Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Menchi (talk | contribs) at 02:56, 16 October 2004 (support Shadow puzzle]] */). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
Featured article (FA) tools

Wikipedia:Featured pictures is a list of images and diagrams that are beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant (see also Wikipedia:Featured articles). Taking the common saying 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. If you believe that you have found or created an image that matches these expectations then please add it below into the Current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image that currently exists in the Wikipedia:Featured pictures gallery should not be there, the Nomination for removal section of this page can be used to nominate it for delisting.

For delisting, this page is similar to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.

For listing, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with four or more supporting votes including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination, and the general consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Here are some guidelines to consider (decisions are made on a case-by-case basis):

The archive contains all votes and comments collected on this page and also vote tabulations.

Also, be sure to sign (with date/time) your nomination ("~~~~" in the editor).

When the time comes to move an image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures make sure you also add it to Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible.

How to add your nomination

If you have problems formatting your nomination, someone else will fix it, don't worry! However, you may find it useful to copy this form and paste it in the edit box:

<br style="clear:both;" />
===[[Media:name.jpg|Name of image]]===
[[Image:FILENAME|thumb|CAPTION]]
Add your reasons for nominating it here,
say what article it is used on and who created the image. - ~~~~
* Votes go here - ~~~~
* And here - ~~~~

Once you have nominated the picture, use the Wikipedia template for featured picture candidates on the correspondent image page.

Current nominations

Please add all nominations and self-nominations to the top of this list.



Aurora from Alaska

File:AuroraAlaska.jpg
The Aurora seen from Fairbanks, Alaska

I was going to nominate Image:Aurora-SpaceShuttle-EO.JPG, but in the process of checking for other Aurora pictures, I came across this one which I kind of prefer. -- Solipsist 19:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • support. - Solipsist 19:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Is there a larger version to be found though? --Prisonblues 22:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Looks nice, but the image is blurry even though it's small. Also feel it would be better without the house, since it looks like the aurora is somehow coming out of the chimney or something. - Oarih 02:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Very Large Array

The Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico

The Very Large Array is still one of the biggest telescopes in the world, illustrated with rather a nice photo from User:Hajor. -- Solipsist 19:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. - Solipsist 19:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Village of Passchendaele

Aerial view of the village of Passchendaele before and after the Third Battle of Ypres, 1917

On Passchendaele. It illustrates the total devestation of this infamous WWI battle better than words could. (Public domain) - fabiform | talk 17:51, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • oppose, needs explaining, too careful examination. Isn't Polygon Wood already featured? Dunc|☺ 17:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't parse your first sentence (sorry!), are you asking me for an explanation? And, yes, the other image on this article is already featured. Is that a bar? fabiform | talk 18:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • support – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 18:10, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. In this case, a picture is worth way more than a thousand words. Denni☯ 01:56, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)


Red water

File:Iron in rocks make river red.jpeg
This red water caused by iron

Dunc|☺ 16:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • support – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 18:10, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Nor shocking or titillating, but otherwise more than worthy. Support. Denni☯ 02:16, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)


Midnight sun at Nordkapp, Norway

Midnight sun at Nordkapp, Norway

The beauty of a midnight sun is something anyone should see sometime in their life. This photograph shows the simplicity and splendor of such a setting. - Engmark 14:41, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

  • Oppose, on the somewhat shaky grounds that I cannot view anything like the whole of this 1600 by 1200 image on my 1024 by 768 screen, so the "simplicity and splendour" remains unseen by me! - Adrian Pingstone 16:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I certainly don't think this should stop an image for being featured! (My browser is smart enough to fit the image to the screen, maybe more wikipedia readers have this ability. Anyway, larger resolutions are better). --Sv.
      • That's the worst objection I've seen here! Surely you've forgotten your smiley. Try making a sandbox at User:Arpingstone/sandbox and add [[Image:Midnight sun.jpg|thumb|1024px|Midnight sun at [[Nordkapp]], [[Norway]]]], then view at liesure. A better objection is that the image page suggests the photograph was taken at 15 minutes past midnight, so it isn't really the midnight sun at all :) -- Solipsist 17:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. ✏ Sverdrup 16:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - Solipsist 17:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • support – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 18:10, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because unless you watch it not setting, its just a sunset, and thus not particularly striking -- William M. Connolley 22:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC).
    • Context is what's important in the encyclopaedia. Pictures shouldn't be expected to stand completely on their own. — David Remahl 22:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. — David Remahl 22:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Prisonblues 22:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This could be 1600h in the middle of December where I live. No sense of direction in this photo means the real message is not being delivered. Agree with William. Denni☯ 02:18, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)


Biological cell

File:Biological cell.png
Diagram of a typical animal cell. Organelles are labelled as follows: (1) Nucleolus; (2) Nucleus; (3) Ribosome; (4) Vesicle; (5) Rough endoplasmic reticulum; (6) Golgi apparatus; (7) Microtubule; (8) Smooth endoplasmic reticulum; (9) Mitochondrion; (10) Vacuole; (11) Cytoplasm; (12) Lysosome; (13) Centrioles

