This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:FPC is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
Ads by Tiva
 |
Skip to: Table of contents | Current candidates | Decision time | More input needed | Suspended candidates | Candidates for delisting |
|
Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria. If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the nomination for delisting section. For promotion, if an image is listed here for about seven days with four or more opinions in support (including the nominator), and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Note, however, that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. The archive contains all opinions and comments collected on this page, and also nomination results. If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons, to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.
|
Featured picture tools: |
|
How to nominateStep 1 - EvaluateThe submissions will be evaluated using the criteria listed on Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? Please read the criteria before submitting a picture to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of making it. If you are unsure if your picture will fulfill the criteria, or would like advice on improving your nomination, please consider adding it to Wikipedia:Picture peer review for initial assessment. If you find this process too complicated, see below. Step 2 - Create subpageCreate a page to place the article on; this page needs to be a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. To create your own subpage, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the form below (for example Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button. Step 2.5 - Transclude and linkTransclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (direct link). Step 3 - Update imageOn the nominated image's page use the 'Edit page' button to add the fpc template like so: {{FPC|title}}. This inserts the featured pictures candidate template, to let the original contributor and other interested parties know that the image is up for voting. Too complicated?If you are unable to follow the above procedure, add your image to Wikipedia:Picture peer review following the simpler instructions provided there. You can mention that you would like to submit it to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, but that you don't know how. If someone else deems it suitable, they will add it to FPC on your behalf. Alternatively you can request a regular FPC or PPR editor to submit an image on your behalf by contacting them on their talkpage. How to comment
Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly. Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version. Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person. Editing candidatesIf you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g. add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (eg, Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied. Is my monitor calibrated correctly? In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.  On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that on a LCD display (laptop or flat screen) the viewing angle strongly affects these images. Click on the images for more technical info. |
||
- To see recent changes, purge the page cache
- Your comments are also appreciated on images at Picture peer review.
Current nominations
Mary Pickford
- Reason
- A high quality historic image that serves an encyclopedic function at several articles. Mary Pickford was one of the leading film stars of the silent era and cofounded the United Artists studio. This is also an example of a lobby card that illustrates both the famous children's book Little Lord Fauntleroy and the Fauntleroy suit. Restored version of Image:MaryPickford.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Mary Pickford, Movie poster, Little Lord Fauntleroy, Frances Hodgson Burnett
- Created by
- Frances Hodgson Burnett
- Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 00:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent scan. High encylcopedic value. Well utilized in articles. smooth0707 (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Jonquils
|
|
|
|
- Reason
- I really like the lighting in this photo - and FWIW there are no blown highlights!
- Articles this image appears in
- Narcissus (genus)
- Creator
- Fir0002
- Support Any as nominator --Fir0002 09:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Incomplete taxonomic information -> less EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment My first impression was that it seemed a little bit lacking in contrast. Looking at the histogram you have a little bit of room to play. Attached is an edited thumbnail with +15 contrast and +5 saturation. I didn't bother with the full size version as you may have the original RAW to work with.
- Support I like the original, though I could see the folliage being a bit richer in colour. The edit to me has less contrast and saturation IMO. Doesn't look better than the original. Capital photographer (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Original/Oppose Edit 1 A nice picture, well done/Resolution of Edit 1 is much too little. —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- The edit wasn't intended as a full resolution version, more an example. Noodle snacks (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Arachnis picta
- Reason
- A high detail macro, illustrating the subject clearly. A small part of the foreleg is out of focus, but the rest of the body is visible in high detail, as are the other two legs.
- Articles this image appears in
- Arachnis, Lepidoptera
- Creator
- Calibas
- Support as nominator --Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Editors might fuss over dof issues, and pick here and there, but the image is gorgeous. The aesthetic appeal is huge. I could wallpaper a room with it. --Blechnic (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Well done edit, by Mfield, also. Either one, lean a bit towards edit at low res. --Blechnic (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Might this be the best image we have of Lepidopteran wing scales? If so, that would be a safe article to include it in. PS Cf. Image:Lepidoptera wing.jpg. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's now in Lepidoptera, along with another much needed labeled illustration. I'm divided over which better illustrates scales however. 'Lepidoptera wing' works better as a thumb. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Very well done picture. Clegs (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit1 Mfield (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1. It's an impressive image, and the quality is good (especially with the edit). NauticaShades 23:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support both with preference to edit one. SpencerT♦C 01:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Manchester Museum of Science and Industry
- Reason
- Its a good size, good colours and shows the striking iron structure that marks the loaction of the museum which is one of the largest of its kind in the uk
- Articles this image appears in
- Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester
- Creator
- Childzy
- Support as nominator --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose particularly for the lighting. Much of the structure's detail is lost in shadow and cannot be seen - Peripitus (Talk) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose the subject is at an angle, not good to start of with, and the lighting is not of any use, this would take a lot of work to edit, if you wanted it to still be considered, but at the moment, I am opposing it. --Amckern (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per above, and also because it's severely tilted. Clegs (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Perched Long-billed Corella
- Reason
- A high quality image of a Long-billed Corella. It seems to fit the appropriate criteria.
