of Tenerife, symbol of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain.

Reason

Important cultural building, symbol of Santa Cruz de Tenerife and example of design by Santiago Calatrava. Good EV given eye level frontal perspective, good light-shadow and sky conditions, human scale provided without distracting from the architecture of the building.

Articles this image appears in

Auditorio de Tenerife, Santiago Calatrava

Creator

Taxiarchos228

• Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Focus issues, specifically the staircase on the left and the tip of the point at the top. Also to a lesser degree the man on the right.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  08:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I thought lack of sharpness beyond the 1000px zoom cannot be an exclusive criteria. Otherwise FPC would need to be amended to mandate higher minimum resolution, and consequently delist many current FPs, such as , , , , , and more. Sharpness of "man on the right" seems irrelevant. Elekhh (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support - Very original, good EV but little special. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 10:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Lighting needs to be absolutely right for a structure like this. It should reveal architectural features rather than cast shadows from elevated parts that obscure them or make them appear a different shape. There's also a fairly obvious stitching error around the mid-point. High resolution makes up some ground lost with lack of sharpness and the sky is good, but doesn't mitigate these main problems. --mikaul^talk 18:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • When you say fairly obvious what stitching error are you refering to? I cannot see a stiching error myself... Sorry to ask but I'm trying to learn about these sorts of things... Gazhiley (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The subject is good, the photo doesn't do it justice.--Silversmith Hewwo 07:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Egybolis vaillantina

Original - Egybolis vaillantina in Morogoro, Tanzania

Alt 1 Diff angle

Reason

Good quality and EV. Interesting view and good DOF on subject. Previous nomination failed to get a single vote.

Articles this image appears in

Noctuidae, Catocalinae, Egybolis, Egybolis vaillantina

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 13:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The damage to the wing is to obvious, hate to oppose it because of that but I feel I need too. Pretty insect though. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I dont see any damage but even if is is present, we have FPs of damaged species as well including one of a butterfly with damaged wings. FWIW, this is not a very common moth (I have never seen another one) and these 2 are the only pics of it on wikipedia. --Muhammad(talk) 12:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Weak Oppose As per Raeky. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, per nominator. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support any Nice image with good EV.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chrysopa sp.

Original - Chrysopa sp.

Reason

Don't seem to be many good lacewing pictures about. The relatively wide crop was needed to fit the antennae in.

Articles this image appears in

Chrysopidae

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support flowers are a bit distracting IMO but nice species. Never seen one before. --Muhammad(talk) 15:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose It's beautiful and has high enough EV, but the flowers are too distracting. I can barely see the insect, especially before reading the caption and realizing that the flowers are not the focus of the photo.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  16:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Lovely composition, demonstrates the natural camouflage of translucent wings. Durova³⁴⁹ 20:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support. The flowers are very distracting, per above. I actually first thougt Chrysopa is the flower. I know it isn't possible to crop much because of the antennae, but maybe even a small crop would help. Elekhh (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support Too many things going on in the photo, but I agree with Durova's opinion that the translucent wings on flower petals make the picture interesting.--Caspian blue 02:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, reluctantly. It's beautiful, but I think that too much of this is flowers, unfortunately. It's like taking a portrait in front of the Notre Dame - you're unsure which to look at. Something like File:Chrysopa oculata.jpg would do a much better job of illustrating, and should really be the lead image in that article. I feel awful opposing an image as beautiful and as skillfully shot as this one... I would suggest trying a tighter crop on the right, which would do more to make the insect the focus of the image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Can only really crop slightly before one starts cutting off antennae. iirc I have shots that are framed more tightly, but it looked odd with the antennae out of the frame. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh you definitely need the antennae there, or I'd be saying it's a pity they're cut off! I do think it's possible to just take a little off to bring the Chrysopa closer to the centre of the frame, without cutting into the antennae. There is nothing wrong with off-centred photos normally, but in this case the background is so strong. Mostlyharmless (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, but if you can identify the flowers and add it to the article, I'll change to support. ZooFari^Boo! 06:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Would be hard. Asteraceae is already a little heavy with photos, as you might expect. Mostlyharmless (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• • I'd agree with Raeky and the genus. I don't think I could narrow it down further without playing guessing games. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support The flower is clearly in the Asteraceae family and likely in the Aster genus. Although the flowers are a strong element of the photograph the insect is clearly visible and I support it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, lovely picture. The flowers add to it, excellent focus on the lacewing. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - It should be focused on the insect. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 10:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support I'd love to fully support such a striking image but I'm not sure it makes for a good lead image at Chrysopidae, ironically enough due to its good camouflage. That and unfortunate lack of space at Asteraceae conspire to reduce value as it stands. Also, any idea why this displays with boosted saturation as a preview/fullsize image? I prefer the more subtle thumbnail... --mikaul^talk 18:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per Mostlyharmless. Kaldari (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support Due to flowers.--Silversmith Hewwo 07:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom and positives brought up in discussion. upstateNYer 01:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Chrysopa sp. AF 1.jpg --jjron (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] European Rabbit

Original - European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), Austin's Ferry, Tasmania, Australia

Reason

Nice lighting, detailed. Previous complaint of my last rabbit attempt has been addressed (nose no longer in the grass).

Articles this image appears in

Rabbits in Australia, European Rabbit, Invasive species in Australia

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Lovely image (love bunny!), but did you make the grass and the furs blurred by photoshop?--Caspian blue 14:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Nope. I was located fairly close to the ground. As a result the grass was almost perpendicular to the plane of focus. The lighter part of the background is actually across the river, about a kilometre away. For File:Microcarbo melanoleucos Austins Ferry 3.jpg I was higher up on the river bank, hence the background was relatively close. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the explanation. Then, support.Caspian blue 02:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Nice photo. Probably a very close-up shot, focused specifically on the rabbit, so anything closer to or farther away from the camera would be out of focus. That kind of problem can be remedied by using a pinhole camera. But in this particular case, it works, as it keeps the focus on da bunny. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Some areas OOF, but overall good composition and quality. --Muhammad(talk) 15:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Whether it was accidental or on purpose, the tight focus on the rabbit makes the bunny be the center of attention in the photo. Although I might have cropped the foreground at the bottom of the photo, as it appears to also be a distraction, at least to some of those commenting here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Admittedly Bias Strong Support I had considered nominating this image before, but decided against it because of the blur. However, since it is nominated, I'll throw in my support. Why? I love rabbits. Love them. So damn cute. (oh, and the EV is a reason too)  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  16:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As NS's first article link will tell you, there's nothing to love about rabbits in Australia. Damn varmints! --jjron (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • One rabbit is cute. When you've got millions of them, the novelty wears off quickly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Haha, Jjron also lives in Australia. Well, a herd of bunnies are still much cuter than squirrels which are an invasive mammal to many countries. --Caspian blue 07:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I know about the rabbit situation in Australia, and I will never forgive the terrorists that created Myxomatosis. If I ever wanted to become a terrorist, I would steal the vaccine from Spain and save the rabbits of Australia. Not kidding. It just so happens that I like rabbits more than people.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  08:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Do you like this invasive species more than all the native species they're driving to extinction as well? --jjron (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes. It goes: rabbits, squirrels, all other non-human creatures, humans, and humans from my high school. Misanthrope to the max! Seriously though, if there was a way to save the rabbits and Australia, I would take it.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  17:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Outdent. Could we keep on-topic, please. I'd hate to have to use the trout. Mostlyharmless (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Good picture. Selective focus is a perfectly legitimate technique, and it's used here to good advantage. We already know what grass looks like. PhGustaf (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Good focus and good pose. Slight imperfection of background: light grey against light grey in the head area and could reveal more about the habitat, however still satisfactory. Suggest addition to Invasive species in Australia article as well. The European Rabbit article should have a caption specifying that this is an "expat" individual - I cant's believe so much emphaisis is given in Wiki infoboxes on nationality, citizenship and ethnicity of humans and than we ignore these things by rabbits. Suggest next FP candidate on this topic to be illustrating the other characterisic posture of rabbits... :-) Elekhh (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• LOL  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  17:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree that this would be a particularly good addition to Invasive species article, and perhaps also a little prominent in Rabbits in Aus, the reason being that a wee rabbit on a nice bit of green turf isn't really representative of the main point of these articles, which is the damage these things do to the environment. --jjron (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have that on a shirt. Ha ha ha.

• Support. Good quality, high EV. Perhaps just a very slight crop (50px or so) would reduce the OOF foreground while not affecting the composition? Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Per nom. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 10:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom et al. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose due to blur along the bottom and in general the colours are all very similar. And I don't like the staring eye.--Silversmith Hewwo 07:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• The eye is a feature of the rabbit, which has eyes positioned to look at its sides rather than the front. Since this is a side shot, the eye has to be like this. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 19:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The eye was the least of my problems with the image, but it would be nice to have a photo where the subject wasn't so obviously aware of the photographer. It looks rather terrified.--Silversmith Hewwo 22:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Trust me on this, a terrified rabbit would not be posing for the camera like that, the little bugger would be gone fast. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 23:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I have about half a dozen frames that are nearly identical. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I see them? I love rabbits. He eh. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 00:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No point... Noodle snacks (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, compared to this bunny he looks rather...startled. :p --Silversmith Hewwo 02:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[undent] Ahh, I see. Lots of identical bunnies. Ah well, if you get any other bunnies, please post them on my user talk page. As I said, I love bunnies. (Which I have been told is odd for an adult male, but hey...) Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 02:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Very good image of an admittedly common subject. The short DOF works well, longer would give more grass without adding to the subject - Peripitus (Talk) 11:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Oryctolagus cuniculus Tasmania 2.jpg --jjron (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

.

[edit] Municipal Building

Original - Municipal building in Bangalore, India

Reason

Good quality and EV. Few Indian FPs

Articles this image appears in

Municipal corporation, Nagar nigam

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: EV questionable - nobody would guess this is a municipal building, and where or what it is. No indication of its public character (public entrance, symbols). Light focus not on the subject. Christmastree-style lighting detracts from the building's architecture. Adjacent elements (tree, continuation of the building) look croped rather than form part of the composition. How about a daylight image from the axis of the main entrance? Elekhh (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I too, question the EV. However, it is not my primary reason to oppose: The light source coming from the left caught the lens and caused self-illumination, which could have been prevented by using some sort of lens hood. ZooFari^Boo! 00:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Glad I am not the only one to oppose this, I waited until someone else started the process. I agree with both previous opposes, and add that the image isn't very crisp at all. Part of FPC is that is should be able to be reprinted. That means high pixel count, but also crispness, which this image does not have.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  01:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the photo again, I feel I should elaborate. As with most photos of tall objects, the bottom is crisper than the top. The bottom is fine, however the block windows and the dome both lose focus.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  03:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per reasons given.--Silversmith Hewwo 08:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unfortunately I don't think the dim incandescent lighting helps this scene. It's a nice scene, but wouldn't it be better during the day? I know there would be a lot more distractions, but at least it wouldn't be monochromatic. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Diliff. upstateNYer 01:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - It should have a stronger EV. --Woglinde 02 (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dalziel angel

Original - A Christmas angel on the wheel of light, with a reference to "Gloria in Excelsis Deo". An illustration for "The Song of Bethlehem", 1901.

Reason

Distinctive and partially symbolic depiction of polypterous angel. Appeared in Dalziels' A Record of Fifty Years’ Work

Articles this image appears in

Gloria in Excelsis Deo

Creator

Dalziel Brothers

• Support as nominator --Brand[t] 14:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Durova³⁴⁹ 16:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support what a cool image. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Are you sure it isn't eight wings though? It looks like there are four attached to the torso at the center.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  21:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't know any eight-winged angel, so was in doubt. Changed the related issues to avoid ambiguity. Brand[t] 22:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support--Silversmith Hewwo 08:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Angel from The Song of Bethlehem.jpg --jjron (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Placid bobsled track

Original - Works Progress Administration poster from the late 1930s to advertise public access to the bobsled run from the 1932 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, New York.

