This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates 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 image on; this page needs to be a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. To create your own subpage, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the form below (for example Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button. 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
Flypast
- Reason
- This high-def photo clearly defines a flypast, or ceremonial flights by groups of aircraft
- Articles this image appears in
- Flypast
- Creator
- U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. Ben Bloker
US Border Crossing into San Ysidro, California from Tijuana, Mexico
- Reason
- I found this scene amazing when I took the photo. Its EV is high due to the current immigration situation in the US, and I believe its interest value (or "wow factor") is high due to the population of vehicles and vendors traveling between them. I could be pushing it, but I always liked this photo a lot and I think the resolution is good enough.
- Articles this image appears in
- San Ysidro, San Diego–Tijuana metropolitan area
- Creator
- wadester16
- Support as nominator --Wadester16 (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Combustion chamber of a coal fired steam train
- Reason
- This is a very difficult subject to photograph - both because they're fairly rare and hard to get access to. I think the pic came out quite well.
- Articles this image appears in
- Combustion chamber
- Creator
- Raul654
- Support as nominator --Raul654 (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I like the contrast between the dull metal chamber and the bright coals inside. Good EV and enough interesting aspects to deserve FP status. -- Wadester16 (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support' Good photo of a technical aspect of steam engines -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Boat Orchid
- Support as nominator --Bewareofdog 02:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Interesting flower pic. I like your reason. LOL Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Dahlia at the Royal Botanical Gardens
- Reason
- The meets all of the WP:FPC criteria. Additionally, it is an attractive eye-catching photo of a beautiful flower.
- Articles this image appears in
- Dahlia, Perennial plant, Royal Botanical Gardens, (Ontario)
- Creator
- Angel caboodle
- Support as nominator --— Kendra Michele — 17:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Blown highlights, messy background. --Janke | Talk 19:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor photographic quality: noise, artifacts, unsharpness, lighting, composition, background. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - a very good choice, very professional and beautiful. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as per Alves (Giligone (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC))
- Oppose as per the poor photographic quality described very well by Alvesgaspar above. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A nice picture of a dahlia, but far from the outstanding quality expected for a featured pic. Per Alvesgaspar. Húsönd 00:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alvesgaspar -- Wadester16 (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Poplar hawk-moth.jpg
- Reason
- After reviewing the criteria, I believe this image is of feature standard. It's of a good quality and high resolution. I understand there are a lot of images of caterpillars dotted around the project but I believe this image is a very ravishing depiction of such a creature.
- Articles this image appears in
- Poplar Hawk-moth, Caterpillar
- Creator
- RyanLupin
- Support as nominator --—— RyanLupin • (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support: It's a very clear and detailed photo of a tiny creature. Very well done. — Kendra Michele — 16:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support! Wow, it's impressive as a thumb, but even more so full res! Good choice. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Subject cut off at rear end, leaf covering it in part. Grainy, compression artifacts... --Janke | Talk 19:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Overexposed and unsharp. Subject cut off. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I see no problem with the covering leaf, but cut at rear end is unfortunate. And I share the sharpness concerns. Húsönd 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - I like this photo and I think it's great, but I'm concerned about the fact that the head is out of focus and the the upper part of the body is overexposed.- Wadester16 (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge
- Reason
- A notable bridge, a notable location, and an irreproducible image: the railroad got bought by another company in 1882 and the bridge was replaced in 1897. Restored version of Image:Niagara rail.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge
- Creator
- Clay, Cosack & Co.
- Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 10:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Seems accurate enough [1] --Uncle Bungle (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Restoration is really nice. I like this nomination a lot. -- Wadester16 (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Female Galah Outside Nest
![[1]](http://www.niagarafrontier.com/image/HSTlowertrainbridge.jpg){kind=link}
- Reason
- Good image quality, outside a nest and displaying a crest so EV is raised.
- Articles this image appears in
- Galah, Crest (bird) (only in a gallery but the article needs expansion so could appear inline)
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Good composition and enc, but I'd like to see it bigger and a little sharper. Also, grainy and a (very) small amount of purple fringing on the tail feathers.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 11:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - The bird seems like its in the wrong place to me... It could stand to be larger in resolution as well I think. (Giligone (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC))
- What do you mean by "wrong place"? Noodle snacks (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Uluguru Mountains Panorama
- Reason
- A high resolution, good quality image with a great amount of encyclopedic value, replacing this image in the article. This picture shows the complete ranges unlike any other picture on the internet and is much better in terms of quality. The picture also gives a clear view of the mountains, without the distractions caused by telephone and electricity cables.
- Articles this image appears in
- Uluguru Mountains
- Creator
- Muhammad
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 07:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Unappealing composition - it feels severely cut off at the bottom. For this reason, showing so little of the surroundings, enc is also low. --Janke | Talk 08:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Compact-Flourescent-Bulb
- Reason
- This is a Beautiful, High quality image depicting a Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb. Significant because these bulbs are becoming more common every day and now play a large part in many people's lives.