- Articles this image appears in
- Long_billed_corella, Cockatoo, Licmetis
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Capital photographer (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oversharpened and on the small side. Nice picture otherwise. --Dschwen 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comments Please do not just remove discussions from a nomination. If you feel it does not belong there, then re-direct it elsewhere. Muhammad(talk) 18:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Muhammad. I know its easy to just say you support as per the nom, but it is expected that you provide a reason, just the same as an oppose. In this case it won't matter, but in some controversial noms it is important for obtaining consensus. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support somewhat creepy. --Meldshal42 (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good Photo worthy of FP. --Mifter (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice picture, well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:39, 2 July 2008
- Support really sharp and the colours are great --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support. I don't like the background, and I agree with [User:Dschwen|Dschwen]] that it's slightly oversharpened, but it's still feature-worthy. NauticaShades 00:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Rj1020 (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support for aesthetic appeal, the colours are gorgeous. It is also somewhat creepy, giving it an additional odd appeal. I think a lot of people would click on the image on the main page. --Blechnic (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hanbury locks
- Reason
- Self nom but a fairly typical English canal at it's best. Illustrates a section of the Droitwich Canal that is in water.
- Articles this image appears in
- Droitwich Canal
- Creator
- Geni
- Support as nominator --Geni 22:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sharp enough at that size smooth0707 (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Simply a boring and unimpressive shot. Having seen some fine shots of the English countryside and waterways in photo publications, I can say this isn't a canal at its best Capital photographer (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacks WOW factor. Clegs (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per the points mentioned by Capital photographer and Clegs. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Kayleigh Pearson
- Reason
- After checking the criteria I believe that the image meets the standards set for a Featured Picture.
- Articles this image appears in
- Kayleigh Pearson
- Creator
- Jimbo online
- Support as nominator ----Jimbo[online] 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, busy background, poor lighting. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agreed. Not bad for a user-shot photo in the article, but not really a FP-quality portrait. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per above comments. Clegs (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as per above. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose "After checking the criteria I believe that the image meets the standards set for a Featured Picture." I don't. To busy, taken from too high an angle and flash is too strong. Capital photographer (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Obvious fail here, but that is not to say that I didn't thoroughly enjoy this picture. smooth0707 (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Mmm. Oh, uh ... yeah. It's really not FP quality, just a standard snapshot-esque photo. ¢rassic! (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per the points mentioned by Coneslayer, Diliff and Crassic. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Largest theropods
- Reason
- Large informative encyclopedic image that gets the reader's attention and makes the subject more interesting. Useful at a variety of articles.
- Articles this image appears in
- Tyrannosaurus, Theropoda, Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, Largest organisms, Dinosaur size, Mapusaurus
- Creator
- Dinoguy2, converted to .svg by Dhatfield.
- Support as conominator --DurovaCharge! 03:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support as conominator --Dhatfield (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I know that this is a size comparison thing, but the realism/accuracy of the drawings are no where near FP level. The front limbs and teeth of the dinosaurs are particularly amateurish/unrealistic, and I dislike how the humans left arm gets "absorbed" into his body. --Fir0002 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Original and Edit Per Fir's comments + would like to see some more organic colours used Capital photographer (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Suspend Please suspend this nomination until I have addressed the above concerns. Dhatfield (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Dhatfield (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)- As it is suspended, I won't vote, but I find it a bit frustrating that I can't see the red one's tail - does it even have one? isn't that quite an important aspect of the size of them? Its the odd one out in the diagram in that respect. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What's the deal with the brown one apparently having only one leg?... Mangostar (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment One dinosaur is missing a leg and its bottom teeth, those with teeth are poorly drawn. They look like a child's drawings, cartoons rather than scientific visual aids that would be of value to someone doing research. Capital photographer (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- While the illustration is fairly basic and appears to have been traced, the point of it is not necessarily to be an accurate and detailed depiction of the animals, just their basic shape and proportions to illustrate comparative size. That said, it would be more visually pleasing if the illustration was of higher quality. This is what separates typical from FP quality diagrams/illustrations so in that sense I have to agree with you. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Work with the alpha channel! Also, how instructive is this illustration really, given that these creatures are very similar in size? What do we learn from it that couldn't be illustrated using text? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Despite the generally counterproductive nature of responding in FP noms, since we're heading into WP:SNOW territory fast anyway...