Reason

Received a request for a Winter Olympics FP from an editor who is working on articles for the upcoming 2010 Winter Olympics. It actually turns out to be quite hard to find historic material in high resolution. Fortunately there is a public domain poster for the bobsled run at Lake Placid, New York where the 1932 and 1980 Winter Olympics took place. Restored version of File:Olympic Bobsled Run Lake Placid.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Lake Placid, New York, Lake Placid bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton track, List of bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton tracks, 1932 Winter Olympics

Creator

Works Progress Administration

• Support as nominator --Durova³⁴⁹ 07:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: Thanks to Durova for taking a stab at a winter olympics picture, and to the FP reviewers for taking a look. There's no hurry on this, but it would be great to have on the main page on February 12, the opening day of the 2010 Winter Olympics, if it meets FP criteria. Geraldk (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support sweet! I didn't know you'd get this badboy I linked you to done so quick, looked like a fair bit of work. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support extra nice is the blog detailing the technical issues.. GerardM (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The image still should be tweaked for color, if possible, and as with most restorations, true black needs to be reestablished to boost up the clarity.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  22:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. I wish I had a tenth of the skill with editing that Durova has.
  • Per the upload notes, the histogram and color balance were adjusted in the final edits. That included resetting the black point. If one goes too far with that, texture gets lost. Durova³⁴⁹ 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Neutral Considering how bad this looks when zoomed in, I am on the cusp of opposing, however if this is the best that can be done, I'll go neutral for now.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  00:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Meets all FPC. Nice graphic design. Elekhh (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. High enc value in the Olympic related sections of the articles. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Caspian blue 15:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support--Silversmith Hewwo 08:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Anything from the 1980 Winter Olympics? upstateNYer 01:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Golly, no. Feel like a drive up to Lake Placid to ask the local historical society? Durova³⁵⁵ 02:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Heh, bleh no. Hours of my life I'll never get back. I'll stick to local stuff. upstateNYer 03:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Olympic Bobsled Run Lake Placid2.jpg --jjron (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Black Panther convention

Original - Black Panther convention, Lincoln Memorial, June 19, 1970.

Reason

Thoughtful portrait of a Black Panther activist with the statue of Abraham Lincoln over his right shoulder. Has been donated to the public domain. Restored version of File:Black Panther convention.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Black Panther Party

Creator

Thomas J. O'Halloran or Warren K. Leffler

• Support as nominator --Durova³⁴⁹ 03:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Question Why the ambiguity in the creator section? Also what is that pin?  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  04:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Some of the images from the US News and World Report donation name more than one of their staff photographers in the credit line. The political button is too small to read per this film grain. Durova³⁴⁹ 05:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Another Question Seeing as I am not in the consensus on cropping, should I take out the top about 1/7th of the image, the empty space?  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  05:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
      • See rule of thirds. Durova³⁴⁹ 05:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The pin reads "Political Prisoners of USA Fascism" and shows Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, Black Panthers accused of murdering a police officer in Oakland. See this poster from the same campaign. 169.236.73.160 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment An interesting image, but I'm somewhat unclear on the EV. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support, per nominator. The comment Durova makes is almost undoubtedly the photographer's intent here. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support as long as it is not cropped. GerardM (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose provisionally. What exactly is this meant to be showing? The caption says it's a convention but the image is of a single person. Guest9999 (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The symbolism of this brilliant composition speaks for what the Black Panther party was trying to achieve: the promise of real liberty in Lincoln's legacy. Durova³⁴⁹ 03:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support, brilliant composition. –blurpeace ^(talk) 17:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, conditional support against crop. –blurpeace ^(talk) 17:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment At least from me, there won't be a crop. I got the message. Thank you.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  21:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The artistic value Durova describes might have EV for the artist, but does very little to display the Black Panther Party, the current home of the image. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support mainly due to composition. I like the way Abe is looking at him.--Silversmith Hewwo 08:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, I think this caption could benefit from improvement. Seeing that this is from the Black Panther convention at the memorial is very different from the artistic choice to take a picture of a panther in front of the memorial for contrast. If some comment is made in the caption about the selection of the memorial for the convention I think some users might be more inclined to support. gren グレン 14:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose EV? Black Panther convention? I really can't see too much value in this since it's merely a person holding a flag in front of the Lincoln Memorial. -- mcshadypl ^TC 06:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

After the Fact: Thought I cast my support before, apparently did not. If it changes anything, I support this nomination. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 00:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Valentine's Day card

Original - 1883 advertisement for a greeting card company's Valentine's Day cards.

Reason

Getting a bit of lead time in for the 2010 Valentine's Day POTD, to avoid the hilarious chaos of 2008.[4] ;) Restored version of File:Prang's Valentine Cards.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Valentine's Day, Louis Prang

Creator

L. Prang & Co.

• Support as nominator --Durova³⁴⁸ 03:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Words cannot describe how much this image creeps me out. The strangest thing is that I have no idea why.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  04:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support A good image, still creeping me out, but with decent EV and of high caliber.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  04:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I understand your feeling - the image is quite surreal. Is that the way Valentine's Day is described in the article? Elekhh (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Nothing makes me want to buy flowers and have sex like babies on string. Do we not have an article on the company? Is it Louis Prang? If so, this would drastically include improve his article... J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Possibly; will double check. :) Durova³⁴⁸ 14:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • You appear to be quite right.[5] Think it would be on the safe side of NOR to attribute this to his firm and use at his article? Durova³⁴⁸ 16:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Why not, spread the creepy babies around!  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  19:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Okay, done. Durova³⁴⁸ 19:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Cool. Support for the use on the Prang article. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support I'll pretend to take credit for finding this even though you already had it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support on basis of EV for Louis Prang. Elekhh (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support The old advertising could be used in present for campaigns like "make a love, more children" :-) I thought the flying babies with wigs are angels or a sort of Cupid. --Caspian blue 00:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Eh, I've seen worse (horrible fruit-headed mutants, anyone? Maybe a cannon?) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I missed every one of those references. All I could think of were the Fruit of the Loom costume live actors from the commercials when you said fruit mutants. Links please?  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  21:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• This. Not encyclopedic, but I get a laugh out of it regardless. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Scarred for life twice in the same nomination. We're on a roll!  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  21:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support--Silversmith Hewwo 08:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Prang's Valentine Cards2.jpg --jjron (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mushroom ID Guide

Original - mushroom morphology chart, used for identifying different species of mushroom

Reason

A great illustration of the many variables that allow people to identify mushrooms. High EV, contributes well to the articles in which it appears, and overall interesting image.

Articles this image appears in

Mushroom, Mushroom hunting, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi

Creator

Debivort

• Support as nominator --Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 05:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to address the inevitable requests for this to become an SVG. If someone wants to convert the text to web safe format, I would endorse that wholeheartedly, however it is likely impossible to, without a complete redo, SVGify the other parts. Edits are welcome. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 06:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Currently a VP. Refer the the VP nom for why it was originally nominated there rather than here. --jjron (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Needs a makeover; there are several missing terms that if included would make the image too busy. Would prefer a different arrangement where gill structure terms are on one diagram, and cap morphology terms on another. Coming to an FPC near you in 2010. Sasata (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sasata — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn No need to waste the community's time. I will add this to the list of images that should be SVG'd for FP. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 18:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 18:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Vlei, Namibia-Acacia trees

Original - Dead acacia trees in Dead Vlei, Namibia. According to Wikipedia the trees are around 900 years old.

Reason

Besides being technically OK it gives the viewer a good impression how Dead Vlei looks like. You see the ground with its pattern, several trees and the dunes.

Articles this image appears in

Dead Vlei - Namib-Naukluft National Park

Creator

Ikiwaner (talk)

• Support as nominator --Ikiwaner (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Would you mind providing a caption for the image? Thanks, Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • And translating the image page into English (which I was going to use to make a caption) - kind of necessary for en:wiki. --jjron (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support I love it, but I actually prefer this one.--Silversmith Hewwo 08:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Reminded of Georgia O'Keeffe (yeah, Africa and America are quite different places, but this picturesque image reminds me of her paintings).--Caspian blue 06:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. High value in Dead Vlei, and decent encyclopedic value in Namib-Naukluft National Park. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - did its job, made me want to check out the article. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. per nom. Elekhh (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Question and comment. Does anyone really consider Wikipedia to be a viable first source? Do you have an outside source for the age of the trees? 158.158.240.230 (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm, this is not the place to bring up the reliability of Wikipedia. Sorry. As for the trees, I am sure that if it really bothered you, you could go there, cut one down, and count the rings... Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 07:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Nezz. Its a legitimate concern brought up and your snide reply is not helpful. --Muhammad(talk) 14:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, counting the rings won't help as the trees have been purported to be dead for 900 years, not dead when 900. --Muhammad(talk) 14:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad is absolutely right - you've been counseled to be civil before Nezzadar. A search of Google scholar reveals that 900-700bp is the accepted date range. We can't be sure the figure is right, but we can't be sure that it's wrong either. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree that caption shouldn't use self-quotation. Support age of trees with independent source in the article, or remove age from caption, i.e. replace with "Dead acacia trees in Dead Vlei, Namib-Naukluft National Park, Namibia." or similar. Elekhh (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Dead Vlei 4.jpg --jjron (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg

Original - A panoramic view of the Berlin Olympic Stadium during the 12th IAAF World Championships in Athletics in August 2009.

Edit 1 by Diliff. Downsampled from 7149x3920 (28mp) to 3647x2000 (7mp). To illustrate that it looks much better at 100% size while still maintaining good resolution and detail. This is still more than twice the minimum resolution needed

Reason

It's a great image of the Berlin Olympic Stadium during the 2009 World Athletics Championships. It may not be perfect at 100% resolution, but it is more than good enough with reasonable downsampling IMO. The exposure and lighting is great too.

Articles this image appears in

Olympic Stadium (Berlin)

Creator

Commons:User:Tobi_87

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Not perfect but good enough IMO. Eye-catching colours --Muhammad(talk) 13:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Dang I want to support this. But noisy, unsharp, JPEG artifacting. Durova³⁵² 15:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • But downsample it to just above the minimum requirements and suddenly it looks pretty good. See, this is the dilemma we face. On the one hand we want the highest possible resolution, and if certain members of the 'voting panel' find out that it has been downsampled, they sometimes oppose on the basis that a higher resolution version should be made available. But on the other hand, if it really were captured at low resolution, would you oppose it for being undersized, even if it exceeded the minimum 1000px wide? It seems like the only way to please everyone on FPC is to downsample an image to hide it's flaws and then deny deny deny. ;-) But in the end, it's the project that suffers because the image with the most information is not made available... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I have a hard time believing those are natural saturation levels. Kaldari (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You have a hard time believing a lot of things though. ;-) I don't think the colours look at all unnatural. The colours of the flags look about right, and it doesn't seem unrealistic to expect a brand new track and grass built and laid specifically for the event and lit by hundreds of powerful downlights, to be bright and lush. This image taken a few months earlier by a different photographer shows a very similar saturation. It's good to be cynical (I am too), but I'm not sure that you're always fair in your evaluation of realism. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support For the same reasons I nominated it at Commons --Ikiwaner (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks - it was your nomination that prompted me to nominate it here, as it wasn't used anywhere on the English Wiki and clearly deserved to. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support- a compelling shot even for a non-sports fan like myself. I was also dubious about the colours, but Diliff's explanation has convinced me. J Milburn (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Diliff; nothing wrong with downsampling to "fix" the quality. upstateNYer 01:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Edit 1 only. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 02:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support The greens and blues are definitely vibrant, but that's not really a bad thing. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either.--Silversmith Hewwo 08:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support original, support downsampled only if necessary. If something looks good at comfortably over the minimum requirements (eg 2500x1500), and isn't fine at larger ones, it should still pass - the more information the better. I don't mind having 'courtesy copies' which look sharp put alongside (as here) though. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support highest res available. Cacophony (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 High quality, very interesting and extremely vibrant colours... Gazhiley (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg --jjron (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan

Original - Official Portrait of President Ronald Reagan

Reason

Great image (technically and otherwise) of a former and now deceased US President.

