Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bevo (talk | contribs) at 15:19, 14 November 2004 (archived Media:A-Bomb Dome.jpg). 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
Featured picture tools
Shortcut

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.

Images listed here should be either in the public domain or covered by the GNU Free Documentation License or a similar license. Since an image gallery is of limited educational value (a requirement for fair use) fair use images are not appropriate candidates for inclusion in the featured pictures gallery.

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 and Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.

How to add your nomination

Nominations are now created as subpages.

1. create a new subpage named   Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name-Of-Image
2. edit the subpage to give your reasons for nomination using the following format
===[[Media:FILENAME.jpg|Name-Of-Image]]===
[[Image:FILENAME.jpg|thumb|CAPTION]]
Add your reasons for nominating it here,
say what article it is used on and who created the image. - ~~~~
* First vote here - ~~~~
<!-- additional votes go here -->
<br style="clear:both;" />

3. add  {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name-Of-Image}}  to the top of the list in the Current nominations section of this page.
4. add  {{FPC}}  to the nominated image's page. This inserts the featured pictures candidate template, to let the original contributor and other interested parties know that the image is up for voting.

If you have problems formatting your nomination, someone else will fix it, don't worry! If you wish to simply add your nomination to this page without creating the subpage, that is OK as someone else will create the subpage. The important piece of information is the pointer to the image, and the reason for the nomination.

Current nominations

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

Please check the discussion on FP's never voted on. Should they be officially nominated? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:41, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Auto-icon

The Auto-Icon, or corpse, of Jeremy Bentham.

An FP image doesn't always have to be perfect - this is one I find fascinating. Its not often you get the chance to take a contemporary photograph of an 18th century philosopher. Bentham, father of utilitarianism and co-founder of University College London, left his body to medicine with explicit instructions for how his remains should be preserved and put on display for the benefit of future students. Photo by Michael Reeve. - Solipsist 10:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - Solipsist 10:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Fascinating indeed, but can't go through on that alone. ed g2s • talk 16:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A poor photo of a good subject. Asymmetry of the doors is ugly, as is the weird perspective (how much wider than the bottom is the top?) The composition looks hurried. Did you have a problem getting him to sit still? -- GWO 14:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A delightfully weird subject, but this is an egregious snapshot. Denni☯ 16:59, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
  • Oppose. photo is off centre and doors distract. On an unrelated note, why? Cavebear42 17:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, nice subject, but composition lacks. Maybe a close up would be better. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:35, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - thomas g graf ~ talk
  • NOT Promoted, +1/-7. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:27, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


Common Blue Damselfly

Common Blue Damselfly02
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
Common Blue Damselfly

Two good shots clearly illustrating the characteristic of the damselfly - namely to fold its wings vertically to its body when at rest as opposed to a dragonfly's horizontly orientated wings. The images show that the wings don't necessarily fold ontop of the body, but can stick out on top of the body aswell (common blue damselfy02).

  • Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support! (topmost one (*02) especially) - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support bottom photo. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 02:45, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support top photo. (there's always trouble with two pics to consider). -- Solipsist 10:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support top, very nice. I should note that the article on the damselfly could really use some work, the picture needs to illustrate an article, but currently there's just a substub. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:05, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Top picture has better composition. ed g2s • talk 20:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Top one is indeed better. James F. (talk) 23:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support top one -- Chris 73 Talk 04:17, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support top image, though would crop ULH corner out and adjust saturation and contrast just a hair. Denni☯ 17:02, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
  • Support Top photo. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support top one. It's got a bit better contrast and light. The second damselfly is shy and looks away from the camera ;) Janderk 12:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support top one, better colors balance. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:33, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow. Matthewcieplak 02:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +12/-0. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:27, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


Formula 1 - Mark Webber

Formula 1 - Mark Webber
a Wikipedia:Featured picture

As the Williams F1 image didn't make it, and this was suggested to be a better image, I'd like to nominate it. I agree that it has more detail in car and driver, and therefore is a better illustration. Photo by Rick Dikeman (as was the Williams). -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:05, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:05, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, much nicer. ed g2s • talk 11:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support very cool shot. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, nicely done. James F. (talk) 21:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I like this one too. -- Solipsist 07:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Obviously. An altogether better photo and better subject (Go Aussie! :-)) --Fir0002 10:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support very much. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 03:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. They don't have steep slopes like this in Formula 1. Gdr 14:38, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's one of those pictures that geeks, like me, love. "Look a F1 car". But does it really deserve to be featured? If the unnatural slope is taken out, it is good for an article, but a featured image should offer something special for the non geeky population too. Janderk 08:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +8/-2. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:28, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)


Chicago el train

A westbound Chicago "L" train crosses the sourth fork of the Chicago River

I found this image striking when I first came upon it on Chicago 'L'. Perhaps could use some color enhancement. Picture by Rick Dikeman. —User:Mulad (talk) 21:56, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support —User:Mulad (talk) 21:56, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Boring. Sorry. Mark1 00:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Fairly mundane snapshot. -- GWO 11:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. agree with above comments. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT promoted, +1/-3. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:04, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


Dew Drops on Spider Web

Dew Drops on Spider Web

Well illustrates dew, and at the same time makes a spiders web visible.