-
- To Capital photographer - skin colour is a complete guess in scientific circles, see this and this for a green and a red version of the same dinosaur. Since the colours are meaningless, why not help the visually impared? The teeth on the lower jaw of the Carcharodontosaurus are not shown because the source images do not show teeth - quite possibly because a lower jaw has not been found. I don't intend to 'make up' detail. Not sure if your comment regarding the poor quality of illustration of the teeth is with respect to the edit - teeth in the original were admittedly dire due to pixelation in the source. In response to your concerns about scientific content, see the response to Papa Lima Whiskey below.
-
- I know that. Hence I said more organic colours, in other words, colours more common in nature. I didn't ask for an approximation of what dinosaurs may have being coloured like, just some more apropriate colours other than bright red, green,etc. Capital photographer (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- To Diliff - red tail now inserted in proportion with the dinosaur, accuracy improved beyond the information available in the original down to approx. 1/10 pixel of the original. No comment with regards to aesthetic 'quality' - I don't have the required perspective. Dhatfield (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- To Papa Lima Whiskey - firstly, thanks for your advice, but there are technical reasons for not working with the alpha channel:
-
- Some software does not support gradient transparency, reducing interoperability and maintainability for the image
- The WP renderer has problems with some transparency mappings, as I experienced with this image.
- Secondly, you may not be looking as closely as a student would. Among what we can learn is: Tyrannosaurus rex had very small forelimbs relative to the other Theropods and two fingers, but was more heavily built in the body with a larger head. Spinosaurus, the largest, had a 'sail', a very uneven distribution of teeth and unusual skull shape relative to the other large Theropods. Gigantosaurus, despite its name, was a large but otherwise 'middle of the road' Theropod with a balance of power (Tyrannosaurus Rex) and agility (Mapusaurus). Mapusaurus and Carcharodontosaurus, despite their size, were built for speed and agility with body shapes similar to the smaller Eustreptospondylus. If you were a student who dug a little deeper you would note that according to the Theropod phylogeny, Gigantosaurus, Mapusaurus & Carcharodontosaurus belong to the family Carcharodontosauridae, explaining their similarity while Tyrannosauroidea and especially Spinosauridae are on divergent branches. You might then notice that Carcharodontosauridae isn't shown in the phylogeny and ask the maintainers why, thus improving Wikipedia. Anything can be illustrated with enough text but a picture is worth 50 words, minimum. Dhatfield (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is not easy to see the differences in overall size between these, due to the lack of transparency that I mentioned that would also allow you to follow body outlines more closely. The last time that Wikipedia had problems rendering a file, the nomination was suspended until the bug got fixed, rather than the file promoted with the necessary features removed. To illustrate differences in arm length or shape, it would be better to make a separate diagram, because people won't know what to focus on with the minimal information you initially provided to go along with this image. (I could also mention that the detail on jaws and forelimbs feels vague for a vector image, but Fir already said that.) Finally, making one diagram to point out that another one is missing something borders on WP:POINT and is not a good reason for promotion. We have an abundance of templates for pointing out problems. Please use these, or be bold yourself. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- The bug you refer to was my edit :) Unfortunately, given that flesh is not preserved by the fossilisation process, all images of dinosaurs are artists conceptions - I'd rather not add to a long and proud tradition of making stuff up. Fair comment regarding the caption, but I'd prefer if it was written by someone more knowledgeable than myself - de Bivort? I don't get the WP:POINT reference - this image was in no way made to point out the phylogeny problem, I just learned it while researching the answer to your question. You think I'd do that to achieve that? I'd praise the man who channels his frustration so productively. Fir0002's comment was regarding the original and the edit was a direct result - please keep the crit specific, otherwise I can't work from it. Thanks. Dhatfield (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- First, I'm saying if you are going to use the effect of this image on the fate of another image as an argument to get this image promoted, then, yes, I do believe you are committing a WP:POINT violation. Maybe that is not what you were aiming for. Second, I believe I have been quite specific in my criticism. General consensus among palaeontologists suggests that the shape of hands and fingers closely follows the bone structure. We have no reason to assume otherwise, as bulky soft tissue on the appendages is a very rare occurrence among extant animals. So if you want to draw accurate hands, just imagine the bones with a bit of skin on them, and you'll be fine. Alternatively, sticking to the skeleton entirely would be an acceptable solution afaik. In your diagram you (or rather, the people whose drawings you used as models) have already extrapolated soft tissue between the ribs and pelvis, for instance. The bottom line for me is that an image should not get promoted in spite of technical insufficiencies, just because the requirements haven't been implemented yet. In fact, part of your argument seems to equate to saying that because it's possible to make video players that interpret various video formats incorrectly (and there probably are some), we should promote stills instead of videos whenever a video is required. I hope this makes it clear enough that you are acting on a flaw of logic. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Male Australian Wood Duck
- Reason
- High quality and enc image of a male Australian Wood Duck