Articles this image appears in

Ronald Reagan and dozens of others.

Creator

Apparently unknown. Nominally the White House Photographic Office.

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner 05:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support--Silversmith Hewwo 07:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support But if this gets close to passing I'm re-noming the Obama picture which mysteriously failed because he "has a weird look on his face" and things like that. Staxringold _talk^contribs 09:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the Reagan picture to the Gates and Obama pictures (assuming you mean this one?. Even so, the are both of exceptional quality and therefore feature worthy unless pictures with better backgrounds come along. :p--Silversmith Hewwo 09:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Failed twice, to be exact, and the first nom has a lot more detailed comments than you make it seem here. It doesn't really seem that consensus changed between the two nominations, but anyway, if you have gripes about it, this is not the place to discuss them. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is the original composition that was so crudely pastiched for the Obama portrait. Such are the subtleties of fine portraiture that, despite their apparent similarity, this one is a deserving FP while the Obama one manages to be an aesthetic and compositional disaster... despite the grainy film scan vs Obama's smooth digital image, this shot has much greater integrity. It was a surprise to discover it wasn't already featured. --mikaul^talk 10:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC) edit Having done some trawling about, I'm fairly certain the creator here is the late Mike Evans, but i can only find anecdotal evidence. This write-up following his death, for example, would appear to make him a strong candidate. --mikaul^talk 11:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Durova³⁵² 15:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I dislike the point lighting, so I happen to take issue with the composition. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 18:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Well illustrative of Reagan and his profession. Good composition and a natural smile. Sir Richardson (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: What's that above his left eye? J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• That would be the eyebrow, important for facial expressions. Hehe, just kidding, don't know what it is :P ZooFari 23:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose GerardM (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Opposes should come with a reason, otherwise they don't weight nearly as much in the final consensus tally. upstateNYer 03:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • So you want me to say that he used to be an actor and it shows ? To me the smile is a phony. 18:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Tentative Oppose Like the image and the face expression, but the color tone should be fixed, especially the skin tone.--Caspian blue 06:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support --Avala (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The colours seem a bit wrong; Reagan's skin does have an odd tone to it. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nominator -- mcshadypl ^TC 22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Official_Portrait_of_President_Reagan_1981.jpg --jjron (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HALO Jump

Original - Pararescuemen from the 38th Rescue Squadron and the 58th Rescue Squadron, Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., jump from a HC-130P/N for a High Altitude Low Opening free fall drop from 12,999 feet in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Reason

Great dynamics of what would be for most a harrowing experience. Meets the technicals pretty effectively (look at how these guys are flying around, it's not surprise it's not perfectly crisp) and definitely makes you want to know more about the image.

Articles this image appears in

HALO jump, United States Air Force Pararescue

Creator

U.S. Air Force Photo/Staff Sgt. Jeremy T. Lock.

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner 05:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/PJ HALO drop. --jjron (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous nom. Not a fan of the composition (too much space at the top and bottom jumper almost cropped out of the frame) and it's way too dark. It's a great idea but poorly executed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Diliff and per the blur. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 18:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose- not loving the composition here. The fact that the forground is made up of feet and someone's backside isn't quite what I'd want from a shot like this. J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support. I like the composition. I wonder how this was photographed- did the photographer take the shot from the aircraft, or did the photographer jump too? Spikebrennan (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My guess, helmet cam. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 07:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you're wrong... Have a look at the camera used. Can you imagine that strapped to a helmet? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Two words: "duct tape" Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Impossible. It would be extremely dangerous, too dangerous, if the jumper tripped, falling on his head upon landing. Sir Wolf (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Does this image distincly represent a HALO jump, or could represent a HAHO jump as well? Elekhh (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] William Blake

Original - Poet and painter William Blake, self-portrait from Songs of Innocence and Experience, published 1794.

Reason

Self-portrait in profile from Songs of Innocence and Experience, published 1794. Retained the slightly out of frame coloration of the original; Blake reputedly did such work by hand himself. Restored version of File:William Blake.jpg. Note that the pencil note on the unedited file is dated 1863, hence not by Blake himself.

Articles this image appears in

William Blake, Etching#Variants:_aquatint.2C_soft-ground_and_relief_etching

Creator

William Blake

• Support as nominator --Durova³⁵¹ 19:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose current use Support. The Thomas Phillips portrait is much more appropriate for the lead infobox. Why can't this image be used elsewhere in the article instead of replacing the Thomas Phillips portrait? Kaldari (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The edit summary provided a detailed rationale. If you disagree, feel free to move to a location you consider more appropriate. Durova³⁵¹ 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The copyright issue is non-existent. The photograph isn't even from the NPG site (although it incorrectly stated that it was). I've moved your image further down the article (to illustrate a section that mentions the book). Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, sounds fine then. Durova³⁵¹ 23:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but fails size criteria, and that is before a possible cropping of the useless white border. Also, IMO no amount of restoration could help bring out the illustration, which as faded severely. Too many issues.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  01:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually our size criteria require only one axis to be 1000px or larger. So this is a valid nomination. Not sure what you mean by the claim of severe fade; this is actually in good condition. Durova³⁵² 01:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, so you are right about size, but I say get rid of the white border, and that would then drop the size anyways. As for the drawing, it seems like his head, specifically the top and the hair, are heavily faded.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  05:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps the confusion stems from the medium. This isn't a drawing but a relief etching--a printing method Blake invented. The border crop is dictated by Blake's brush strokes. Actually that raises a good second use for this image; added to the etching article. Durova³⁵² 05:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose due to size and border and, while it might be a good example of a technique, I don't feel it is Feature worthy. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support this is important encyclopaedic material, it is painstakingly restored, it is not a photo and this whole file size thing is a drama that makes perhaps sense for digital photography but I think it is even there vastly overrated. GerardM (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support As said before, this is pain-stakingly restored (by a wikipedian no less, Wikipedia's best work!). A greater resolution than this is wholly redundant. We often forget in the digital age the nature of scale; this was produced on a small scale, meant to be displayed on a small scale and really would gain very little if more resolution was expected. Cowtowner (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral--note on EV: this is not generally considered the most significant of Blake's self-portraits, from what I've read. There's much more discussion of this one, which we don't seem to have a version of on commons (at least I can't find one). A high-res scan of that would be very welcome. Chick Bowen 22:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted - no consensus. --jjron (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wongudan

Original - Wongudan as it appeared in 1925. The fountain was subsequently removed. Photograph by Burton Holmes.

Reason

An official historic site of South Korea, photographed in 1925 by a pioneer of documentary travel lectures. Although the tower itself still stands, extensive modifications have removed the fountain and altered the entrance steps.[6]

Articles this image appears in

Wongudan, Burton Holmes

Creator

Burton Holmes

• Support as nominator --Durova³⁴⁸ 18:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support this is the kind of material that instills the notion that what is considered historic is much less so. For this reason material like this is extremely valuable, it negates the notion that a modern picture is better. GerardM (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Was holding out on voting on this one, but I would hate to see it die for lack of a quorum. Has high EV, good looking for a 90 year old image, so okay.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  01:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Caspian blue 02:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Is it possible to add the year in which the fountain was removed to the caption? I'll support if it is done ;)AlexanderMegarrido (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose If I was to support this, it would only be due to its age, and I don't think that's a good enough reason to support something.--Silversmith Hewwo 08:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • For what reason do you oppose, though? PC78 (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dark, blurry, distracting right-angled wooden thing, doesn't do a good job of showing the temple (partly because it is a black and white photo). Has some historical interest, but not enough to counter the negatives. --Silversmith Hewwo 00:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Historical photograph, high res, high EV, looks good and meets the criteria so far as I can see. PC78 (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Temple of Heaven Seoul2.jpg --jjron (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Gates

Original - Official portrait of US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

Reason

Oustanding technicals of a portrait of a notable current figure.

Articles this image appears in

Robert Gates there are others as well but their EV is more temporal.

Creator

Monica King, United States Army

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner 05:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Reagan and Obama note. Staxringold _talk^contribs 09:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support ordinary composition, good EV, disgustingly sharp --Muhammad(talk) 12:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll assume "disgustingly sharp" is a technical term, then? upstateNYer 01:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support per what Muhammad said. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 14:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose You know what, it's time to take a stand. FPs really should have WOW. I believe that Silversmith said it best. I think it's even a good idea to thing out the ranks of FPs a bit. Put the WOW back in the majority, even make it a formal requirement. Who's with me? Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 16:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support Oppose not pleased with the lighting, which makes the subject's skin look like he sat down to pose after a three martini lunch. Without regard to political overtones, Reagan's pose is cordial and disarming. The pursed lips and dead-on gaze here comes across as guarded. Otherwise superb technicals. Durova³⁵² 15:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed per Mikaul, who makes a convincing argument. And I should have had the courage to post this opinion in the first place: portrait photography entails its own unique challenges, two of the most important of which are lighting and engagement with the subject. Neither is done well here, which goes to show why a great camera is not a substitute for a good photographer. How hard would it have been to have provided the subject with a disposable razor and shaving cream for the jawline whiskers he missed that morning? Monica King ought to have known the camera would pick that up, and there was no shortage of White House pages to run to the corner market. The photographer of Reagan's portrait above had the advantage of working with a subject who had decades of experience with photographers as a successful actor; a shot like this one with a less experienced subject reveals more of the photographer's own talents, and Ms. King obviously failed to put her subject at ease. Bringing out a good expression in an amateur model is a special photography skill. When a portrait such as this one can be mistaken for a simple matter of sit, place flag in background, and shoot then it hasn't been done right. Durova³⁵⁵ 03:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Looks like the make-up person had the day off. Kaldari (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe he didn't want makeup. I know plenty of military men who don't want that. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 17:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I often find they draw the line at frocks and nail polish, but I wear them anyway. mikaul^talk 20:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral leaning to oppose, but it's so goddam wishy-washy I'm finding it hard to generate the necessary emotions. Oppose Here's a classic on two fronts: high resolution and tack sharp says volumes about the camera, and little to nothing about the photograph; lots of weak supports means it'll eventually get promoted despite no-one really getting excited about it. This is why I hate vote counting on the one hand and think FPs should always arrest the viewer in some respect, on the other. Either the subject itself or the lighting, technique, concept or whatever really should provoke more than a passing glance. Come the revolution, this one will be first against the wall. mikaul^talk 20:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no denying that this is not an artistically outstanding composition. That's more or less born of the official nature of the portrait. The compositions have been standardized over a period of time, the DoD flag is on the right, the American flag is on the left, the Secretary is in the middle. Check the official portraits for the past 6 SoDs (there's a nice acronym), you may find more FP material there but you'll see that they're all effectively the same. [[Cowtowner]] (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Well a bit of artistry is always nice, but that's not really what I was getting at. No, quite apart from being incredibly dull, wooden and lifeless, it simply fails to tell me anything about the character of the subject, which (among other things) means it is seriously lacking in EV. This is in stark contrast to the Reagan portait (above) that speaks volumes about its subject; if that's not obvious enough, a similar contrast can be drawn between this successful Obama nomination and this recently failed one. High resolution public domain official portraits abound on US government servers of which a very small minority manage to be marginally more interesting than passport photographs, and a couple of that small minority might even be worth featuring. Surely we aren't going to promote every stiff, expressionless mugshot on the DoD website on the basis that it's big and sharp and "standardised"? No pun intended, but I had rather hoped those Obama nominations had set a good, rational precedent. --mikaul^talk 11:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • What does it tell us? He's opted for no makeup. He's opted not to show his teeth. He's opted for a dark suit, a small knot in his tie. He has a very precise parting, and a serious look on his face. As I said below, I don't know who this is, but I feel I could guess a lot about him. J Milburn (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Re Mick, I suspect that is largely the way FPC is going. --jjron (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Unless I'm misunderstanding what Mick is saying (which seems entirely possible) that sounds like a pretty good way for FPC to be going. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
          • A pack of bland interchangeable images whose FP 'qualities' are more about the equipment used to make them than about their subject. Yep, that's what we're after... --jjron (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
            • This is a featured picture first and formost because it illustrates our article on the subject. Put me in the same suit in front of the same camera and you don't have a featured picture; you have a disturbingly high resolution picture of some bloke. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Artistry of a shot does not make something an FP. Technical standards is WP:FP? criteria #1. I suppose you could read artistry into the part of criteria three calling for it to be "compelling", but right below that it reads "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing." Van Gogh's The Starry Night has giant EV for Van Gogh and for illustrating the painting, but if it was an otherwise NN painting and painter it wouldn't be an FP quality pic for the stars. This is why, despite probably supporting 90% of Durova's work, I opposed Durova's Black Panther nom. It does basically nothing to display the Black Panther party, it's just a picture of a black guy in front of the Lincoln Memorial. There is artistic value, for sure, but other than an unreadable button (which looks like a BP button) there is absolutely no display of the Panthers in the image. This image is the inverse of that, absolutely no artistry, but the crispest and clearest EV to the article at hand. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Once again, this isn't a concern about aesthetics vs EV, it's an appeal for greater appreciation of what people here used to call the "wow" factor. I'm concerned not only that FPC is becoming a rubber-stamping process for every high-resolution image we can find, but that people are no longer looking for this important compelling factor in our featured images. Are we really still wowed by sharp focus and high resolution? Are our readers? Will our readers be even remotely inclined to click on this image to appreciate those qualities? I very much doubt it. The Panther image, on the other hand, is a poignant illustration of the legacy of the 13th Amendment; you assessment of it as "just a picture" has me baffled, and even more concerned than I was before. Maybe we need an instructive essay on how to "read" an image, which might help people appreciate the fact than some images, like the one at this nomination, really don't speak of anything beyond their face value. mikaul^talk 19:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Let me just elaborate a bit too. I have no problem with this being used to illustrate the article and it is useful in that regard (sure, we can see what the guy looks like in a big clear photo), but simply doing that doesn't make it an FP, and nor does just being big and sharp make it FP worthy. In terms of the capture it's not too hard to do these - you set up the background, the lighting, the camera on a tripod, put an X where people have to stand or a stool for them, fix the focus right, and then move the people through wholesale; you could knock out a thousand of these images in a day with perfect focus and lighting, and it takes no particular skills to do the actual photography (see it all the time with school photos). Now if that was the case, but they weren't easily available and we had just somehow managed to get one freely licensed, or if they were a rarity, then there could be a reason to tag this as an FP, but it has already been pointed out that these things are plentiful and freely available. So what possible purpose is it serving anyone to tag them all as FPs? Just because they meet the technical criteria? Come on! As Mick points out it just becomes a pointless rubber-stamping process with no evaluation of the actual image required. --jjron (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Technically excellent portrait, obviously adding a lot to the article. At this point I'd like to note that some portraits I've nominated have been opposed because the subjects are wearing a little makeup. I can see no reason to oppose this at all, and plenty of reasons to support. I disagree with MIckStephenson, and I feel there is definitely a place for documentary photographs like this. Yeah, I wouldn't want this on a poster, but we're an encyclopedia here... (On an unrelated note, I don't actually know who this is, so if I've made some political statement, it wasn't intentional...) J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I straight away supported Reagan and not this because, while it looks technically great, there are lots of aesthetic things I don't like about it. Like the eagle and the lighting. I was still leaning towards support until I saw this.FP's have to meet a certain quality level, but if they don't have some wow factor, or OMG isn't that amazing or poignant or something, then people aren't going to be interested any more, and we might as well stop voting and pick a couple of people qualified to look at an image and see if it ticks a couple of boxes.--Silversmith Hewwo 22:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: Nothing special here. Just another portrait of another secretary, and not a particularly good or engaging portrait, at that. Maedin\^talk 08:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - absolutely nothing exceptional about this.--Avala (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per above (even if he is ultimately responsible for my paycheck). upstateNYer 03:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Americans Pledging Allegiance to the American Flag (by Dorothea Lange)