- Articles this image appears in
- Compact fluorescent lamp
- Creator
- PiccoloNamek
- Support as nominator --The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose well composed, but a bit small. Circumstances should be possible to duplicate at higher resolution. Please try again. :) DurovaCharge! 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would support but it's too small so Reluctant oppose. Intothewoods29 (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Rather low enc, little or no "wow" - a larger size actually wouldn't bring out more detail... --Janke | Talk 08:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I don't think 'wow' is a requirement. The EV is high, but the resolution is not. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Bennett Place
- Reason
- High quality illustration of a U.S. historic site, carefully taken in appropriate weather conditions. Compares well to other photographs of the same site.
- Articles this image appears in
- Bennett Place
- Creator
- Specious
- Support as nominator --Specious (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow, weak technical quality at full resolution. Sorry. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment might make a good candidate for the Valued Image program at Commons. DurovaCharge! 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - Minimal wow. Good photo, can't take that away. I think Durova's suggestion of VI isn't a bad idea. -- Wadester16 (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
George Washington's first State of the Union Address
- Reason
- This might be our first .djvu file to become a featured picture candidate. Click on the image to view all seven pages. Resolution is a little on the low side, but the text is legible and the encyclopedic value is pretty high.
- Articles this image appears in
- State of the Union Address, Presidency of George Washington
- Creator
- George Washington
- Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 20:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It is a really great image, but i'm not thrilled about the fact it is a .djvu. I think that most users, like myself, will come across this image, and not know how to view the full res, or how to properly save and open the file. The same could be said of a pdf file, but that is more of the standard and most users know how to deal with such a format. Is there a specific reason why this is in djvu format? smooth0707 (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Needs to be in a more common format, so we can fix the annoying tilt... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)\
- Oppose Not opposed to the format, but the quality isn't great. Very noticeable jpeg artefacts (viewed in Evince). —Pengo 09:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Charlie Sheen
- Reason
- It meets most of the FPC criteria.
- Articles this image appears in
- Charlie Sheen
- Creator
- Marsha Foster
- Support as nominator ----Music26/11 19:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A nice sketch, but the fact that Sheen's face is cut in half drastically reduces enc. SpencerT♦C 20:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I guess the sketch is ok, but I don't see the point. If this was a photo of him, it could be said to represent Sheen. Instead it's a sketch, so we are representing the sketch instead of the actor. I don't see that the sketch is important in any way. I also take issue with its execution, the bits of hair coming down his forehead aren't done very well. The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't even think it looks that much like Charlie Sheen. Sorry. -- Wadester16 (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Josh Blue
- Reason
- The image maches most of the FP criteria
- Articles this image appears in
- Josh Blue
- Creator
- Bryce Boyer
- Support as nominator ----Music26/11 19:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good technicals (I can see each hair!), but more importantly, intriguing composition. I find the mike, and the subject's expression, appropriate for a comedian.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. An article on a comedian should have an equally zany pic like this. Good EV. However, you should expand the caption ASAP, as that might garner some oppose votes. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Pretty much per above =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Composition, quality, and the "wow" appropriate for illustrating a comedian. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - as per above. (Giligone (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC))
- Support An excellent portrait; has character as well as excellent technical quality. --Abdominator (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Stages of development of honey bee drone pupae
- Reason
- Tremendous EV, meets size requirements, quality photo, and it would have taken the creator a good amount of time and effort to create this
- Articles this image appears in
- Pupa, Honey bee life cycle
- Creator
- Waugsberg
Support as nominator--Wadester16 (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)- Oppose - Fair enough, the other that has already become featured is indeed better. I hadn't seen that one. Thanks Calliopejen1. - Wadester16 (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional support - I thought this was a Featured picture. Can we double-check a similar version wasn't promoted already? Otherwise, fully in support of this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it was nominated with another here, and this particular one wasn't promoted. I opposed it then and I oppose it now because the arrangement of the pupae (laying on top of honeycomb) is unencyclopedic and misleading. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose Misleading per Calliopejen. I learned more by looking at the previous nom's other image.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Excavations at the archaeological site of Atapuerca (Spain)
- Reason
- panorama image which shows a normal day in the Atapuerca excavation. Hugin and Gimp were used to make this great photo. If you like this image, any of you can put it in the Atapuerca English Wikipedia.