- Articles this image appears in
- Australian Wood Duck
- Creator
- Fir0002
- Support as nominator --Fir0002 07:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral It's a beautiful picture (and I'd add, as often), but I think it should be sharper at that size. I miss some details and texture on the legs, but maybe I'm asking too much which is why I don't oppose. Blieusong (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Crisp detail, great colour and background difussion Capital photographer (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- It certainly is a good picture, but featuring 1.6MP photos which are not completely sharp is pretty 2005. Ack Blieusong. --Dschwen 14:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm also missing the detail and ruing the blur. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Super composition means it gets my vote --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition. --Dsmurat (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support The important part is sharp. It's arty. I love the composition, the colour, the background diffusion to copy a couple of other support votes above. I love the result of the composition and will strongly oppose any sharpening. Blow it up big and enter it in a an art photo contest, also. --Blechnic (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Dew on a Equisetum fluviatile Luc Viatour.jpg
- Reason
- A stunning, technically nearly perfect picture with high encyclopedic value.
- Articles this image appears in
- Surface tension, Guttation, Cohesion (chemistry)
- Creator
- Luc Viatour
- Support as nominator —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good quality and encyclopedic value. --Mifter (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Guttation or Dew? Time to decide for one or the other. --Dschwen 22:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Considering the spacing only on the tufts, I'd bet it's the former. de Bivort 21:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great clarity and colour Capital photographer (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Looks good. Support. Acalamari 15:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Capital. ¢rassic! (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice image - needs clarification on what it is representing per Dschwen. Mfield (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice shot. I also think this is a pretty good example of a natural convex lens and it might be worth adding it in Lens (optics); possibly as a replacement for Image:GGB reflection in raindrops.jpg which IMO doesn't work as well as this for an example of lenses in nature since the droplets are on a man-made surface (glass). --Fir0002 07:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Fir0002. - Darwinek (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Good quality, and, as Fir0002 pointed out, quite encyclopedic. NauticaShades 00:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support But it sure looks like an example of guttation, not dew. Please rename. --Blechnic (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice image, high quality. SpencerT♦C 01:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
F-22 Raptor
- Reason
- Great Image of F-22 Raptor. The front F-22 is well focused while the column formation provides the wow factor.)
- Articles this image appears in
- F-22 Raptor
- Creator
- US Airforce
Oppose There is quite a bit of noise in the F-22 Raptor in the back... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 17:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)- Yeah, there is a bit, but I wouldn't call it overly conspicuous or detrimental. The trouble is, noise reduction can be done, but it turns the detail in the hills behind to mush. I've just made an edit with selective noise reduction only of the planes and of the exhaust fumes where there is no detail that would be missed (feathered so it blends nicely). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support edit1 - Thanks for the noise reduction Diliff. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 15:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, there is a bit, but I wouldn't call it overly conspicuous or detrimental. The trouble is, noise reduction can be done, but it turns the detail in the hills behind to mush. I've just made an edit with selective noise reduction only of the planes and of the exhaust fumes where there is no detail that would be missed (feathered so it blends nicely). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support with preference for edit 1. Good capture. I'm sure this image has been nominated before but perhaps not... Or a different version? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support edit 1 The haze over the second plane is a little bothersome, imo. But an otherwise great photo. ¢rassic! (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support. The haze prevents me from giving this otherwise good image my full support. NauticaShades 21:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit1 I have no problem with the haze - it's inevitable with a shot from the front in column flight that the rear plane will be photographed through the jet exhaust of the front plane. Mfield (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose The exhaust from the leading raptor just spoils the image. Also im not keen on the angle this has been taken from either. I love the aircraft but not this photo unfortunately. Seddσn talk Editor Review 22:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think its odd that people are having a problem with the jet exhaust. It's a jet fighter, it has jet exhaust. This is WP FP, not Commons FP, and if anything this adds to the encyclopedic value of the image. If the front plane were obscured by exhaust that would be one thing, but the second plane is really just a background object and when you put things behind a jet fighter in flight, they aren't going to be sharp. Mfield (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- I don't have a problem with just the exhaust but given that the first jet only occupies the bottom 2/3rds of the image, to me is seems that having the top third be occupied by a jet just doesn't do anything for this image and in