Original - First graders, some of Japanese ancestry pledging allegiance to the American flag in 1942, shortly before the internment of Japanese Americans.

Edit Removed dust spots, blown correction; decreased smudge on top of left girl

Reason

High quality historic image by famed photographer Dorothea Lange. Has good EV on the articles it is in.

Articles this image appears in

Dorothea Lange, Japanese American internment, Pledge of Allegiance

Creator

Dorothea Lange

• Support as nominator -- Nezzadar [SPEAK]  04:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Great image by a great photographer. No doubts. I feel it would add value to the Pledge of Allegiance article as well. Elekhh (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Dorothea Lange article already has 2 FPs, one purportedly as an illustration of her work. Is this really such an excellent example of her work? Also caption here seems highly dubious compared to source notes on image page and caption in article; original info gives it questionable EV in the other article. --jjron (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Japanese American internment and Pledge of Allegiance have no FP. Elekhh (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose on further consideration. Poor image/scan quality, poor framing, dubious EV per above. Sorry. --jjron (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• as per my comments above I added the image to the Pledge of Allegiance article, Criticism section. Please consider EV in this context. Also note that Lange did document the Pledge of Allegiance by childern on multiple occasions [7], [8]. Elekhh (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Compositionally I'd say one of the weaker images in the pledge article - and the caption is incorrect. FWIW that first 'alt' you link to is a far better photo if it was available (shame about the clipped flag, but in general...). --jjron (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I changed the caption to be more accurate. I agree that the image is not creating a visually balanced composition, however I think we are dealing here exactly with one of those exceptional cases where aesthetics was deliberately set aside. Lange is certainly not concerned of composition here. The picture provides a deeply humane insight into the mid-20th century society, and questions one of its key doctrines. The author doesn't try to aesthetize the captured moment. The value of the image lies in the tension between the facial expresion of the children, and the topic of the image. No other image in the article provides such an insight. Elekhh (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Methinks you are seeing a bit too much. :-) --jjron (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Haha funny... I wouldn't disagree that my perception is a post-infant one :-) Elekhh (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support Not Lange's best, and not the best scan of a Lange, but even a so-so Lange is pretty good. And ev at Japanese American Internment...poignant. Durova³⁴⁸ 20:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I agree with Durova's criticisms, but the ev at the internment article is actually doubtful since (according to the caption) this photo was taken before the interment started. Spikebrennan (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for now. Too much obvious, easily fixable dust to raise to FP status. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can someone fix the easily fixable dust then, I can't.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  02:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Upload over the original? ZooFari^Boo! 00:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Whatever works for you.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  01:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support--Silversmith Hewwo 08:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Edit posted. Please see the portion above the girl on the left. I didn't do a very good job with a small portion of the smudge correction, maybe someone could fix it. ZooFari 19:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Leon Trotsky reading The Militant

Original - Leon Trosky reading the international socialist newspaper, The Militant, in 1931.

Reason

Highly illustrative of subject. Meets criteria.

Articles this image appears in

Leon Trotsky, The Militant, Communism, List of communist ideologies

Creator

• Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I like the image even though it has many technical problems, but the size does not meet the FP criteria. Is there any way for you to upload a bigger version of the image? (e.g scanning from books)--Caspian blue 23:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose A host of technical issues, combined with the size, lead me to oppose this nomination. Also, it has lower EV in Leon Trotsky than the others, however that was not a factor in my vote. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 00:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Regretful oppose per Caspian Blue. Would like to consider a Trotsky portrait with better technicals. Durova³⁶⁰ 07:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Looked promising as a thumbnail here, disappointed up close. One of those where you just want to see another frame shot from a step to the left, to reveal the face and back of the head against the background. Aggressive printing and/or digital processing has only exacerbated these problems. this one, apparently shot at the same time, gives an idea of what it might have been, tonally. Real shame, it's a nice pic. mikaul^talk 19:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with other comments. --Silversmith Hewwo 22:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Withdraw I withdraw this nomination per all comments. Its a shame about the quality of the image, because its such a great picture. Sir Richardson (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A Sukhoi Su-35BM in flight during the MAKS Airshow 2009 near Moscow, Russia on Zhukovskiy LII air field.

Reason

This image is the only close-up shot of a Russian SU-35BM in flight. The image is of outstanding quality and is used in the article Sukhoi Su-35BM and in articles in other wikimedia projects.

Articles this image appears in

Sukhoi Su-35BM

Creator

MastermindPrime

• Support as nominator --High Contrast (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose When you zoom it, it loses its crispness quickly. I also want to know how the permission works for this. It's an awfully close, staged looking picture for own work for an unknown submitter to have access to.   Nezzadar ☎   13:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I doubt there is a problem with the licence. With a zoom lens and 300mm or more, you should be able to capture something like this at an airshow, and this picture is possibly cropped. Just doing a quick search, this website has information on photography at airshows, and we have dozens and dozens of pictures of aircraft in flight. I don't find the picture unsharp, but if most of your weak oppose is based on possible permission issues, you might wish to reconsider. Maedin\^talk 16:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Having said that, it has just been nominated for deletion at Commons, but I wouldn't say it's conclusive. Maedin\^talk 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Judging by the cloud cover BELOW the craft, this image was not shot from the ground, ergo the likelihood of Self credits is very remote. Also if you note, the pilot is LOOKING at the photographer, so it makes the likelihood of a staged shot even higher from a plane flying next to it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good point. I bow to your superior skills of observation, :-) Maedin\^talk 17:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I noticed the pilot staring at the lens, but as for the cloud cover, I though it was the smoke streams from other jets flying in formation, not clouds. Either way, not easy to get from the ground. Also, there are only two ways to get that angle of the jet. One is to shoot it from above and the other is to shoot an image of the plane from the ground while it is upside down, then reverse it.   Nezzadar ☎   18:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• How do you figure that? As long as the shot is into the sky it could look like that, and the jet could be oriented in any way relative to the photographer. Flying Freddy (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The picture's nice, but this is looking like it's going to be deleted. Perhaps suspend the FPC until after the Commons DR has closed? J Milburn (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Second the suspend, there is an attempt to get OTRS for the image, it comes from the manufacture of the plane's website and the wording for their site seems to indicate the possibility of freely licensed images, but clarification and explicit license is needed, thus the OTRS. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Suspended pending result of commons deletion request. Makeemlighter (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Question How long are we going to wait. It's been about a week with no movement on the commons front.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  02:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Generally when it's up for deletion we wait for the outcome of the deletion. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons is notoriously slow when it comes to deletion - unclosed VFDs and no license/source images hang around for months. Be patient (stares at Durova). MER-C 07:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The person trying to get OTRS says he still hasn't got a response and has asked for it to be deleted if they haven't e-mailed the OTRS e-mail by now. So I assume that OTRS isn't going to happen. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Image no longer exists. Speedy Close. Not promoted --Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 15:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Johnson with Luther King

Original - President Johnson meets with Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King in the White House Cabinet Room in 1966.

Reason

First off the image was previously nominated here on the basis of historical significance. I would concur with this reason but go on to expand on it in light of the criticisms raised. Firstly, the composition: this image is valuable just for its 'unorthodox' composition. No, it does not portray the two close together, there is visible tension--but it is all the more valuable for it. One would be rather naive to believe the Civil Rights Movement was all rainbows and leprechauns. This image has greater EV as a result of this. The second issue was on the basis of technical quality. It is admittedly grainy, but grain is part of the film medium especially when shooting indoors at higher ISOs. For the time, and situation this is more than excusable. Regarding posterization, I think it is forgivable to have some degree of it considering the shooting situation outlined above.

Articles this image appears in

Lyndon B. Johnson, I daresay there is a place for it in other articles, too.