- Articles this image appears in
- Atapuerca Mountains
- Creator
- Mario Modesto Mata
- Support as nominator --Mario modesto (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Though it looks pretty decent as a thumbnail, when viewed full, sharpness is quite lacking. SpencerT♦C 20:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I know it's been said before, but we really are holding a double standard if we call sharpness lacking in 29 megapixel pictures like this, then pile on support for, e.g., Fir0002's "sharp" 1.7 MPs. This picture is extremely sharp at around 6 MP, which is still a far higher resolution than we normally see here. Thegreenj 20:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Then someone should downsample it. The image should be judged at full size and if it isn't sharp at full size it shouldn't be featured (presuming there are no special circumstances). There is no reason to have anything less than stunning sharpness in the FP collection unless the image is very rare or difficult to capture. Perhaps if it was downsized it would be better. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 21:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Fbc is right - there is no excuse for poor sharpness at 100% in 29MP panoramas as Diliff has conclusively proven. And you can lose the inverted commas because my images aren't sharp just because of downsampling. This FP is nearly 100% crop (I think the original was ~1700px) and you can see a 100% crop here. Sharpness comes from decent equipment, good technique and correct post processing. There is no excuse for a 350D to produce images with sharpness as terrible as in this image. To give you an idea how bad it is I downsampled the image to 50%, applied some sharpening and then resized it to its original size in Photoshop and I'd argue it's even better than the original - it certainly hasn't lost any information! Downsampled and then upsized, crop from the original. At 100% this image simply isn't FP grade --Fir0002 22:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to single your photos out; they're just a convinient example of high-quality but medium-resolution pictures (and FWIW I don't really care how your pictures look at 100% so much as how the version on Wikipedia looks). I don't argue that it shouldn't be downsampled. If it won't lose any information, by all means, do so! But downsampling it hasn't made it higher quality; at best it's the same. To oppose a blurry 29 MP picture and support the same one downsampled is like printing a photo out poster-size and saying that it's lower quality than a 4×6. Thegreenj 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well no I can't say your analogy works. Because at FP the technical quality of a 29MP image has to be the same as the quality of a 1.5MP image - it's a linear quality curve (at least that's how I consider it). I'm not saying that downsampling will make it higher quality, I'm saying that the image quality is not that of a 29MP FP - it has to be downsampled to get to FP levels of sharpness. --Fir0002 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I see what you're saying, though I don't agree with it. I suppose as long as the phrase "no information is lost" is remembered, it's an OK (albeit pointless) way to look at the guidelines. Thegreenj 13:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well no I can't say your analogy works. Because at FP the technical quality of a 29MP image has to be the same as the quality of a 1.5MP image - it's a linear quality curve (at least that's how I consider it). I'm not saying that downsampling will make it higher quality, I'm saying that the image quality is not that of a 29MP FP - it has to be downsampled to get to FP levels of sharpness. --Fir0002 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to single your photos out; they're just a convinient example of high-quality but medium-resolution pictures (and FWIW I don't really care how your pictures look at 100% so much as how the version on Wikipedia looks). I don't argue that it shouldn't be downsampled. If it won't lose any information, by all means, do so! But downsampling it hasn't made it higher quality; at best it's the same. To oppose a blurry 29 MP picture and support the same one downsampled is like printing a photo out poster-size and saying that it's lower quality than a 4×6. Thegreenj 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- I know it's been said before, but we really are holding a double standard if we call sharpness lacking in 29 megapixel pictures like this, then pile on support for, e.g., Fir0002's "sharp" 1.7 MPs. This picture is extremely sharp at around 6 MP, which is still a far higher resolution than we normally see here. Thegreenj 20:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This wasn't in any articles on en.wiki at the time of the nom, but I added it to Atapuerca Mountains. SpencerT♦C 20:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support for the good EV. I think it's sharp enough. You might consider expanding the caption on the article, right now all it says is "Gran Dolina". Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I reduced the size of the image and the darkness at the bottom of the image, where the red archaeologist is excavating, to show better her work in one of the main archaeological levels in Europe. Mario 14:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's better but I think you can get it even better if you apply some sharpening. --Fir0002 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Highlighted and sharpened. i hope you like.
- It's better but I think you can get it even better if you apply some sharpening. --Fir0002 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose any downsampled version Whichever way you look at it, downsampling DOES remove information. Downsampling makes an image LOOK better, but in no way improves it. If someone wants to print this photo on a big poster, they would want to use the largest version available. If someone wants to print it to something much smaller, it is simple for them to do the resizing themselves. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Feral Barbary Dove
- Reason
- Good image quality, obviously escaped from an aviary, not supposed to be found here
- Articles this image appears in
- Barbary Dove, Feral
- Creator
- Noodle_snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment it'd be nice to have a longer caption. I want to know why it's "not supposed to be found here". They're not native to Tasmania is my guess (I'm too lazy to look @ the article. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Added a bit more to the caption based on the conclusion that the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds came up with when asked to identify it. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Formica rufa
- Reason
- I finished watching an NG documentary about insect wars and thought of checking out the pictures on wikipedia. This one meets all the criteria.