my opinion decreases the quality of the image. I'm more than aware that jets have jet exhausts, i have studied jet propulsion in enough detail to realise that, but in my opinion there is too much of this image that detracts from the leading aircraft. Seddσn talk Editor Review 00:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough - I wasn't by any means targetting you with that btw - hence a general comment rather than a reply to your oppose. It only sprang to mind to make the comment as a number of poeple had mentioned it weakening their support. Mfield (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of course i didnt presume that, i think its just one of those things that makes people hesitant with that image. Seddσn talk Editor Review 01:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very cool! Clegs (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 1. Blur from exhaust is natural phenomenon, has EV. One plane is in good view, should be enough. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Either, but prefer original, not necessary to edit. --Blechnic (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A Jackson's Chameleon on the Island of Maui
- Reason
- Subject is nicely defined in a beautiful surrounding.
- Articles this image appears in
- Chamaeleo jacksonii
- Creator
- User:Movingsaletoday
- Support as nominator --Rj1020 (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose First, I think, it has a bad composition: All the plants are really distracting. In addition to that, it's blurred and very noisy at full resolution. All in all low technical quality and —because of the points mentioned before— not even that high encyclopedic value. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support great color, and detail on the lizard. Shows its camouflage well also. de Bivort 21:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Per nominator. I have a question , what are those small circles on the leaf ? Bewareofdog 04:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Original - Support Edit Poor quality both technically and aesthetically in the original. Not enough impact and needing a crop. The edit is much nicer, support. Greater impact. Capital photographer (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support - not perfect but a large decent quality image that definately adds value to the article. Guest9999 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Brilliant image, I especially like the way you don't even see the animal at first. Nice composition, good detail. ProfDEH (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't need cropping. The interesting thing about chameleons is the well-known fact that they blend into the background. Usually photographs completely fail to demonstrate that (look at the other examples on the article) and here you really do see it. The bright flowers help a lot with that. ProfDEH (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Crop - Plenty of detail in the subject itself. I wonder if it might benefit from a tighter crop to make the subject more visible in the thumbnail? I prefer the new cropped version Noodle snacks (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Subject is partly hidden by foreground objects. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support The point of this picture is to show how well he blends in with his surrounding, not to show an isolated chameleon. Does an excellent job of doing that. Clegs (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- That isn't stated anywhere - neither caption here nor in article, and it's not included in any camouflage-related articles. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Next time tell the plants to go away? What's the EV in deleting the surroundings from a well-blended chameleon? Love the colors, it's a fun image. --Blechnic (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Being an encyclopaedia, we try to illustrate the whole animal, not just the parts that happen not to be obscured when the photograph is taken. These creatures don't exactly run away at a flying pace, so there's no good excuse for the random flowers in the foreground. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- The good excuse for the random flowers is habitat. Encylcopedias contain illustrative images of the entire animal as an example of form alongside images of animals in habitat, because creatures do not live in isolation. Our articles are not mere descriptions of the morphology of an animal, they discuss its habitat, its ecology, its life cycle, including reproduction, maturation, means of defeating animals that prey upon it. If they don't cover all of this they're called and classified as articles in need of work: stubs and start class. --Blechnic (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Chamaeleons are not native to the Americas, nor anywhere close to Maui. The image description even identifies the animal as "feral". Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- The good excuse for the random flowers is habitat. Encylcopedias contain illustrative images of the entire animal as an example of form alongside images of animals in habitat, because creatures do not live in isolation. Our articles are not mere descriptions of the morphology of an animal, they discuss its habitat, its ecology, its life cycle, including reproduction, maturation, means of defeating animals that prey upon it. If they don't cover all of this they're called and classified as articles in need of work: stubs and start class. --Blechnic (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Being an encyclopaedia, we try to illustrate the whole animal, not just the parts that happen not to be obscured when the photograph is taken. These creatures don't exactly run away at a flying pace, so there's no good excuse for the random flowers in the foreground. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Utah teapot
- Reason
- The Utah teapot is one of a handful of iconic models from the early development of 3D computer graphics, having been developed in 1975. This render of the teapot uses unique textures, bump maps and lighting to demonstrate key 3D rendering techniques like texturing, manipulation of lighting, highlights & shadows, radiosity and reflection. Image rendered in POV-ray.