Creator

Yoichi R. Okamoto, US Government employee

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Question Why should the outcome of this discussion differ from the last nomination? Durova³⁵⁵ 05:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe he has already attempted to explain that in his reason. --jjron (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose The detailed nomination rationale addresses several potential objections which were not actually raised in the prior candidacy. Our current featured pictures regarding that aspect of history do not depict "all rainbows and leprechauns", so there isn't a pressing need to stretch quality standards that far. The substantive technical problem is compositional: both men's bodies are so far to the edge of the frame that there isn't any possibility of correcting for significant camera tilt. Nominator appears unwilling to discuss, so opposing. Durova³⁵⁷ 04:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
      • That's a pretty big leap to make, considering you haven't tried to discuss anything yet. Cowtowner (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Did you read my comments at the prior nomination? Anyway, if the main intent is to illustrate the tensions of the civil rights era other Trikosko photographs would be better suited, such as the bombing of the Gaston Motel, H. Rap Brown, or integration at Ole Miss. We already have this FP of her work which is a remarkable display of a different sort of bigotry. I've done a bit of work with her photographs as well as the others from the US News and World Report donation. It's a fine idea you have, this just isn't the best iteration on it. Durova³⁵⁷ 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Correction: that wasn't Marion Trikosko. Should've checked first. But the basic idea remains the same: when you broaden the options beyond a single photographer the options become even better. Durova³⁵⁷ 16:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The fact that Johnson's elbow is cut out actually detracts from this aspect. Having a wide angle shot would be better to illustrate the tension. However this photograph is irreplaceable. I recommend a VP, it is an ill used venue for good images with minor, but critical, issues. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 16:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Funny how the article doesn't mention how Johnson turned against MLK after MLK denounced the Vietnam war. This photo seems almost prescient of that. Kaldari (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. Sufficient quality, high encyclopedic value in illustrating that section of LBJ article. And of course, it's interesting. It's subjective, but I think it could do a better job than File:Martin Luther King, Jr. and Lyndon Johnson.jpg in Martin Luther King, where it illustrates their meeting - comments? Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • • It's just too grainy for me to support anymore - given that other illustrations of their meeting exist. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I like that one so much more. It has that WOW that we have been looking for. I give you the honor of submitting it if you want. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 06:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that image as well, and considered nominating it instead. My rationale for choosing to nominate this one is it depicts their relationship, while the other merely depicts both of them. Cowtowner (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Support this one and not the other. In this one Martin is expressing something to the president with a lot of conviction whilst the President looks like he's thinking "seriously?" In the other, they both just look bored, and you can barely make out the President he's so blurry. Also there is almost too much cropping in the other one, whilst I think the slight cutting off of the President's elbow in this one helps to emphasise how he's leaning away from Martin. This picture tells a story with a number of artistic elements like the flag behind Martin (assuming that is a flag) and his clasped hands which is a pleading gesture. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a pretty powerful picture, but it is simply not FP material. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Sir Richardson (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support It's an evocative image - reminds me of photos in Life. I understand that quality and technical issues are important, but I don't believe the crop or the amount of grain detracts from the image in this case. I much prefer this one to the other photo of Johnson and King linked above. --Kateshortforbob _talk 16:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Very eloquent picture. Lucky photographer.  Franklin.vp  00:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dymaxion Animation

Original - Dymaxion map as an unfolded icosahedron.

Reason

This is an excellent spacial representation that takes the net of a dymaxion map and transforms it into a globe. For a number geometrically challenged readers (I think most people would struggle with the mental folding of polyhedrons, but I may be wrong) this is invaluable. The animation is technically on par with other FPs; personally, it reminds me of this

Articles this image appears in

Dymaxion Map

Creator

Chris Rywalt

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, yes, it looks interesting, but it is poorly timed (not slowing down for stages) and has little EV on the one article it appears in. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This image has high encyclopedic value in illustrating how a Dymaxion Map is an unfolded polyhedron. Being in one article does not count against encyclopedic value, and often increases it, because it is illustrating one thing very well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Adds enormous value to the article. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per the good reasons above. upstateNYer 03:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Durova³⁵⁷ 04:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment If this is going to pass, can someone edit it so that it pauses for a second when fully unfolded? Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 06:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Another Comment This should be added to the list discussed in the previous nom. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 00:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to the projections set, I disagree. Those images are unified in format and purpose. This was, and remains, distinct in my opinion. Adding a slight pause at the beginning and end of the animation may not be a bad idea; anyone a gif editor? Cowtowner (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Now there are 100ms instead of 10ms in the initial and final stages.  franklin.vp  23:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Franklin, it makes a world of difference to me. Cowtowner (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I Support this too.  franklin.vp  23:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose. Quite interesting, but moves too fast. I'd have more use from a still image of it lying flat. I'm not saying I would therefore support it for FP if it was though. --Silversmith Hewwo 23:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support. The pausing at beginning and end helps.--Silversmith Hewwo 07:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Notice that the purpose of this image is to show the way the projection is done and not the projection itself. Now, taking this into account, is it too fast that it doesn't allow you to understand the way the projection is formed? (I am not being ironic. If you really can't see it I can slow it down. Now it seems to me that you took the animation as one showing the projection while what it is supposed to show is the way it is constructed). Please, consider changing your vote or asking us to slow it so that everyone can understand the development of the plane figure.  franklin.vp  00:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just find it a bit frustrating as I want it to stop and it doesn't. And agreeing with Elekhh, it makes me feel a bit sick. I agree it is clever and informative, and looks pretty good. Maybe if you didn't just pause at the beginning and end, but made the whole thing slower?--Silversmith Hewwo 12:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I tried. But right now it lasts for c. 17 sec. When I slowed it down (the whole sequence taking care there are no faster parts than others, except the beginning and end) it was too long. I tried making a stop in the frame in which the polygon is completely formed but I found it not very pleasing. I guess we will have to afford your opposes or wait to see if someone else puts in practice other idea.  franklin.vp  01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Very informative and an example of our best work. Sam Barsoom 03:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The extra time does improve this image. It was good before, but even better now. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Nice, except timing which is very poor: makes me very dizzy. It should make a pause after each fold-out. Elekhh (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support I agree with the criticisms above about the timing not being great but I think overall it is worth featuring. Cat-five - talk 06:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Dymaxion 2003 animation small1.gif --jjron (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Using Portable Folding Reflector

Original - A portable folding reflector positioned to "bounce" sunlight onto a model

Alt 1 - A portable folding reflector positioned to "bounce" sunlight onto a model

Reason

good quality and EV

Articles this image appears in

Reflector (photography)

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info The caption was written by User:MIckStephenson. Thank you!
• Support per nom. Durova³⁵⁷ 19:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not the best angle to depict how this reflector functions. One can't even tell that the device is reflecting sunlight to illuminate the woman. -- mcshadypl ^TC 22:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Then how she got illuminated in your opinion?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Clearly there is a speedlite with a CTO gel on the other side of the reflector. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Where, on the reflector?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Only joking about the original. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see. I usually put ":)", when I am joking :). The thing is that it was the very first time I saw such reflector, and because I am not a pro, and have no idea how that thing works, I thought you were serious :) --Mbz1 (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Encyclopedic photo. --.dsm. 21:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Original Only per nominator, alt doesn't offer the same EV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.59.209 (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This was me forgetting to sign in. Cowtowner (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support (original) - the original works well, as it makes it clear that only one person is lit from that angle, and that person is the one in front of the reflector. So I prefer the EV there. I'm not in love with the composition, I'm afraid, but a tighter crop wouldn't help, as what it really needs to me is a bit more space on the left. Still, I think the EV overcomes that. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the opinion that the model is too much to the left in the frame. Now, I disagree with not being possible to solve with a crop. Actually you can solve it (making the photo comfortable) but even more you can do it while also putting the heads of the model and the photographer almost in the main diagonal (and we make it even more comfortable too look at). Now, this is my humble opinion and that is why I didn't dare to do the edit. Mila, would you like to do it yourself? or maybe even re-do the picture completely. The thing is that a picture on this topic can be easily re-made. Then, I think, it can be asked extreme perfection this time. Franklin.vp  03:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean under "re-do" the image?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• The problem with cropping was just that the crop becomes very tight, while I generally prefer a bit more space around the subject - if people are happy with that, though, all is good. :) One could also remove some of the sky, which changes the composition so that it is still weighted to the left, but not the bottom left as it is now. I wouldn't recommend that latter, given the subject, if the sun was present in the sky, but as it isn't this might also be viable. - Bilby (talk)

• I really should try things before speaking. :) You're right - square crop, focused on the three figures, works fine. The image is big enough that there's enough space on the left side. Long crop, roughly 2:3 ratio, works ok, but needs to be a bit higher, as you definitely want to keep as much sky as possible without leaving it off balance. As an aside, there's what looks like a spot of dust from the sensor on the reflector, and a small mark on her swimsuit (which may have been there in real life) - not that either are particularly important, and both are only visible for pixel-peepers. - Bilby (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hahahaha! I got an Edit conflict for you posting this. Look at what I was telling you (and the others). I like very much you idea of cropping sky from above. The thing is that when you crop a big chunk from the sky the image becomes a landscape (a lying rectangle) that is half dark and half lighten. The gaze of the viewer is not then captured completely by the model (which could be seen as a mistake) but also by the light on the right. Then the spectator's eye is forced to move from the light to the model, to do the movement that is precisely that of the light that is being reflected and is the main topic of the photo. I find it very nice (or I am getting too excited) in my very humble opinion.  Franklin.vp  03:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean under "re-do the picture completely"? No I would not like to crop it myself. The image all yours please do as you wish :) Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry I didn't see your question before. I meant that those that have the will and the tools necessary can take the topic, can take even your approach and make a new picture. If you don't like the idea of cropping I think it should be based in something. You look like you are a pro and I got my first camera less than a year ago. I don't dare. Franklin.vp  04:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not a pro. The image was taken by a pure acident. I do not know the people from the image. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time :) I did not mean I am against the crop, not at all. I only meant, that I am not sure what crop to make, that's why I asked you to do it for me, or maybe you could add a note to the image with the crop you have in mind, and I will crop it myself :) Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support original. More dynamic and IMO better composition. Also the dark clouds show how portraits are taken on overcast days --Muhammad(talk) 03:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose all edits --Muhammad(talk) 13:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I would like to hear the reasons. I am hoping to learn something from it. Especially in the case of Alt2 which has, IMO, all the features of the original and is addressing the problem with the little space to the left. Also say something, please, about Alt3. Is not that I am terribly interested in it to be featured it is that I liked the result very much and I would do that again with pictures of my own and if something is wrong I would like to not stay in my ignorance.  Franklin.vp  13:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      • The alt3(actually edit 3 and like wise for alt2) is missing the feet and alt 2 has lost out on some clouds which IMO add to the EV and aesthetics of the picture. Nothing wrong, just a difference of taste :-) --Muhammad(talk) 06:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Don't mind alt 2 per below. Still oppose alts 1 and 3 --Muhammad(talk) 15:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Not liking the lack of crispness in the original, although it illustrates the technique. The alt has no merit at all, and I strongly oppose it. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 03:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What crispness are you talking about? Elekhh (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• OK here are the two.
  