Very useful diagram. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:42, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Useful, but unappealing. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I'm finding it difficult to visualise it in 3 dimensions as intended (though I'm a very 2 dimensional person) Dunc|☺ 22:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good content but ugly diagram, especially at full resolution. --Prisonblues 22:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Demonstrates the awful waste of a good software package when employed by the colorblind. Denni☯ 02:21, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)


Sponge

Marine sponge. Underwater photograph taken by Dlloyd using a digital camera at a depth of approximately 100 feet in Cayman.
File:SpongeColorCorrect.JPG
color corrected version

This is beautiful, and it's GFDLed by the uploader. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:42, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I love it, but i think it may be too dark. Great photo though. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Meets my criteria for FP. If the contributor can lighten it up a bit, that would be great, but I support as is. Denni☯ 23:58, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
  • Support the color corrected one. I took the liberty of adjusting the colors. (not much red at 30m, even in the caymans). I was surprised myself what a HUGE difference it makes (Press CTRL Reload if you see the old one). Compare the new image with the old one. -- Chris 73 Talk 07:25, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose the second version: too artificial. (A picture taken at a depth of 30m should show the colours you see at that depth, not the colours you would see at the surface). Could you put the revised version under a separate filename, so we can choose between them? Markalexander100 07:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support the first version. The "enhanced" version doesn't look very good. Should we try to just lighten the image a bit? ✏ Sverdrup 07:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I changed the image back and uploaded the other one under a different name. But I DO believe that the sponge would be bright red in daylight, and is only grey because there is little red light at 100ft. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:25, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)


Shadow puzzle

File:Optical.greysquares.arp.600pix.jpg
Believe it or not, both squares A and B are the exact same shade of grey!

I can't believe this is true - but it is!!! Probably the best illustration of this awesome illusion.

  • Support. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 19:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This can't be right. This guy must have found a way to put a measuring bug in every image editing progam. -- Solipsist 19:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:44, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. When I put this pic on WP I could not convince myself they were the same grey. So I printed the larger pic, cut out one of the squares, slid it over and, yes, they are identical greys!! - Adrian Pingstone 20:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I have also uploaded a version that I made in POV-Ray if you'd rather have one made for Wikipedia: PaulStansifer 21:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Alternate version
  • Oppose. Yeah it's cool, but is it really featured picture worthy? I think not. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm in ScottyBoy's camp. Denni☯ 00:02, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
  • Support the first version, which is cleaner. Markalexander100 01:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support the first one -- Chris 73 Talk 07:30, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support strongly. I've seen a forum where the posting of this figure triggered lengthy discussions about optical illusions and the mechanisms of visual perception (along with visual tests such as the one performed by Adrian). If that doesn't make a diagram or figure featured picture-worthy, then I don't know what does. Perhaps it should be paired with the same figure superimposed with a solid bar of the same colour connecting the two squares, though, to reveal the illusion. I guess that would require using the second (imo less attractive) version made by Paul since the original is not GFDL or in the public domain. - Oarih 10:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Although the original isn't under GFDL which would support modification, if you follow the source link you can find the grey bar version exactly as requested, which is also copyright but freely usable. -- Solipsist 10:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I created the POV-Ray version because I thought that that would give it a cleaner look. It would be easy to change if you think that there's something specific that would make it more useful for Wikipedia. (The wood frame, for example, I just put in to look cool.) PaulStansifer 17:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think it would look better without the wood frame and if the dark side of the blue cylinder were a little lighter. Lorax 23:00, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, because it is so hard to believe -- William M. Connolley 21:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC). Slight preference for the second one. Query: the original of the first image has the authors name on. Is it clear the permission to reproduce includes permission to remove the name?
  • Support. I would prefer the second version, if it could be adjusted to use the same isometric projection. — David Remahl 22:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support the 2nd version. Well, it's an amazing graphic. --Menchi 02:56, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Enola Gay

The Enola Gay at the U.S Air and Space Museum.

Quite an impressive and useful illustrative photo of a historically significant plane - the Enola Gay. Taken by User:Lorax.

  • Support - Solipsist 18:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - background is distracting, not all of the plane is visible. Regrettable. If you got a shot of the plane in the open air, I probably would support. - Ludraman 20:32, 14 Oct 2004
  • Oppose. I tried to take this exact same picture at the A&SM but I couldn't find a single shot I wanted to upload. the background there is so cluttered its very hard to get a nice shot of anything. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, same reasons as above -- Chris 73 Talk 07:32, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)


Bored girl

Bored girl

She is so cute! Awwww -_- Used in boredom. —Joseph | Talk 05:54, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose: not sharp. Markalexander100 05:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose: agreed not sharp. I would like to also see us supporting pictures that are stated free rather than just not stated not free. Cavebear42 17:39, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't understand. The image is stated free. The site license says "You may use any of the photos in our system free of charge for any commercial or personal design work if you obey the specified restrictions concerning each photo you download" and the individual restrictions are "There are no usage restrictions for this photo." – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 17:51, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • I'll retract my statement about copyright. While I still support original photos and explictly stated free licences, this is clearly public domain. Cavebear42 18:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: The very slight haziness increases the bored feel. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 17:51, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:30 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A very boring (and obviously staged) photo. Denni☯ 00:03, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Prisonblues 22:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Horse in field

Horse in field

Nice colors of a typical rural Australian horse. It shows what the field the horse feeds on, as well as the hayshed which makes up part of his diet.