- Articles in which the Alt 2 image appears
- Utah teapot, Computer graphics, Phong shading, 3D modeling, Bump mapping, Radiosity
- Creator
- Dhatfield using the teapot model developed by Martin Newell and modified by his co-worker, Jim Blinn.
- Support as nominator --Dhatfield (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Confusing picture, no need to include all 3D design/rendering techniques in one particular image. Black spot (that take over 10% of image) distracts viewer from the main subject --Mothmolevna (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Support Alt2 - all concerns have been adressed --Mothmolevna (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your constructive criticism.Dhatfield (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Alt2 Meets all of the FPC criteria very well for being a rendered model. The encyclopedic value of this render is undeniable. The reflection of the spout does concern me a little because it doesn't reflect the curves of the teapot very well(IMO). Try corpping the picture of the Alternative from the bottom and left side it's way off center. victorrocha (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose
editsalts - not used in any articles. Guest9999 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Of course the edits are not used in any articles. If the edit is featured, then it will be replaced in the article. Muhammad(talk) 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- The fact that they are not in the article means that they have not passed the peer review of those editors that improve and maintain the article, being featured is not an argument for including an image in an article; it should show its worth independent of status - without being in an article these images have not done that. The
"edits""alts" differ significantly from the original image (which is in the article) and I don't think it should be taken for granted that the new image would just be accepted. Guest9999 (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that they are not in the article means that they have not passed the peer review of those editors that improve and maintain the article, being featured is not an argument for including an image in an article; it should show its worth independent of status - without being in an article these images have not done that. The
- Weak support alt2 The image labeled original is not as typical as alt2, and has too much other distracting things in it. But you ought to state the source clearer on the image's page, atm it just says the model is from 1975. Narayanese (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting, but not intersting enough for an FP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I feel like you've nominated two completely seperate images here, especially considering how they are used in different articles for different purposes. In addition, the old caption makes a somewhat confusing Aladdin's Lamp reference, and the new caption "The Utah Teapot" (on the article), is uninformative. smooth0707 (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- 3D graphics consists of two distinct steps: modeling and rendering. In the context of this FPC it is the model that has significance, not the form in which it is presented. The image that is selected by the community as the best representation of the model (so far, Alt 2) is used, with appropriate captions, in numerous articles. Dhatfield (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I understand how it works. It seems that this image has only been added to articles by the nom in the last 24 hrs (here, here, here and here so you can understand my doubt. smooth0707 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- I am only beginning to understand how the system works. Alt 2 has only existed for just over 48 hours. Guest9999's
hit-and-runoppose and your comment regarding the confusion created by having different versions in different articles encouraged me to clarify the use of the image. For one editor to oppose on the grounds that an edit is not in an article while another editor opposes on the grounds that it was recently added to articles is confusing. I see the shadowy hand of The Photographer's Cabal at work here ;) Dhatfield (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am only beginning to understand how the system works. Alt 2 has only existed for just over 48 hours. Guest9999's
Leonotis Leonurus
- Reason
- A well taken image, good detail of the flower itself. Decent lighting and contrast make this image visually appealing and the subject matter educational.
- Articles this image appears in
- Leonotis leonurus
- Creator
- Jordan Timothy James Busson
- Support as nominator --J.T Pearson (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Sorry, but I don't think this is going to quite make it. It's a pretty awkward crop making it hard to figure out what's what, and focus seems to be in the wrong place (but it's hard to say for sure because I'm not sure what you were actually trying to focus on). Also looks to have significantly blown areas on the main subject, what I assume are the flower petals. The background is also very noisy. Could be worth trying Wikipedia:Picture peer review first. --jjron (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per the points mentioned by Jjron; poor technical quality. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very distracting surroundings. ¢rassic! (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor technical quality Capital photographer (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Canary Wharf skyline
- Reason
- It is a well exposed, aesthetic, high resolution panoramic view of an important location and skyline in London.
- Articles this image appears in
- Canary Wharf and Cabot Square
- Creator
- Diliff
- Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice Mfield (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Terrific quality. ¢rassic! (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Great one. Where are all people? - Darwinek (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- I went to great lengths to avoid them, actually. It took about 45 minutes for me