  

  Alt2
  

  

  Alt3
  The first one is the crop I was saying in the beginning, plain use of the rule of thirds. The second is the idea that Bilby gave me of cropping sky. It is also an application of the rule of thirds but this time only in the vertical direction, aiming to give attention to the reflector. That's the one I like the most (this is also very personal, I tend to do these [9] things, these butchering of heads and limbs when my subject is something else. I read from Pascal Baetens that that is sometimes OK but let's see if people think it is OK this time). Notice how the center of attention is the reflector with the gaze having to take sporadic tours to the light on the right. Franklin.vp  05:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Edit 2, Oppose Edit 3 Three misses the mark entirely. Pretty, but fails to have the reflector as the focus of the image. Two is okay, but not properly centered or composed as well as I would like. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 07:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support (original). The value of the image is in the contrast between the dark sky and the effect of the reflector, therefore Oppose Alts. Have to agree that composition is not ideal. Elekhh (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Alt3 . Neutral Alt2. Would weak support Alt 2 if it included more sky. By composition not ideal I meant that reflector is seen from back and partialy hidden behind human body - compared to Alt 1 which shows the reflector, however does not demonstrate its effect. Elekhh (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• but in all the others you see that it is an overcast day too, that everyone is dark, the rocks are dark and the only one lighted is the model. And in addition the issue of the composition is addressed. I do not understand. Isn't it the purpose of this forum to get as output the finest pictures of Wikipedia? I am just waiting to see if Muhammad found a technical mistake in Alt2. If that is that case I'll shut-up. But that one is the same as Milas' picture with the girl closer to the first third as it should be according to the book.  Franklin.vp  23:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• another thing is that the crop in Alt2 allows some little more space from above if what people want is more clouds that can be done. What definitely is needed in the original is some horizontal crop that's it. To make it perfect or closer to perfect. Of course the crop from the right begs some crop from above too, but there is plenty of clouds there to allow taking a little.  Franklin.vp  23:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support original per nom. I don't get the controversy-- very high EV, and this is an attractive and well-composed picture. Spikebrennan (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• I will Support the original nom but I do much prefer Alt 2, for composition but also simply because the background is totally irrelevant to EV. Mila might well correct me if wrong, but the upper half of the original isn't cloud or sky, it's a cliff face or hillside in the distance; there's no point in showing it. Otherwise I agree with Spike, it's a very valuable image indeed, waay better than the one it replaced if only because it explains the technique, the effect and the application all in one shot. mikaul^talk 09:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It sure is a cliff.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Original or alt2. Oppose alt3 (reflections off the rocks give information about the light direction). Noodle snacks (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Photographing a model.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pale Blue Dot

Original - Seen from 6 billion kilometres (3.7 billion miles), Earth appears as a tiny dot (the blueish-white speck approximately halfway down the brown band to the right). This narrow-angle color image of the Earth, dubbed ‘Pale Blue Dot’, is a part of the first ever ‘portrait’ of the solar system taken by Voyager 1. From Voyager's great distance Earth is a mere point of light, less than the size of a picture element even in the narrow-angle camera. Earth was a crescent only 0.12 pixel in size.The image "was taken through three color filters -- violet, blue and green -- and recombined to produce the color image". The image has been blown up to make Earth visible, and The background features in the image are artifacts resulting from the magnification. The bands of colour across the image are scattered rays from the sun. This is the most distant image of the Earth ever recorded.

Reason

This image is of the most distant image of the Earth ever recorded. A large part of its encyclopedic value is in illustrating just how small the Earth is in space - this image is taken from just outside the Solar System. It is essentially non-reproducible. While quality is much lower than would normally be accepted, WP:FPC makes exceptions for images that are "historical or otherwise unique images". The low resolution is a feature inherent in its creation, due to the imaging device used and distance - from a distance of 6 billion kilometres the Earth appears as a tiny speck, visible only at low resolution. The image itself is actually a blown up version of a much smaller image in which the earth is essentially invisible, and the graininess that appears is a function of that increase in size. It appears as NASA created and distributed it - no larger versions are available. It has very high encyclopedic value in illustrating Pale Blue Dot, and signficant encyclopedic value as iconic image of the Voyager Program. Finally, while this is subjective, I believe that the image has "wow", something that has resulted in it being widely recognised as iconic.

Articles this image appears in

Voyager program, Pale Blue Dot

Creator

NASA Visible Earth, Goddard Institute for Space Studies

• Support as nominator --Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I really don't know how to feel. On one hand I have this sentimentalism that irradiates from the tiny speck that we turn out to be. On the other, after reading the article, I feel deceived. They say the band over the earth is an artifact produced by the sun light, I assume that the other two bands are artifacts too. They say that the earth was 0.12 of a pixel. I can see Carl Sagan taking Paint and painting blue a pixel that only had a tiny component of blue. Something like taking a (100,119,104) pixel in RGB and making it (149, 179, 158). This is a prank of Carl Sagan, but it works on me. I weak support it.  Franklin.vp  11:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I could have been a lot clearer in the caption and description - this is a unique image that takes a bit of background knowledge to understand fully (although none is required to appreciate it). Carl Sagan campaigned within NASA to have the images taken and was a major promoted of them after their creation, but it is not his work, and it is not a false colour image (unlike a number of the NASA featured pictures we have): the image "was taken through three color filters -- violet, blue and green -- and recombined to produce the color image" . The image has not been modified, except to make it larger - "The background features in the image are artifacts resulting from the magnification", but NASA resisted artistic adaptation that would have removed this graininess. The entire image was increased in size, so the earth still retains its proportions in the original, and it remains its integrity. The band of light is indeed scattered rays from the sun. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I was aware of these details when I posted my comment. Actually it was that what made me think that way :). These are the kind of things that NASA do that are mostly useless but can make us drop a tear. After all, not every day you see such a close-up ;) of the earth. My support would be complete for a picture like the one Voyager took of Neptune.  Franklin.vp  23:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Are those colored lines simply byproducts of the picture? It may be worth noting how the distance of 3.7 billion miles measures up with the solar system. Is this distance past the furthest extent of Pluto's orbit? -- mcshadypl ^TC 22:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Those lines are indeed scattered rays from the sun on the lens (similar to lens flare as I understand it). See comments above. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The photograph was taken somewhere here, outside the solar system. 3.7 billion km is approximately 25 AU - 25 times the distance between the earth and the sun. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Are we certain that this is the largest resolution shot available? Is this the original resolution? J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The actual image taken by NASA was significantly smaller than this (I'm not sure just how small), and this image, blown up in all dimensions is the one that NASA has distributed and has become canonical. See above for comments on the process of increasing the size. (If only they'd taken the image in SVG format ;) Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Okay, I understand the importance of this photo, but it is terrible to look at. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 03:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Terrible to look at, or with other words not being able to face reality, is not a reason to oppose FP. Elekhh (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Response Okay dude, WTF. I know damn well that in the greater cosmic order, Earth is a dinky little P.O.S. planet. I'm a blatant misantrope too, so I have no reason to love earth. Thing is, despite the illustration of Earth in the galaxy, the image still isn't that aesthetic, and its EV isn't that great. Whatever though. You are just reinforcing my deep love for the always rational and intelligent human race. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 18:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Paradoxically, my biggest gripe with this is that the subject of the image is of such a small size, but it is valuable for precisely that reason. Cowtowner (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose It's an interesting picture, and I do like sciency stuff, but the subject is just too darn small, and there's nothing really to look at, otherwise.Takeiuchi (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: Most of my (Mostlyharmless) notes are rather useless, and very biased. They also have no importance. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support This is a HIGHLY irreplaceable and HIGHLY educational image from the far edges of our solar system. Obviously there is some issues with "not much to look at" but that is the entire point of the photograph, that at those distances our earth is nothing more than a partial pixel, lost in the blackness of space. The opposes on that ground are opposing the very educational value of the image and purpose of it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support despite the nominator's admitted WP:POINTyness. Irreplaceable, unless a larger crop of the same shot were substituted. Durova³⁵⁹ 00:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, my comments on FPC Talk were admittedly pointy. I do consider that this stands on its merits - I've been thinking about this image for a while. I considered waiting until the Bison delist nom had been closed before nominating this, but I'm procrastinating on a thesis chapter... so I thought I might as well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm certain I saw a mosaic of several of these showing the Earth, Mars and a few other planets mostly within the same frame. Does anyone know if those extra shots were taken? It would dramatically increase the EV and make it more interesting to have a 'panorama' of several planets. Time3000 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's this file: File:Family_portrait_(Voyager_1).png but I'm not sure that file is more encyclopedic, and they're not one image but a composition of many. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, on second thoughts I agree. I'll support this one though. Time3000 (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too darn ugly. And the beam of light falling over the earth which isn't really there isn't good.--Silversmith Hewwo 00:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support. Good wow factor, irreplacability erases the quality concerns, but it's a weak one because of the size. I know this is likely the largest version, but I'm just a tad let down by the size. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You have to keep in mind this image was made by a video camera that was made in the mid 1970's and has been in space operating for over 30 years. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I did. That's why I supported for ev (not counting quality), it's just the sheer size I'm disappointed with, hence the weak. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support. This image cannot be judged within the usual framework, since it questions the relevance of our human civilization in the Universe. However there will be a better shot one day - I hope. Elekhh (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Pale Blue Dot.png --jjron (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Palenque bas relief

Original - Detail drawing of a relief from a Mayan ruin at Palenque sketched at the time of its original excavation in 1787 by Ricardo Almendáriz.

Not for voting: the same bas relief in a 2008 photograph. Note extensive damage in the 221 year interim.

Reason

The Mayan ruins at Palenque are a UNESCO World Heritage Site. This image comes from a collection of drawings made in 1787 when the site was first excavated. The report which this image formed part of was the first significant archaeological study in the Americas. The Ricardo Almendáriz remain scientifically useful because they document details of the site which have since been destroyed by exposure to the elements. Restored version of File:PalenqueA.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Ricardo Almendáriz, Palenque, Chiapas