  • Support. Self Nom.--Fir0002 10:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Background distracts a bit -- Chris 73 Talk 11:18, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Slightly stronger support, though still not full-fledged. The background isn't as bad on the full pic, because it is out of focus but the dew drops aren't. Have you got a version with a better camera angle? Also: seeing the background upside-down in the drops is cute: a very-close-up on one or a few drops might have been good -- William M. Connolley 19:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC).
  • Oppose. The sky-at-an-angle is distracting. Enochlau 00:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice shot -- Jpo 17:53, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Its nice, and the inverted image of the background in each drop would please Descartes, but this sort of picture should show the structure of the web better. -- Solipsist 08:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT promoted, +4/-3. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:04, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


The Purple Heart

The Purple Heart

I think it's another beautiful example of the great images in the U.S. Marine's photo archive, let's see what you think. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:27, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:27, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The colour treatment is pretty tacky. Mark1 08:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The grey parts esp top left are unacceptably blotchy. I know size is not a criterion, but if it gets accepted, could someone please make it a bit smaller and use a bit more jpeg compression? Enochlau 09:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oeff, my apologies for adding it without compression, I must have forgotten. I've downsized the image slightly and reuploaded a Q85 jpeg version. About the top left, isn't the blotchiness we're seeing actually a camouflage suit? I doesn't look like an image artifact to me at least. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:26, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not very sharp, bit grainy. Moire effect on the bands of the strap. ed g2s • talk 14:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support That is clearly camo in the background. I like the concept and the picture was well done. the birthmark? on the left palm is discolored but still an excellent pic. Cavebear42 17:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Dislike the hands and the colour treatment has a whiff of propaganda to it. -- GWO
  • Oppose. More than a whiff. Matthewcieplak 02:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Even if it has a bit of a propagand-ish feel to it, it is still a pretty picture. JWall.
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:09, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Johnleemk | Talk 06:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT promoted, +5/-6. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:04, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


Palace of Westminster

The Houses of Parliament / Palace of Westminster in London
a Wikipedia:Featured picture

One of the more famous views of London. Perhaps better known as the 'Houses of Parliament' but they are actually inside the Palace. Illustrates Palace of Westminster. -- Solipsist 19:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Self nomination -- Solipsist 19:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic photo. --Fir0002 21:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- beautiful shot. Jwrosenzweig 21:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Ericd 21:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Cribcage 21:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Can't find much wrong with it, apart from perhaps the JPEG artifacts. ed g2s • talk 00:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 01:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great shot of a classic view - PaulLomax 01:20, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good exposure and a classic composition. The use of high-speed film (high ISO) has introduced noise, which would be recoverable in The GIMP (mask out the sky and blur it) or even better, a program such as NeatImage. -- dpol 05:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll do it, if I can get the original image (it is probably of a higher resolution than the current version). — David Remahl 10:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment. As the sky seems to be troubling people, I'll probably have a go at smoothing it. -- Solipsist 15:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Comment: The Sky is fine, it's to be expected for a high ISO image. PPGMD 17:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Comment: while a grainy sky is indeed to be expected from a high ISO image, I don't see why we should leave it that way. I post-process all my images extensively, as do professionals.
            • It depends. If there is grain visible in the rest of the image, it can look odd if the sky is too smooth. In this case, the problem was mostly a doubling of jpg artifacts following a minor retouch on the original upload. I hadn't noticed the increase in noise. -- Solipsist 19:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 12:50, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support --Darkone 13:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC), but it needs some work to reduce the noise.
  • Support. Great shot -- Jpo 16:14, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sky now cleaned on the eco-wash cycle. As usual, refresh if you need to. -- Solipsist 19:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment. Great work! -- dpol 23:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful. zoney ♣ talk 01:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Definite Support --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +14/-0. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:05, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


Autumn red peaches

Ripe red peaches

Just a mouth-watering picture of peaches, from our friends at the USDA. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 15:16, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Nice colors, but underexposure makes details around the pit hard to discern. -- Jpo 18:45, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Cribcage 21:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Looks dry -- Chris 73 Talk 12:49, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (weakly). Nice colours, nice composition, but oddly looks a little dated. I think there might be a higher res version available from the source. -- Solipsist 08:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not up to featured picture quality - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It looks too dry. --Fir0002 05:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT Promoted, +4/-4. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:05, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


Yellow rose

Yellow rose
a Wikipedia:Featured picture

A close up of a yellow/orange rose. I don't know whether this means it (the roses color)symbolises passionate undying love or if it doesn't mean anything because its a cross. But that isn't really all that important. Whats important is that it's a good close up.

  • Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 11:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:24, 07 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A little fuzzy on the edges but very pretty hues. A higher-res image would be nice. Barfooz 22:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice colors. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:25, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Cavebear42 18:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 01:08, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice macro shot. Could maybe do with a touch-up in GIMP or something. -- PaulLomax 09:14, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unless further information (what cultivar is it?) can be provided. It may be a nice pic, but it doesn't carry any useful information. - MPF 10:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Cool looking. - RedWordSmith 13:21, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Though I agree that it doesn't necessarily add much to the rose article and could use a little more background information.
  • Suuport, great photograph. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:05, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +10/-1. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:04, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


Icicles

Icicles hanging from branch
a Wikipedia:Featured picture

Neat picture of icicles from Ice page. Picture is self-taken, I have larger resolution.

  • Support. Self-nomination. Barfooz 22:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The right side background is a bit confusing, but the colors on the left are really pretty. Support. - RedWordSmith 04:03, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Cool, the branches being iced over as well is awesome. --Fir0002 10:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Unusual perspective -- Chris 73 Talk 14:31, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I think it's cool, but too confusing. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:26, 07 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Rhobite 21:37, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice shot, but a bit busy. -- Jpo 18:27, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Cribcage 21:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 01:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support.--80.108.59.135 19:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearer hanging icicles would be nicer, but the transparency of the ice coating the branches is remarkable. -- Solipsist 08:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice color and atmosphere. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:47, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - thomas g graf ~ talk 14:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:11, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +12/-1. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:04, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


Buddhabrot

Buddhabrot rendering of the Mandelbrot set
a Wikipedia:Featured picture

Not your usual Mandelbrot set. Note added later: I guess I've messed this vote up by actually writing the Buddhabrot page and not even including the image... :-/ Evercat 00:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Self-nominated by Evercat 02:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support if rotated 90 degrees. -- Oarih 04:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mmm. In the Mandelbrot set article it wouldn't be right to rotate it... Evercat 13:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sure it would be. The assignment of x and y in that order is completely arbitrary, and given that it's named after its supposed likeness to the Buddha when rotated, I think it should be in that orientation. -- Oarih 15:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But then it would be at a different orientation from the other images of the set... Evercat 18:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
True, though I don't see the problem. I guess the thing is that I think the Mandlebrot article already has a picture which illustrates the conventional Mandlebrot set rendering reasonably well. If the point with the Buddhabrot is that it looks like the Buddha, then the picture should be oriented correctly so that people don't have to tilt their heads to check for themselves. Anyway, I'm but one person. Others may well disagree. -- Oarih 18:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, the Buddha thing is not the only point. :-) It also indicates areas of travel for points escaping the set... Evercat 18:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Spiffy. Support. - RedWordSmith 09:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting, not sure I understand all the maths behind it, but still visually appealing with a deeper meaning behind it. --Fir0002 11:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:32, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Don't care for it, but don't want to prevent it from moving up if everyone else likes it. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:29, 07 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Surely the Buddhabrot should be somewhere in the article, not just an orphaned reference in the caption... GWO 17:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great graphic. -- Jpo 18:26, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 18:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I took one look at it and said wow. Enochlau 09:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Its a bit geeky and we already have a good Mandlebrot set featured so I feel I should oppose. On the other hand I think its got a high 'click through' factor, because its a Mandlebrot set, but not as we know it. -- Solipsist 08:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. And I take it we are supposed to be mentally rotating this 90° clockwise. If I rotate the other way, I get a smaller rocket-man Buddha. -- Solipsist 08:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:12, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +8/-1. -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 22:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


HIV replication

HIV replication

I got this out of the German Wikipedia, and did the translation myself. I think it adds a lot of the HIV article. →Raul654 21:33, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Enthusiastically support. -- Oarih 04:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I almost nominated this a couple of weeks ago when looking through the German featured pics, but I wasn't confident enough to translate. Then I found that Raul654 had already done an excellent job of bringing it over to the English wiki. -- Solipsist 08:36, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I think it could do with being in colour. Dunc|☺ 13:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A featured pic should be largely or entirely self-explanatory. This is far from. Denni☯ 17:09, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:31, 07 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice graphic, but doesn't really meet the criteria of a featured picture. -- Jpo 18:23, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cribcage 21:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT promoted, +3/-5. -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Oresund Bridge

The Oresund Bridge, connecting Scania and Zealand

A great image to illustrate the article about the Oresund Bridge, showing the full extent of the bridge and the artificial islet, missing only the tunnel (which is underwater, and hard to capture from the air! :). I think the composition is perfect, and illustrates the article completely. I can't judge the technicalities, and leave that up to you. Licenses GFDL and cc-by-sa-2.0.