- Articles this image appears in
- Formica rufa
- Creator
- Richard Bartz
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 10:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support There are some out of focus areas but no important detail is lost imo. The detail in the important areas and the background and lighting are very good. There are some blown highlights in places as well but I don't really think it effects the image much. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Yeah, there are some weak points (mentioned by Noodle snacks), but it's still a quite good picture. Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Subject is cut off (bottom of the left leg). Although there might be an explanation for it I also suspect there has been some significant and unpleasant editing to the background colour/saturation. I base this off the following: the leftmost leaf has a very odd colouration with dapples of green sharply contrasting with the rest of the leaf (this is characteristic of saturating only in the green range in Photoshop); there are strange red outlines around many of the OOF background leaves; and the underside of the ant's black abdomen seems tinted in the greens too much (reflections?). Not bad but those issues prevent it from being FP worthy IMO --Fir0002 02:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - It seems a bit over sharpened to me. I can see green and red dots all over. Also, as per Fir0002. (Giligone (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC))
Marines at Wana, Okinawa
- Reason
- A dramatic, good quality image of historical interest and which effectively shows employment of infantry combat tactics in a real life situation. The photo was unsuccessfully nominated in 2005 [2] but a recently published book has provided additional information and context about the photo [3].
- Articles this image appears in
- Battle of Okinawa, Fireteam, 1st Marine Division (United States), Surrender of Japan, 2nd Battalion 1st Marines, Pacific Ocean theater of World War II, and Volcano and Ryukyu Islands campaign
- Creator
- Staff Sergeant Walter F. Kleine
![[3]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AWw2_158.jpg&diff=14204191&oldid=9053785){kind=link}
- Support as nominator --Cla68 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Blown highlights. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC) (forgot to login)
- Comment Though storming Okinawa might have been difficult, and historically important, this isn't much of a picture. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. A rare and powerful shot. The well-presented, well-sourced contextual information more than makes up for the technical weaknesses.--ragesoss (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. If I was a soldier and I was under fire, and I saw some civilian guy taking pictures of me, I'd better end up being a featured pic! LOL oh yeah and for the reasons already stated. Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality is too low - white dust/blotches, contrast problem, plus what looks like slight posterization & compression artifacts. --Janke | Talk 12:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree with Janke...quality is way too low to allow me to support. SpencerT♦C 20:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Kirchberg Panorama
.jpg)
- Reason
- A really beautiful scene from Saxony Germany. Very useful as well as the article doesn't have much text and so the proverbial thousand words from this image substantially improves it.
- Articles this image appears in
- Saxony and Kirchberg, Saxony
- Creator
- Aka
- Support as nominator --Abdominator (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent quality, and has good EV showing the german countryside. (Giligone (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC))
- Support for all of the above. Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - it seems that we support any panorama here but this one in particular doesn't have a very good composition.--Avala (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - awkward composition and blown highights are the big problems.--ragesoss (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Well, I have to agree with ragesoss and Avala; the composition is really nothing special. Additionally the technical quality is quite weak at full resolution and finally I don't think the encyclopedic value is that high. All in all not enough for an FP, sorry. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Shiveluch Volcano
- Reason
- Huge EV, excellent resolution and quality, practically all noise has been removed by Noodle snacks. This is an edit, so I would like to see if it passes before the original is removed. Almost as good as the Mount Cleveland image.
- Articles this image appears in
- Shiveluch (if passed)
- Creator
- Expedition 15 crewmember, edited by Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --—Sunday Scribe 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Though looking aesthetically nice at a smaller resolution, the general low quality (noise/faint square-shaped artifacts) makes me oppose. SpencerT♦C 00:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose because the editing process seems to have left visible artifacts in the image -- just look in the tan-colored plume for instance. Readers might want to check the original for comparison [4]. Showing the junction point of two volcanic lines, the image is encyclopedic as well as aesthetic, and not replaceable as it's taken from orbit. The original is not extremely high quality but I wonder if it's salvageable? Caption is also way too long and should be moved into the article (which really needs it). Yet, it seems to have been copied from NASA. Anyone know if it's standard practice to put a disclaimer in noting the text is from a PD source, not a Wikipedian? Lastly, I doubt the caption is accurate in a few places. First, could the summit rocks be only 65,000 years old? That seems like a bit of an eyeblink, geologically. On the other hand, I take it the summit rocks of a volcano would be the youngest. But the 3,200 mile peak noted for the summit is definitely wrong... the photographer would be looking up at it from the ISS! Fletcher (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Opppose - Although an interesting shot from a good angle the quality of the photo is very poor. Also, the caption is probably too long. (Giligone (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC))
- Oppose Artefacting and its too dark IMO. --Abdominator (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose due to low technical quality explained by Spencer above. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Mostecká, Malá Strana, Prague