Creator

Ricardo Almendáriz

• Support as nominator --Durova³⁵⁷ 03:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. High encyclopedic value at Ricardo Almendáriz, slightly less in the others. Illustrates the subjects well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I don't understand how this is a "detail of a Mayan ruin". All of the description here refers to an archeological dig, but this is a drawing of people. Was this a statue that was unearthed that has since been destroyed? More detail in the caption (both here and at the image page) is essential. upstateNYer 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I know that Mayan ruins tend to have images like these on them, but that shouldn't be assumed. Perhaps the caption and description should be updated to make this clear. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The caption does state that, or is some unintentional lack of clarity in the syntax open to misinterpretation? Have provided a modern photograph for comparison. Durova³⁵⁷ 03:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Having slept on it, added a clarification to the caption. Durova³⁵⁷ 17:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Glad you slept on it. upstateNYer 02:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support  Franklin.vp  23:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose (struck, see below) EV is questionable in all but Ricardo Almendáriz because the photo you've provided actually illustrates the object better and, IMO, would be a prime substitute for the nominated image for use in the articles. Maybe it could be possible to place them in articles together using {{Multiple image}} because I definitely see the drawing as secondary to the actual thing (especially since the photo isn't used anywhere, but definitely should be). Additionally, I don't think it's good practice to include "digitally restored" in any caption, which you seem to do on a regular basis. I'm open to hearing why you may think it's good practice, but I think it's equivalent to crediting a photographer, which is against our MOS and trivial for an illustrative image (i.e. it illustrates the text content, it's not there to promote digital restoration or the restorationist); all the necessary information is on the image page. Only situation where it's warranted would be in an article about the image at hand, I would think. upstateNYer 02:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think it is crucial to indicate that the image was digitally restored. Readers should be made aware that the image was altered from its original state. This is not analogous to giving the name of the photographer (if the caption said "digitally restored by Durova", perhaps you would have more of an argument, but it does not say that). Giving this information is not necessarily promoting digital restoration - it is giving information to the viewer that they would have to click on the image to see otherwise (and most people do not do that clicking). If an image were cropped, flipped, or had color added to it, for example, I would also expect this to be mentioned in the caption. We must not mislead viewers! Awadewit (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Now that you mention it, including digital restoration in the caption is analogous to stating (in the caption) that an image was cropped or digitally manipulated. And that's a very bad idea. Do you really want every image on Wikipedia that was cropped, or had levels adjusted, etc., have a mention in the caption? Captions could literally become dozens of words long, offering all-out unnecessary, trivial information (in addition to slowing down the reader, and taking up more space in articles, which can be a problem in the bigger ones; United States comes to mind). That's what Template:Retouched at Commons is for! Whether or not someone clicks on the image is their own problem, but anyone that's interested will, because they will want to see a larger version; that's just human nature. upstateNYer 02:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I do want that. Words such as "Detail", "Retouched", etc. are commonplace in academic works about art and certainly don't take up unusual amounts of space for the crucial information they provide. Awadewit (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I assume you're in a very small group because what you're saying would lead to such extended captions as "<relevant caption>...; Image cleaned up (removal of minor scratches, stains, and dirt on the scanner bed), levels adjusted, rotated slightly" and such trivial captions as <relevant caption>...; Tilt, sharpness, and levels adjustments made to photo. Does anybody care? If they do, that's what the image page is for, to keep the unnecessary clutter out of articles! Wikipedia isn't paper, we needn't be so specific about an image in the caption (most images here are not about art, but yes, I have no problem with "Oil on canvas" or "watercolor and ink on paper"). If encyclopedias had the opportunity to have "image pages", they would, but they were limited by... paper. upstateNYer 03:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A reasonable request, and one that Durova and Shoemakers Holiday (and others) normally comply with. I think this is probably an oversight rather than anything else. Durova is a prolific restorer, and usually makes clear that the image has been restored from an original, and if there are significant changes or interpretations made - what these are. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, what I suggested were words such as "retouched" or "cleaned" or "cropped". Interestingly, reliable paper reference works do include this type of information, so we should, too. I'm not going to keep repeating my argument - we have both stated our points of view and there is nothing further to be said. Other people can decide what their own views are. There is no reason for us to keep rehashing this. Awadewit (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That information is available in full at the image page though, I assume you're asking for it here as well? (Not arguing with you at all - the information is absolutely necessary in a high quality reference work, which is what we aspire to). Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Fair enough, but to note, when you say "If an image were cropped, flipped, or had color added to it, for example, I would also expect this to be mentioned in the caption," it leads one to think that you include many more descriptive words, and if you are to include a trivial word like crop (i.e. this to this), then it's fair to assume you'd want to know everything... within an article caption. That's how I interpreted your statement. And I have yet to see such descriptions mentioned in text books and paper encyclopedias (comparable works to this project); these usually are added to a notes section at the end of the work (similar in concept to the Retouched template, but saved for the end for those few interested parties). upstateNYer 03:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Really not understanding this oppose. The reviewer appears to be saying it detracts from encyclopedic value to use an accurate historic drawing that records information which has since decomposed from the actual World Heritage Site. Reviewer also has criticisms of a more general nature which might be better for FPC talk since they would apply to more than one image. Durova³⁵⁷ 04:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think his oppose saying that the picture illustrates the subject better would be changed if the caption of the image said (Drawing of a detail...). I kind of agree with his point in that respect. But I see the ( high ) value of the nomination as being not the bas relief it self but the drawing that preserves the original content of the bas relief.  franklin.vp  09:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, revised the caption a bit to make that clearer. And yes, agreeing the historic and more complete nature of the drawing adds to its ev. Also encyclopedic for the article about the site and the Mexican state of Chiapas, since this image was part of an archaeological report that was pivotal to both their history. The Mayan city had been abandoned for a thousand years, and this was the first scientific excavation of any Mayan site. Durova³⁵⁷ 17:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not for voting: Comparison of the relief today and sketch showing significant differences between the two; this is a combination of loss of detail and addition of detail, causing the sketch to be idealized by the artist, arguably OR on his part. upstateNYer 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment My understanding is that a lot of these expeditionary drawings from that time wasn't very accurate and had a lot of issues with the artist unable to grasp what they was drawing and trying to humanize or whatever the term is the art, thus making many of them quite inaccurate from actual photographic documentation. That combined with I believe the tendency to recreate missing parts of the sculpture in the drawing based on what they thought would go there. From the modern photo of the same artwork and the drawing there is at least some support that parts of the artwork was recreated from the drawing. Unless a photograph of the artwork can be produced that shows all that damage in the modern photograph was done in modern times and wasn't there 1787 then I think the EV for anything but the Ricardo Almendáriz is extremely low or shouldn't be included at all. At least thats my take on these drawings of Aztec art from that time frame. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Cited text from the biography: "Almendáriz's drawings of Palenque are 'remarkably accurate for the era' and depict features of Palenque that have since been destroyed from exposure. For this reason they remain scientifically useful."[10] If you have a source that contradicts this then please expand the article using that source. Otherwise it would cross the WP:NOR line. Durova³⁵⁷ 17:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Support Thats why it was a comment, if the cites back up that they're accurate and useful then thats sufficient. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Neutral Changing to neutral per User:UpstateNYer's arguments and image. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You're right, it's not accurate. After comparing the two, it seems "remarkably accurate for the era" is a nice way of saying "we'll live with what we were given, even if it's really not that close". See uploaded image at right. Almendáriz lost a lot of the detail from the carving in his transcription, but ironically, added a lot of detail that, on paper, is easy to do, but in rock, is not. So he lost a lot of detail and at the same time added a lot of idealized details of his own. Original research on his own part. If the guy's an artist, these details were not trivial to him; he did them on purpose, making his representation misleading to viewers (like us, 200+ years later). So this makes the EV in the articles even less, save for Almendariz, in which it might be good to point out his shortcomings. Switch to strong oppose as the nominated image does not represent the subject well. The photograph should be the image in the articles, not the idealized sketch. And before it's called out, comparing differences between two material things is not original research. upstateNYer 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The stone surface underwent two centuries of exposure and deterioration between excavation and the 2008 photograph. The natural climate of Chiapas is tropical rainforest. See water erosion. It steps out on very shaky ground to attempt to assess the accuracy of the original based upon a single photograph whose details could have been affected by centuries of rill erosion. It takes an expert to make that sort of assessment; requesting the strong oppose be disqualified as a WP:NOR violation in light of the reliable source cited in the biography article and in discussion above. Durova³⁵⁹ 20:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
      • • I agree with the request. It is not a trivial claim that of the differences. Actually IMO some of those differences are somehow exaggerated.  franklin.vp  21:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
      • If you actually look at my comparison you will see that every one of the details that I point out is independent of corrosion or wear; they've actually survived the elements. Today, the relief has medallions hanging off the lower outerwear of the figure in the bottom left, but these are not shown in the sketch; today the feathers in the headdress have pointed ends and veins all the way to the ends of the feathers, while the sketch misses these details; today the relief shows that the standing figure has no smile, but the sketch does; today the relief clearly shows the bosom of the figure in the bottom left, while the sketch hides it under the figure's arms; today the scepter's end has sharp, distinguished angles which have survived the elements, while the sketch shows something more European. All of these details have survived your 2 centuries of erosion and prove that the sketch is not that accurate. Did you even open the image? I mean, really. It comes down to the fact that this is not an accurate representation of the actual thing, it misleads its viewers, and is an idealized, indeed Europeanized, interpretation of a Mayan ruin, which still has enough detail on it today to show such an issue. This is not OR nor does it take an expert to distinguish. It takes an inquisitive pair of eyes and 5 minutes' time. My strong oppose comes with a vast amount of logical rationale. It best not be ignored. upstateNYer 22:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I don't know Durova but, I did look at the image closely. An it is clear, as you point, that there are differences. There is one difference even more striking and important, one is a bas relief and the other is a drawing. Perhaps Durova's strategic mistake was not to title the nomination Drawing of Mayan bas relief... or something like that. Actually, this is what, IMO, it should be. Now the caption of the drawing have this wording. Now the differences you point, even if they were a gross misinterpretation by Almendáriz, they won't matter since it is his drawing, as a historic document... etc, what is in question.  franklin.vp  23:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• The difficulty was purely syntactical. It's a bit tricky to convey that this was a historic 1787 drawing by Almendáriz of a much older Mayan bas relief, of one feature upon one building within a larger site. Was wondering whether the reviewers here at en:wiki had misread, since everybody at the concurrent Commons nomination has been comprehending it with unanimous support. Durova³⁵⁹ 23:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Because rubber stamping is proof of quality, and everything... upstateNYer 06:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Historic material that shows how artefacts deteriorate over time... We know what things were like exactly because of material like this.. It is also yet another fine restoration with documents the bag of tricks needed to create something that approaches the original image. GerardM (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Do tell how the sketch shows how artifacts degrade over time. Only the photo combined with sketch can show that, and the photo is used nowhere but on this page. And we don't know what things were like exactly, because the sketch is idealized. See comment and image above. upstateNYer 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I think the discussion here has become sidetracked. The encyclopedic value of the image is in its illustration of the illustration of Palenque by Ricardo Almendáriz, in both those articles. For that reason it does not matter that there are a small number of inaccuracies. In fact, in Ricardo Almendáriz, it is explicitly noted that they are not entirely accurate, just that they are "remarkably" accurate compared to contemporaneous artwork. If anybody on this page wants to tell the Mayanist scholar George Stuart he is wrong in thinking that the images of Almendariz are useful (despite their limitations), that is their prerogative. But they shouldn't do so here. I want to thank Durova for creating useful and encyclopedic content. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• comment. I believe the panel and its supporting structure were standing in situ when del Rio & Almendariz visited, i.e. not buried, so "excavation" is probably not the right word. In del Rio's account he describes the panel and structure thus (p.9 of the 1822 Henry Berthould edn):

  "The entrance is on the eastern side, by a portico or corridor thirty-six varas or yards in length and three in breadth, supported by plain rectangular pillars, without either bases or pedestals, upon which there are square smooth stones of more than a foot in thickness forming an architrave, while on the exterior superficies are species of stucco shields, the designs of some of them accompanying this report, are numbered 1, 2, 3,..[where 1 is this illustration]".

  Also, it'd be better to provide much more detailed information on the image description page, about what the drawing depicts (at a bare minimum identifying the specific relief and structure is needed), the context in which the drawing was made, and outlining its impact, publication history and use. That should assist in assessing EV qualities. For example, the following could be used to flesh out the img's description page, & enhance the caption:

  The drawing depicts the stucco relief on the eastern exterior of a pier (Pier E) on the building called House A, part of the Eastern Court of the Palace complex at Palenque (here's a reconstuction drawing showing House A's location and probable sequence in the Palace's construction). House A and its stuccos were most probably constructed during the famous K'inich Janaab' Pakal's reign and the bldg dedicated a little after 668 CE, most probably in 670 CE. There is some evidence that it may have been later, during the reign of his son K'inich K'an Joy Chitam II.

  The figures in the relief are not specifically identified/identifiable, AFAIK. This and similar ones on other piers also lacking glyphic inscriptions are thought likely to be ancestor rulers, and their parents. The standing figure holds a mannikin sceptre in the left hand, and in the right instead of the usual incense bag, a length of material. The seated figures adopt a posture of submission or deference, with hands placed on opposite shoulder.

  The drawing itself, done in brown ink-and-wash on paper, is a copy of Almendariz's original engravings (now all lost). It is bound in a collection with 29 others he made ("Colección de Estampas Copiadas..."). There are slight differences discernable between this and its earliest known copy, held in Madrid. The drawings in this collection were meant to be published with del Rio's text, but they never were. When del Rio's account was finally published (in 1822 by Henri Berthould of London), the drawings accompanying it were copies re-engraved (with considerable 'artistic license') by Jean-Frédéric Waldeck. It is interesting to compare this drawing, presumably faithful to Almendariz's original, with the version (see here) made by Waldeck. Easy to see why accusations of wild fancy and Europeanisation leveled at Waldeck ring true. Other copies of Almendariz's drawing circulated in the early 19thC and were reproduced and used, mostly without attribution. One copy found its way to Alexander von Humboldt where it was reproduced in his Vue des Cordillères (1810), but was mis-captioned as a bas relief from Oaxaca.

  Almendariz is not credited as the illustrator in del Rio's text or in the collection of his drawings and as an artist is poorly documented; according to Heinrich Berlin his given name was probably Ignacio, not Ricardo.