  • Support Self Nomination. --Fir0002 22:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object to only half a horse, bad lighting, and generally non-spectacular photograph. Denni☯ 22:49, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:38, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Don't like the shadows and the fact that it's not the whole horse. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:02, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unfortunately, the eye is in the shadow, so the image looks dull -- Chris 73 Talk 04:03, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)


Beach Towel (occupied)

File:Beach Towel (occupied).jpg
Beach Towel (occupied)

Good but not sleazy pic with a good color composition and a nice model. Used for Sunlight (Sunbathing) and Towel -- Chris 73 Talk 09:56, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support (Nominator) -- Chris 73 Talk 09:56, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment -- that's a small beach towel! Imagine trying to lie on it on a sandy beach... +sj+
  • Support - perfect illustration for the two articles - Adrian Pingstone 11:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Maybe it's just me, but when I visualize a typical beach towel it is more tacky and kitschy than the one in this picture. For the sunbathing article, I would think that a photograph of several individuals with some kind of context (on an apartment roof, front lawn, beach or whatever) would be better. - Oarih 12:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A beach towel on a lawn? -- William M. Connolley 18:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Oska 00:18, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose (but not totally unpleasant) --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - what William M. Connolley said. ~leif 05:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is not your typical beach towel, beach towel in general want to "show off", so they'll combine impossible colors and patterns, at least not be boring blue, blue is for your own bathroom (and I mean the international meaning of the word). -- Solitude 06:59, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with William M. Connolley. It's clearly a lawn towel. Cavebear42 22:07, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


American white ibises

American white ibises

A trio of white ibises, captured at close range by Dutch wikipedian Jcwf (and slightly cleaned up). Nominated for the clarity and humor of the composition (perhaps I just think ibises are comical?). Used in White ibis. +sj+ 10:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - very amusing - Adrian Pingstone 11:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now - Looks a lot better on the full image, and the composition is excellent. However, I think the picture has been over-sharpened. The original looks a little soft, so halfway between the two might be about right. The trouble is the Ibis on the right doesn't fit against its background. It looks a little fake, as if its been composited into the shot. And the grain on the wood is perhaps too pronounced to be natural. -- Solipsist 17:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- William M. Connolley 18:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Love the background too. Meshes well. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Markalexander100 08:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Bald eagle longshot

File:Bald.eagle.longshot.arp-sh.375pix.jpg
Bald eagle posing
Closeup of the thousand-meter stare

A Bald Eagle photographed at Combe Martin Wildlife and Dinosaur Park, North Devon, England by Adrian Pingstone. I prefer the pose for the subject's grace, fine coiffure, and dancer's pose; but those who dislike the surroundings might prefer the close-up. Both images have been modified slightly. The latter is used in bird of prey; a wider version of the former is used in bald eagle. +sj+ 10:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support the one on the left; he looks like a clever chap! Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support the full body picture -- Chris 73 Talk 10:43, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Also: Neutral on the closeup. Can his be brightened up a bit? -- Chris 73 Talk 13:19, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Nominating two pictures always is a problem. Anyway, my thoughts are: The picture of the head only is brilliant, and I'd support its promotion, while the full body picture is somewhat dull. ✏ Sverdrup 11:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - I prefer the closeup - Adrian Pingstone 11:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support the head shot. I was going to say it was hard to support this Bald Eagle when this one didn't get promoted. However, on a side by side comparison it think I might prefer Adrian's shot, apart from the background. -- Solipsist 17:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support the headshot. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow! Support both/either. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:17, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support the closeup. Woa!! It's breathtaking! Unbelievably sharp and detailed. The whole-one is a bit too farway and white. Not really suppporting that. --Menchi 22:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


North Devon Jackdaw

Jackdaw adorning still-life in cement and chrome

A jackdaw amid some chrome cafe furniture, also photographed by Adrian P (and sharpened). I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about this photo grabs me. Used in jackdaw. +sj+ 10:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose -- too messy. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose (and I took it!) - background is just a little too messy - Adrian Pingstone 11:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - agree with Dunc and Adrian. The outline of the jackdaw is fairly clean, so if anyone could be bothered you could probably photoshop out the chairs and replace them with a branch and a bit of sky. But even then I doubt it would be a feature candidate. -- Solipsist 17:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:05, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Splitting log with an axe

Splitting log with an axe

Shows the use of an ancient tool. Fits in beautifullly in the axe page

  • Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 06:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a nice shot, but there is not much axe in it. Also, the saw cutting the wood left grooves that at first glance looked like the grain of the wood, and I was wondering why the axe was splitting the wood at a 90&deg angle to the grain. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:17, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose; it's a very good picture, but it does not illustrate the article axe well enough. ✏ Sverdrup 11:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, agree with Sverdrup and Chris - Adrian Pingstone 11:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, ditto chris 73 -- William M. Connolley 18:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How does it illustrate an axe? I thought it was a bench... The blade being some elbow rest or ...something metallic.... It is a very confusing photo. --Menchi 02:54, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


JPEG example flower.jpg

Demo of JPEG compression – image is progressively lossier left to right

Dramatically illustrates the quality/size tradeoff in JPEG. Illustrating a technical principle so well is rare. GFDL work by David Crawshaw. Twinxor 06:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Twinxor 07:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The white background makes it hard to really follow the degrading of the image. Very nice idea, though. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:26, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose; maybe a better picture to do a similar thing to would be Image:Sunflowers.jpg? Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:54, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the changing loss of quality is not well shown - Adrian Pingstone 11:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Don't like white background. Pretty flower though. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Colorado potato beetle

Colorado potato beetle

Another US agriculture one. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. I took the liberty of uploading a larger version of the image and adding a link to the source. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:21, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:31, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Wax play on back

User:Lady Byron in the middle of some wax play

Self-nomination. I think it's pretty, I like the composition and I consider it a good illustration for the subject. Also, it's tasteful. - grendel|khan 08:21, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

  • Support grendel|khan 08:21, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
  • Support. Simon A. 16:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 22:43, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good illustrative photo for the article in that it shows well how much wax may be used in this type of activity. I don't see much to recommend it as a feature picture though. It's not visually striking to me at all. --Oska 22:46, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - nice shot, nice model -- Chris 73 Talk 09:14, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, pretty AND a little odd... — Matt 10:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. But along with Image:BDSM collar back.jpg I have to worry about what might come next. - Solipsist 17:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:05, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - Oarih 05:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. ~leif 05:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The colours are not visually pleasant. The plastic bag in the front is distracting too. I admire the subject's endurance of hot wax, however. Incidentally, it reminds me of the shower cleanup scene of the 90s remake of Psycho. No, Anne! [joking] --Menchi 23:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Nota bene: that's not a plastic bag, it's a thin plastic tarp. Wax tends to soak into things, and is nigh-impossible to remove. Putting down the sheet makes cleanup a lot easier. grendel|khan 01:04, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)


Pollen and Gerbera

Pollen from a Gerbera.
  • This is not a flower. It is really a picture of pollen, so there is a more interesting article behind it. However, the flower which I think is a Gerbera or Transvaal daisy, is quite attractive too. -- Solipsist 07:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Solipsist 07:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why do you say it is not a flower when it so obviously is? Even if you intend to use the photo to illustrate pollen, the image still fully features a flower. I would judge the photo as a whole and not on one particular part which you seem to wish us to focus on. --Oska 23:08, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
The instructions on WP:FP say There are many beautiful flowers and we don't want too many nominations of the same type. Hence this shot is to illustrate pollen and happens to feature a flower, whilst Field of Sunflowers is more for the field effect. (Alternatively I could say I was going for a surrealist angle with Ceci n'est pas une fleur.) -- Solipsist 09:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It is an Osteospermum - and should be in that article. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 23:27, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A fine illustration of both glorious colour and the primordial urge to reproduce. +sj+ 07:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 09:12, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


SEM image of pollen

An SEM image of various types of pollen.
  • A closer view of pollen for anyone who wasn't persuaded by the Scanning Electron Microscope image below - although this one is not taken by a wikipedian. -- Solipsist 07:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Solipsist 07:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 07:53, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, this one I do like. -- Solitude 11:29, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Just added the pic to the SEM page as well. Simon A. 16:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • At first glance appears to be golf balls! Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:47, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent example of the use of SEMs where identification of pollen in soil samples is very important in paleo-geography research. --Oska 22:31, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • What a collection! Reason enough to have made those fidgety scopes in the first place. Support. +sj+ 07:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent! timo 15:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Awesome. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent, stunning. --Wpopp 08:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong support. --Prisonblues 22:51, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Marigold (Calendula officinalis)

A marigold
  • Great GFDL image from the German Wikipedia. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:18, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - very ordinary and a liitle soft in focus - Adrian Pingstone
  • Support. I like. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose, out of focus; like a dodgy movie or something. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The image should have some information on attribution or its source. I guess this might be on the German version of this image. -- Solipsist 16:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Pylon from below

File:Pylon from below.jpg
The lattice masts of a pylon as seen from below form a symetrical pattern

This image, used in the neglected Pylon article, was created by "brokenarts" from http://www.sxc.hu The page declares: "There are no usage restrictions for this photo." Pretty, for an undoctored photo. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:16, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Photo is too low resolution, the sky is dull and the angle is off slightly. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 21:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good idea, too low resolution. --Fir0002 05:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I uploaded a larger resolution image (CTRL - reload if you see pixels)), but it still looks to me like a computer game B/W screenshot. There are much better images available on the site (search for Pylon). -- Chris 73 Talk 08:05, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too jagged Twinxor 06:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - neat picture, but it doesn't really show what a Pylon looks like at all. ~leif 05:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Tomb of the Unknowns

The Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington national cemetary
Same photograph with the soldier cropped out.