  Re EV, in the context of Palenque's iconography this particular stucco relief is not among the most significant. Even within House A there are others like pier C with its six-fingered figure that have attracted greater study. In the context of Almendariz's works it's probably not his most interesting drawing (see the full set in the Kislak collection at the LoC's website), but maybe it's been reproduced slightly more than the others (maybe 'cos it's the first figure in the set). Although Almendariz's work may have been reasonable for the time, others like R. Tripp Evans (in Romancing the Maya, 2004) describe them, particularly his architectural drawings, as "often inaccurate", over-simplified and "dissapointingly banal" (pp.20-22). Del Rio and Almendariz were not the first to investigate and record Palenque, tho' theirs was probably the best-done study to that time. It could be argued that Almendariz's renderings had initially a slight adverse impact on early Maya studies, as they encouraged a number of 19thC theories of connections with Phoenicians, Romans, Egyptians, etc that were popular (particularly through the more widely seen bastardised versions produced by Waldeck). Compared to other drawings by Almendariz or later drawings of Palenque by others, it would be hard to say this is among the images with the highest EV; but on the other hand it's had an interesting history nonetheless and could be argued perhaps on that score.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for the thoughtful commentary. Selected this image principally as the first from this publication and partly because its perspective distortion challenges were less severe than others form the same group. See this blog post regarding the technical issues. Had an eye toward perhaps restoring the entire set if this were well received (which, as you can see, is not the case here). Would you suggest a different image from that group as being more suitable than this one? Durova³⁵⁹ 02:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that; I wish we could get such extensive history like that in all our noms (and captions - many of our FP captions lack in oh-so-many ways); too many times we voters just don't know enough about an image to question it, when questioning is precisely what's needed. upstateNYer 06:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Fascinating stuff. This nom is an extremely pertinent example of the inherent dangers in reinterpreting historical works. I don't want to sideline it any more than it has been, so I'll take it to the talk page. mikaul^talk
  • Don't get me wrong, I like the img and readily appreciate the evident technical skill of Durova's digital restoration. I'd have no issues with that, and would be glad if Durova had the time or inclination to attend to other drawings in Almendariz's set.

    Also agree with Awadewit that it is desirable practice to note in the caption, even briefly, that it is digitally restored. Particularly for drawings like this one that illustrate actual artefacts and sculptured/drawn iconography. In such cases analyses and interpretations of the item depicted depend not only on the original item's form, but also on an assessment of the illustrator's techniques and their choices about what to display and how, and even upon the condition of the drawing itself. Iconographic or textual information may or may not coincide with blotches, marks or other deficiencies in the drawing medium or its reproduction, and sometimes the addition or removal of a single line, curve or cross-hatch can change the epigraphic interpretation of a glyph, or the identification of an iconographic element (not that I'm saying Durova's careful alterations have had such an impact, but it's as well to note alteration has occurred). Sometimes it takes only a slight change to alter the reading of a glyph or element, and mistaken readings based on unclear reproductions or artist error certainly happen from time to time.

    These artefacts and reliefs are often damaged and how, or whether, the illustrator shows these broken or missing elements is an important consideration to know. Art historians & epigraphers can sometimes interpolate a reading from such broken or missing elements, but of course the rendered drawing needs to show the elements were once there. Modern archaeological artists are usually careful and follow conventions in depicting these elements; with earlier artists it is much more hit and miss. Almendariz's drawing is executed as if the relief was fully intact when he saw it—but was it? It would be unlikely that it was in pristine condition, possibly there are elements just filled in or guessed at.

    But that said, his rendition is a reasonable one considering the period, regarded as such as indicated by comments like George Stuart's. His architectural drawings were way off the mark, but for the most part his reliefs have analysis value. Any artist rendering in 2D a 3D stucco has to make choices about what's significant to display, and no two independently made drawings would be exact matches whatever the degree of care taken by the artist.

    As mentioned other Palenque reliefs drawn by Almendariz (eg the Palace Oval Tablet, fig.XV) are much more 'significant' to Mayanists and are better studied reliefs than this one (House A Pier E, Almendariz fig.I). However, after doing some more digging around into the background and reproduction history of this drawing, I don't think that detracts from any EV that could be attached to it. There have been a dozen or more versions derived from it published, while others in his set have been reproduced as well this one seems to be the most widely copied. In particular the version published by Humboldt in 1810 brought it to a wide 19thC audience, mislabelled even as it was (a correction was published in a note).

    As the genesis of many copies, as a representative image—whatever its faults—of Maya art as known to early Americanist scholars, and as an item with an interesting, convoluted and documented history of its own, I can see there's a reasonable case for EV to be made, and would be fine to support FPC. My main concern was that I thought the description needed to specify the relief's identification and some of the history behind it and the drawing, to be more complete and informative. A lot can go in the article of course, but that'd be a longer-term exercise, my time is limited right now but when I get a chance will add some sources and work to expand it. There are plenty of good sources on this out there, one of the most interesting and comprehensive is this 1994 article in the Anales del Museo de América. Check out in particular pp.105-107, where the author reproduces nine different versions of or derived from this drawing for comparision, together with the modern archaeological drawing of the relief by Merle Greene Robertson. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Thank you again, and feel free to make any alterations to the captions that you consider appropriate. Durova³⁶² 01:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Very cool; seems example 10 is the closest to the real thing. upstateNYer 03:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:PalenqueAc.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Controlled Impact Demonstration (Crash in the Desert)

Slapdown	Pre-impact	Post-impact 1	Post-impact 2
Post-impact 3

Reason

These 5 images are visceral, technically excellent (for the time period and condition), demonstrations of a rather complicated event. If a spectacular fireball doesn't inspire you to read more about this, nothing will. I think these are viable as a set as they take place in a time frame of a few seconds; that said, they are all distinct images. If one preferred, they could be potentially merged into a single image. My preference would be to have them left as is.

Articles this image appears in

Controlled Impact Demonstration

Creator

NASA

Practice approach, a possible 6th image in the set.

Six pics resized, cropped, white balanced, and arranged.

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Do you have one more picture?  Franklin.vp  07:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing 5 in the gallery; are they not appearing for you? Or, did you mean something else? Cowtowner (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes but with one more we would have 6 and could be arranged nicely ;)... or maybe delete one?.. nah. I guess it is better to display them in a row, I guess.  Franklin.vp  14:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • There is a practice approach image that would address that issue. Cowtowner (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Original I am sorry, but the images simply are not good enough. The first one particularly is incredibly blurry. The others are not much better. Considering the cameras NASA has, I cannot support such low quality images. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 20:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Like I said in the nom, we need to consider the circumstances: fast moving plane, harsh desert lighting, 1984 image quality which, while respectable, is always going to have issues with relatively high ISOs needed to get reasonably sharp images of this kind of event. Considering FP criteria states that exceptions can be made, and this wouldn't be a huge stretch, if there is no reasonable chance of an alternative being found (anyone else want to crash a Boeing 720? Retail price is only about $30,000,000 in today's money)Cowtowner (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Poor circumstances does not excuse a poor image every time. I'm sorry, but I am still opposing. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 05:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support array, I arranged them in an array, the individual images aren't sufficient but I think the array despite being unconventional is. Still has issues but this sequence is one of the most encyclopedic things I've seen, you don't see something like this often outside of the fakeness of film. I've worked with NASA and am aware of how retarded they can be, so I'm extremely disappointed but not extremely surprised that they didn't do a good job of recording this. "It's from 1984" is no excuse. I also would rather have individual images but as said they're not sharp until resized to oblivion. They indeed do some things right I'll admit, I'm very fond of Earth Observatory Image of the Day on my Google homepage for example. — Ben pcc (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please be civil and don't call people "asshats." Besides, anyone who has ever seen "The Blue Marble" knows that NASA has really good cameras. Thanks for the array, but I am also opposing it. Same problems as the individuals. Also, the first of the six in the array does not go well with the others in the array. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT He removed the "asshats" while I was typing this. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I hadn't seen civility, only no personal attacks. To clarify: asshat means someone who has his/her head in his/her ass, thus can't see well and is not aware and thus might miss something obvious, such as decent photography of the purposeful spectacular demolition of a large jet aircraft. Sorry about that. They do do some things right I'll admit, I' quite fond of for example Earth Observatory Image of the Day on my Google homepage. — Ben pcc (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You are digging quite the hole... Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 07:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Pfft, this is nothing. Before living in the city I dug holes all the time. One of my most memorable holes was for a llama, it took me the better half of a day and I was so proud I asked my then 7 year old sister to pose in it for a photo. — Ben pcc (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Array Grainy at full size, yes, but immediate wow factor. We have plenty of FPs in array style, some of which (if I remember right) only make the size requirement because of the array. I have no issues with this being promoted. A better (i.e. more complete) caption on the image page is requested though. upstateNYer 03:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either. They both work for me, actually. They'd have to be seen as a set in either case though (I see no risk of that not being the case at the article any time in the future). Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Array Better when smaller. One thing though, if this passes, the other version should be delisted. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 05:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Per Elekhh. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 07:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Array. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Array of five is simply awkward. Images don't fit together (3rd and 5th image do not align horizontally with the other ones). Elekhh (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Also oppose array of six: first image does not fit in the sequence. Elekhh (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on the right side of the bottom left picture in the array there is a white/light colored vertical line next to the black border. Why is that there? gren グレン 05:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I do see a very fine line on all of them which must be JPG compression (90% as with all of my images), the TGAs I worked with don't have it. — Ben pcc (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Array Immediate wow factor. The argument that NASA has better cameras is WP:BULLSHIT. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your claim of bullshit is itself bullshit. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 06:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude. Chill :->. — Ben pcc (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, the person who called me an asshat is going to tell me how to behave. I have struck out my the worst of my comments to raeky, but methinks you will and I are going to have issues, seeing as how I don't tolerate stupidity, and your comment about the holes was, well, stupid. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 00:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not you, NASA. That's why I used the plural form. Like I said, I hadn't seen Civility (new rule? I could swear I read over the five pillars thoroughly a couple years ago) but am aware and enthusiastic about No Personal Attacks. Sorry for not being clear. And I'm still firm on that despite occasional gems, NASA isn't (I'll be civil this time) very smart. I'm the most serious guy I know so I try to make up for it by being as stupid as possible when I remember. Did you know that the average person isn't strong enough to drag a llama, an emaciated one even? Not me, anyway. — Ben pcc (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:CID_Array.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Big wave breaking

Original - Big wave is breaking in Santa Cruz, California

Alt 1 - Big wave is breaking in Santa Cruz, California

not for voting Crop illustrating both surfers at full resolution.

Reason

Nice wave with a bonus (surfer) who provides a scale.

Articles this image appears in

Wind wave

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• As a result of reflexions arising from an ongoing discussion in the talk page images: do we care enough to draw up guidelines?. i find that it will be hard to proof verifiability of the statement that the scene is happening in Santa Cruz, California. Does the image lose some value if that is removed? I guess it doesn't.  franklin.vp  23:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the main point of that discussion revolves around old images because of their historical value. Our guidelines here are to assume good faith for user-generated content. upstateNYer 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. If that is the case then I find that a (solvable) weakness of Wikipedia (or the guidelines).  franklin.vp  00:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • That discussion has absolutely nothing to do with this image... J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Quite a big statement! (absolutely?) Did you read it?  franklin.vp  00:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I provided the info about the location because IMO it is one of the best places in Bay Area to see big waves and surfers together. Some readers, who live nearby, might be interested to go there and to see the scene themselves.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• My apologies. User mikaul pointed me to the corresponding WP[11]. I am still studying it but it seems to be that you are allowed to do that. Please continue with the review of the nomination disregarding the above.  franklin.vp  01:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• I am sorry if I am causing problems but I just want to get this right in my mind. Also, I think, it is not going to harm the nomination in any way. I read in the WPolicy, above, this (Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.) The caption of the image claims that it is a picture in Santa Cruz, California, which is a non-descriptive one. As I understand from the text in the link above, that claim would be an unpublished eyewitness account and they explicitly say it shouldn't be added to articles.  franklin.vp  01:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Then adding a geolocation to the images are also "unpublished eyewitness accounts"?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw the nomination because I believe it is not the right place to discuss such things--Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• No please, Mila, don't do that. I got convinced. Follow the link to the talk page to see how. So sorry for giving you troubles. We can put here one of those fancy boxes that hides a side discussion.  franklin.vp  04:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sorry I overreacted as usually :) Let's proceed.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Alt1, Oppose original - Alt1 has more drama going for it. The original is a good shot, it just doesn't draw me in nearly as much as the Alt1 image. Cacophony (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose both Support - I don't think the quality is there, size and sharpness is below average for a highly replaceable image such as this. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)