A little something I took on my last trip to Washington. →Raul654 17:11, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I like it, but think it's kinda boring. No offense. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 18:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's obvious it was an overcast day and unfortunately, the contrast is too low because of it. Also, the sentry should be cropped out entirely since he's chopped off. Autiger 19:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Good photo, but the ugly wreath and cropped-off soldier are distracting. It illustrates the article quite nicely, though. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:10, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't strike me. Simon A. 16:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The sky's all wrong, Image:USCasualtiesC130DoverAFB.jpg does a better job given its relevance today and the stupidity of the War, or from an earlier period something like [1] [2] maybe has a certain "oh shit" factor. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too dark, not a good composition, and the metal thingie holding the flowers looks cheap. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:11, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)


Orion Nebula

Orion Nebula

This is one of my favorite things to look at with my telescope. I figured I'd nominate this since this is one of my favorite pictures of the nebula.--ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:45, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A beauty. --Fir0002 07:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 11:43, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • support -- a 100x better than #Kepler.27s_Supernova Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Brilliant photo. Its hard to imagine such beauty lies in the black sky above us. I mean sure, stars a great, but that is stunning. --Fir0002 05:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Actually a very different type of animal compared to Kepler's_Supernova, but I might have to reconsider my vote on the Supernova remnant. -- Solipsist 07:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The best pic of the Orion nebula I've seen so far. Simon A. 16:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. Great find, ScottyBoy.--Eloquence*


Strelitzia

Strelitzia

On the subject of the lack of flower photos, this one looks good. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:36, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - William M. Connolley 20:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC).
  • Support. Beautiful. Denni☯ 03:18, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
  • Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Janderk 11:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 11:44, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Autiger 01:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Solipsist 07:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Just great. Simon A. 16:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very clean, nicely contrasted on black background. Sense of motion. Tim McCormack 18:09, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)


Barlach Magdeburger Ehrenmal

Barlach Magdeburger Ehrenmal

(Self nomination) Photo of historically significant art, used for Degenerate art, Ernst Barlach, and Cathedral of Magdeburg -- Chris 73 Talk 14:59, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Very nice shot. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Neutral for now. It's well lit with bold outlines and internal detail. The story behind the statue is an interesting one too. However, the large view is a little grainy. And for some reason the central figure rather reminds me of Hitler even though there isn't actually a moustache. That can't be helped but completely subverts the intended meaning for me. -- Solipsist 07:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I played around with GIMP a bit, trying to reduce the grain (Do CTRL-Reload). "Hitler" is supposed to be a french officer. The sculpture is from 1929, ten years before Hitler came to power. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:15, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Hitler came to power in 1933, four years after 1929. Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939, causing the UK and France to declare war. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Shame on me! Sorry. Anyway, the "Hitler" haircut is supposed to be a bandage due to a head injury of the french officer. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:03, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. At least the large version seems to be out of focus. --Wpopp 09:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Still playing around with the Gimp. Removing grain reduces focus, improving focus increases grain. In the current version I have removed the grain only from the background, which has less features, and the foreground is still in focus. Out of all versions so far, this one is the one i feel most happy with. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:15, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, Chris, opposition withdrawn. --Wpopp 09:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Cathedral of Magdeburg

Cathedral of Magdeburg
Checking Angles

(Self-Nomination): Very nice shot of the largest cathedral in east Germany. Used in Magdeburg, Cathedral of Magdeburg, and Clerestory. -- Chris 73 Talk 14:48, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Supprt. I was thinking of nominating this myself. →Raul654 02:05, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks great. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The picture is slightly crooked, which is distracting for me. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:15, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree. I think the lines are in almost perfect alignment. For checking I created Image:MagdeburgAngles.jpg, where I added a few strictly vertical lines, and e.g. the one in the center is going straight through the end stones of the ceiling, the center window, and the stone at the bottom. To check the distortion and center, I have also flipped the lower half of the image, so the right side is now on the left side. The lines of the columns align almost perfectly, and the only thing I had to do was to move the lower half about 1% to the right, indicating that the image would need to be cropped on one side by about 1%, which i think is negilible. Maybe it's a variation of the Café wall illusion? -- Chris 73 Talk 02:11, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not sure how that illusion would apply. It does look as if it is leaning very slightly to the right. It might be related to the left hand wall being lighter, or it might be that a horizontal line drawn between the pillars either side of the front row of chairs suggests a very slight rotation of ~0.4° (or perhaps its a skew). Surely that's about as good as it gets and the verticals are more important. -- Solipsist 07:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral - could someone clone out the visitor at the very left? He/she is slightly distracting.--Eloquence*
  • Support. I thought it was leaning myself... drawing a horizontal line from pillar bases it is, a bit, by maybe 5-10 pixels, but this isn't so much -- William M. Connolley 22:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC).
  • Support. But the image isn't as sharp as architectural photos could be. (Out of focus?) Maybe it's an artifact of being scanned or saved as JPG too many times? --Menchi 22:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Zermatt and Matterhorn

In June, the Matterhorn is still snow-covered, while it is spring in Zermatt below

A very effective shot Zermatt in the Swiss alps, although it is the Matterhorn which makes the picture. Taken by User:Stan Shebs. - Solipsist 13:24, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. - Solipsist 13:24, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:16, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, with respect to Zermatt. The picture has great composition, and illustrates the location of Zermatt very well, compensating for weak points of the photo. ✏ Sverdrup 14:59, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm all too aware of the weak points, but don't suppose the Foundation will fly me back for a reshoot. :-) This is a scan of a 35mm, if there are suggestions for how to improve, will be happy to rescan/reprocess. Stan 18:31, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • support -- I like it but would like to see a version with the village cropped out for comparison. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well then it would be of Zermatt... but User:Stan Shebs also took the closer shot of just the mountain at the top of Matterhorn. I think this one has a better balance and range of interest though. -- Solipsist 19:14, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - William M. Connolley 20:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC).
  • Support. I'd love to see this in person. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Simon A. 17:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great composition; the shocked look on the face of the steeple sealed it for me. +sj+ 07:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Wind turbines

High-efficiency wind turbines (foreground) win out over traditional windmills (background) in most new installations

A USDA-ARS photograph of wind turbines by Scott Bauer. Quite dramatic and also shows the development of wind turbines. -- Solipsist 13:14, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - Solipsist 13:14, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • support Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great photo. --Fir0002 22:59, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While the sunset makes the shot 'arty' it distracts the viewer's focus from the turbines and it means they only see the structures in silhouette. Too much of the photo is a display of the supporting scaffolding of the turbines, and the two turbines at the front are seen side-on which is not very helpful. --Oska 22:42, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - messy, and none of the turbines are seen clearly - Adrian Pingstone 13:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Field of Sunflowers

A field of sunflowers

Oh no its a flower picture! However we don't actually have that many featured flowers, and nothing like this one. Used at Sunflower to show a commercial crop. A USDA photo by Bruce Fritz - Solipsist 13:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - Solipsist 13:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I uploaded a larger version of the image, press CTRL reload if you see picels -- Chris 73 Talk 14:17, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Janderk 15:56, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - hackneyed (sp?) - William M. Connolley 20:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC).
  • Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice. Autiger 01:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice. Better than the windows 'bliss' background. Sky looks really good with all the sunflowers. --Fir0002 05:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Period photo of Jubilee

File:ExLMS jubilee Sandwich.jpg
Period photo of Jubilee

This is a period photograph (1954) of an ex-LMS Jubilee Class Sandwich with a train. It's not making much smoke (which shows its being driven well, but not spectacuarly), but it's all in focus. There is a minor bit of damage on about the fifth/six carriages back. There is lots of other detail in the picture, viz the telegraph poles (since all removed), the jointed track (now replaced by welded) and the bridge girders. The loco is painted green, btw, and has a British Railways early logo on its tender. The carriages are in blood and custard livery. (see http://www.jubilees.co.uk ) Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:45, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Kepler's Supernova

Remnants of Kepler's Supernova SN 1604.

Beautiful NASA image of remnants of Kepler's Supernova, SN 1604, the last supernova in the Milky Way observed with certainty by man kind. Janderk 10:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support Janderk 10:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I very nearly nominated it myself when you added it to the Kepler article. Its a false colour image, but that's pretty much required if you are going to incoporate X-ray data. -- Solipsist 10:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • support -- Chris 73 Talk 10:48, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose; no wow factor, just a mushed up bunch of colours. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:45, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. →Raul654 08:38, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - William M. Connolley 20:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC).
  • Support WOW Amazing. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. One that made me say "Wow". Markalexander100 00:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Peacock

Detail of a peacock's feathers

Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - best photo I've seen in quite awhile. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:31, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - but I bet there are peacock images of the whole bird (including all of its plumage) that might be just as nice. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:37, 08 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - I quite like the focus on the head and neck rather than getting the whole tail. -- Solipsist 07:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - I took the pic (can I vote?) - Adrian Pingstone 19:10, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes you can, and I support as well. -- Solitude 06:47, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
Comment from the photographer: luckily no-one has mentioned that the pic looks to be leaning but, just in case anyone has been thinking so, it's the peacock that's leaning not the pic! - Adrian Pingstone 10:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Compositionally this photo just doesn't work for me. It's hard for me to say why. Perhaps the small patch of grass is distracting, but also I think the amount of the bird shown. Neither the bird with all it's tail or a close-in of mainly the bird's body. For such a visually stunning bird I think we could have a much more striking picture. --Oska 22:51, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


Horse Chestnuts

File:HorseChestnutConkers.jpg
Did you know that horse chestnuts are not true nuts, but rather capsules.

A taste of autumn. Used to illustrate the seeds of the horse chestnut tree, but mostly I just like the textures and colours. Taken by me a couple of weeks ago. - Solipsist 17:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support (self nomination). - Solipsist 17:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Perfect focus, good composition, colors, yups! -- Solitude 17:59, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. As good as it gets. As this is a self-nomination: Would it be possible to change the license to GFDL? Janderk 19:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I see no problem with the licence. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 22:19, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice picture, adds to the article. I like your attention to detail, showing how they look at different stages and having the background being horse-chestnut leaves. Lorax 00:16, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Wonderfully composed! Denni☯ 01:36, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
  • Support. Exceptional! Great composition and incredibly illustrative. Autiger 05:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful photo, very nice colors/composition and the lack of jpeg compression is really good. --Fir0002 06:00, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support! Is it available in a higher resolution? I would love to use it as my desktop background. — David Remahl 23:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Like the colors. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I noticed this image on Solipsist's image page and was going to nominate it myself. It is an excellent photograph, visually striking while also strongly informative of the featured item. --Oska 22:59, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


The Himalaya Mountains

NASA image of the Himalayas, taken from the International Space Station
Alternative 1: Same image with annotations

It's large, it's striking, and it is of a scale rarely seen in photography of any kind. The oblique angle is also interesting, and the colors are especially vivid and clear for an image from orbit. A PD NASA image, but impressive no less. - Matthewcieplak 12:25, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support -- Matthewcieplak 12:25, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support! That is a stunning picture. But could you add the source and the {{PD-USGov-NASA}} tag to the image page? -- Chris 73 Talk 07:37, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Found source and added image tag -- Chris 73 Talk 08:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support alternative 1: I wondered which mountain was where and where people would climb mount everest. Anyway after doing some research I created alternative 1 with annotations, trying to make the image more informative for an encyclopedia. Janderk 15:18, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. As an image I prefer it without annotations. But the labels are useful, so I would support either way. -- Solipsist 17:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Only himalaya_annotated.jpg is used in an article, so right now that's the only one of those two eligible for promotion. I added Himalayas.jpg to Himalayas - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • support unannotated version (the annotations spoil it as a photo. But I agree its nice to have them identified, so I think the unannotated pic should link to the annotated version) - William M. Connolley 20:05, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC).
  • Support Himalayas.jpg - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 09:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Kaihsu 15:42, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
  • Support the first, unmarked version. This looks much better blown up than the small thumb version. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Diversity of Maize

Exotic varieties of maize are collected to add genetic diversity when selectively breeding new domestic strains

An eye catching photo by Keith Weller of the US Agricultural Research Service. Best used in illustrating biodiversity. -- Solipsist 06:33, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support -- Solipsist 06:33, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I uploaded a larger version (press CTRL-Reload if you see pixels). Somebody should remove the unused thumbnail Image:GEM corn thumbnail.jpg -- Chris 73 Talk 07:01, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Simple, elegant, helps article. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 07:11, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice Janderk 15:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support — amaizeing. Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The picture. Question ? What means exotic ? For a French Wikipedian maize is still exotic... It's an American plant, like Tomatoes but it wasn't a serious culture in France before the end of WWII. And it's still mainly animal food (Hmmm... I love Tacos...). I tend to think that exoctic means "South American" or "not commonly used in the USA". Ericd 22:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great shot. "Exotic" means not commonly eaten in North America. Europeans do not know what they're missing in corn on the cob, though (trying to prepare European corn in such a manner proved a futile task - the cobs are small and the corn is hard). Denni☯ 01:52, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice photo, good choice of corns as well. I especially like the creamy one in the foreground on the left hand side. --Fir0002 06:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Oska 00:16, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)


Trinity College heraldic shield

The heraldic shield for Trinity College, Cambridge

The heraldic shield for Trinity College, Cambridge. One of the better diagrams or drawings I've seen here. Actually one of several shields contributed by User:Prisonblues which are not trivial to draw and add quite a bit to the infoboxes which tie the series of articles on Cambridge Colleges together. -- Solipsist 22:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. (My only connection is that I added some photos to the Trinity College article) Solipsist 22:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:33, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It does the job but its nothing special. I don't think crests/flags can ever be considered featured picture material. ed g2s • talk 13:45, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's great to have for wikipedia, but is not brilliant, shocking etc; as ed said, this type of material is seldomly featureable. ✏ Sverdrup 16:30, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. -- Kaihsu 19:49, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
  • Oppose - William M. Connolley 20:05, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - IMO this is GFLD this is Trinity College Copyright ? The large version of the image makes me believe that it ws originally made for hi-res printing and not for web use. - Ericd 22:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not sure where you are coming from here. The design of the crest and shield must be over 100 years old and from his comments I would be pretty sure that User:Prisonblues drew this version and several other college crests (well just the shields). There may be some arcane law concerning heraldry that makes a crest similar to a trademark, but I am not aware of one. I doubt there is any cause for concern over the licencing. -- Solipsist 07:20, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Biased as I made it (as a derivative work of a crest that User:Lupin made. It's definitely not copyright, all elements were made from scratch by me or Lupin. --Prisonblues 07:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Daisy in water

A daisy under water, but dry because of surface tension

This is a fun picture (I put it into surface tension) which I think is both beautiful and striking. But then I took it and remember watching the water rising... William M. Connolley 20:41, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support (self nomination) William M. Connolley 20:41, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I like how the distortion of the surface tension is clearly visible. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 22:12, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good tension - what happened to the bug? -- Solipsist 22:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hope the bug floated too. -- Chris 73 Talk 22:54, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Superb pic. Moriori 00:43, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Execellent illustration of the topic. -- Solitude 07:14, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It looks like the caption is improved, also. A very rare shot, very well taken. KeyStroke 23:11, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
  • Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't find the picture visually striking at all , and while it does illustrate surface tension I think this phenomenon could be better demonstrated by other images. --Oska 23:04, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Bendy water- fantastic. Markalexander100 07:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The surface tension concept needs several images for illustration, and this is an excellent one. — David Remahl 22:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


USAF F15E

USAF F15E

Courtesy of the United States' Air Force.

  • nominated at 09:02, 4 Oct 2004 by Dunc_Harris|☺
  • Support. --Fir0002 06:30, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • whoops, I nominated it, forgot to sign. I support too. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice plane, pedestrian shot. Denni☯ 01:55, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nearly excellent and Lakenheath is almost my home turf, but a shot showing the afterburners usually works better and for a professional shot, the fact that the background breaks the outline of the plane is distracting. -- Solipsist 22:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with comment about background above. --Oska 00:24, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I had the same issue with the background; a second later with the plane against the blue sky would have been so much better. Autiger 05:38, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose (background) - William M. Connolley 20:05, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Background distracts -- Chris 73 Talk 15:21, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. In my own defence - many have commented about the background; I chose the image from af.mil TO SHOW THE BACKGROUND FOR the RAF Lakenheath page, not to showcase the F-15E. Mark 01:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. (background) --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Redback spider

Redback spider
Redback spider back view

The redback article prior to these photos had no pictures, and I think they do justice to the spider and its trademark redback.

  • Support. Self Nomination --Fir0002 09:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Icky. (Would be better, though, in natural setting.) [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 22:11, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • In my opinion it wouldn't, but I can upload the original of you really want.--Fir0002 23:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral Support. Clearly a shot to be proud of. I can't decide whether the editted drop shadow background is a good idea or not. One problem is that it looses scale - not having seen one, I believe these spiders are quite small, as illustrated in the article's picture showing the pipe, but this isn't clear. On the other hand the clean background helps make the image more dramatic, which I like. Either way, I only really like the face shot, even if the name suggests the back should be emphasised. -- Solipsist 23:29, 6 Oct 2004
Changing to support. Of the images here are the moment, it grabs my eye more than most. -- Solipsist 10:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think they're adorable, too, and want to start importing them. You will recognise such a spider if you see one easily, which is the most important thing. Smerdis of Tlön 14:50, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think a picture of this spider on its web on in its natural setting would be much more attractive than on the dull white background. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. The redback spider has virtually no web. It mainly lives in unattractive and distracting places such as pipes, which are usually full of junk. Look on the Red-back spider page to see what I mean (page bottom). I think the white background contrast well with the black spider and leave nothing but it for you to be distracted with. --Fir0002 05:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Landing at Normandy

File:NormandyLST.jpeg
PD pic taken from a boat at the Battle of Normandy

Photo taken excellently which I think illustrates the landing very well. Taken by the US government and so is PD. To me this is a good examples of how black and white can be better than colour for some photos. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 08:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent featured pic for an encyclopedia. We need more of these. Janderk 17:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good picture, especially since I'm guessing that there aren't many such photos around. --Fir0002 07:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:58, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:20, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The feeling is captured pretty well in this one. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Captures the moment and good to have a historical image. -- Solipsist 07:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Striking. grendel|khan 01:07, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)


Nominations older than 14 days, the minimum voting period, decision time!

Old nominations should be archived when they are removed from this page: October archive.
When the time comes to move an image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures make sure you also add it to Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible.


Nomination for removal

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel do not longer live up to featured picture standards.
Note: Support = Delist | Oppose = Keep

Globular Cluster M3

Globular Cluster M3

No match to Featured Picture standards criteria.

  • Nominated for delisting by [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 20:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support for deletion delisting (reluctantly). It will be hard for a Wikipedian to trump this shot, but a significantly better Featured Picture Candidate for a globular cluster would be Image:M80.jpg which has much better resolution and gives a stronger idea of the number of stars in a tight GC. -- Solipsist
  • Support for deletion delisting. As astronomy pics go, this one is not so special. -- Chris 73 Talk 22:58, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, ditto. -- Solitude 07:01, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. There are better ones. Janderk 20:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've seen much clearer images of M3 before. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:33, 08 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Retain, on the grounds that it is by a wikipedian -- William M. Connolley 22:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Lagoon Nebula

Lagoon Nebula

No match to Featured Picture standards criteria.

  • Nominated for delisting by [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 20:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. As proof that there are better space images I nominated the remnants of Kepler's supernova. Janderk 10:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. It might take a professional team, but the Orion Nebula above shows so much more. - Solipsist 16:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Parliament Hill, Ottawa

File:Parliament3.jpg
Library of Parliament and gorge of Ottawa River

Rather small and we now have much better location shots.

  • Nominated for delisting -- Solipsist 21:40, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, *yuck*. -- Solitude 07:00, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. Janderk 20:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Re "rather small," there's a larger version available; check parliament3-big.jpg. - Montréalais 23:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Yarra River

Yarra River in Melbourne

Technically a well handled difficult shot, but doesn't really show the river or the city.

  • Nominated for delisting -- Solipsist 21:40, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. May be better with Street lamp or Cast iron fence. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 22:08, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. It doesn't show much of the river but still an interesting shot, I'm in doubt. -- Solitude 07:11, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I kind of like it. -- Chris 73 Talk 14:22, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a great picture even if not the best one for showing the whole river. Angela. 21:10, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; looks cool. --Twinxor 06:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Calendars

Template:SeptemberCalendar
Template:OctoberCalendar

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=6614332"