  • Nominated by: ✏ Sverdrup 16:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Looks lovely in hires, but I find the detail is totally lost in the thumbnail. Which should we be voting on here? -- GWO
IMHO, only on the full image. The license is confusing though, needs clarification first. -- 130.89.169.11 19:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. we should be voting on hi-res. I'm confused on the licence. Is it GNU/CC or is the orig photographer reserving rights? Who is original photographer and how would i contact him? Cavebear42 17:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Clarifications via the swedish image description page; The description implies that the uploader took the picture. He asserts that he retains his copyright (which is correct), and that the picture uploaded is available for use under either GFDL or cc-by-sa-2.0 license. He also says that for other licenses and a higher resolution image, please contact the photographer. ✏ Sverdrup 01:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I've put in the links to the Swedish source - please correct if I have it wrong. -- Solipsist 08:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A bit murky on the horizon, but surprisingly clear if it was taken through the windows of an a plane. Rather a good illustration of this sort of bridge. The low angle sunlight really helps to define the bridge. -- Solipsist 08:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Odd color balance and visible JPEG artifacts. If you're the photographer, I think a corrected version would look great. Rhobite 21:47, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Rhobite. Also dont like the scummy black stuff in the lower left of the image. Cant see how you could have gotten rid of them, but they mar the picture. --Fir0002 11:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comments
Sverdrup, thanks for nominating my contribution. The image is dual-licensed under both the GFDL and the cc-by-sa-2.0 license. :I am reserving rights - I assert ownership of the copyright, but give broad rights under the licenses that the image is licensed under. Keeping ownership of the copyright and licensing a work under licenses such as the GFDL is not a ontradiction; indeed, if the image was released into the public domain, giving licensing terms would be largely meaningless. :I would appreciate feedback on how to make this clearer, as to not cause unnecessary confusion.
As to Cavebear42's comments: I have a user account on Wikipedia, and it's easy to contact me through Wikipedia. I could, of course, publish my full name and e-mail address, but would prefer not to as I receive plenty of spam already. I could, when assigning copyright, publish my full name, but fail to see that this is necessary. Comments?
Rhobite: the contrast has been stretched, but the artifacts you see are mostly the work of NeatImage.
Fir0002: the "black stuff" in the lower-left corner is actually the islet Saltholm - the artificial islet Pepparholm was named in reference to this islet. I agree that it doesn't look particularly appealing, and could, if desired, work on smoothing it out.
  • Thanks for the comments! -- dpol 05:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:32, 07 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice shot -- Jpo 18:22, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even in the full picture, I find it hard to discern the details of the bridge. Enochlau 09:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. May support a larger version. ed g2s • talk 14:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • What size would you prefer? -- dpol 17:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Usually I'd say at least 1024 but in this case it may need to be higher to get some detail on the bridge. ed g2s • talk 18:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I quite like the ugly island- looks like a Scottish one. Mark1 00:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT promoted, +5/-5. -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Tall grasses in the prairie

Tall grasses in a prairie preserve

Self-nomination. I originally took this picture back in 2001 as part of a class project along with 200 others. This one, I think, best captures the feeling of being surrounded by a field of grass taller than you are in the middle of nowhere - it just feels like the wall of grass is going to jump forth and swallow you. Used in the Prairie article. - RedWordSmith 18:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Maybe you had to be there... Denni☯ 21:59, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Looks a little washed out to me. I tried playing with the colors but just couldn't get a vibrent pic outta it. Cavebear42 22:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Cavebear42. Also, for somebody who is not used to high prairie grass (i.e. me), it is difficult to tell how high it really is, and appears as if the camera was placed low to the ground. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:26, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Colours are washed out and it's not in focus - Adrian Pingstone 15:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. washed. Darkone 16:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not very interesting, visually appealing or technically competent, sorry! -- PaulLomax 09:44, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. More salt in the wound I'm afraid. I cant tell the grass is tall, but the picture is drab, full of jpeg compression, and just not quite up there. --Fir0002 11:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I live on the prairies and this picture just doesn't have enough color constrast to make it visually appealing. Picture of such on a bright sunny day would probably have turned out a lot better. RedWolf 06:39, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT Promoted, +1/-9. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:54, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)


UMass at dusk

The University of Massachusetts Amherst at dusk
New crop/levels

Self-nom. The UMass Amherst campus taken at dusk. The campus library is to the right, and the Old Chapel spire to the left. 8/10 second exposure. I like the deep blue and the lamp reflections. If it's too dark I have RAW images with a lot of dynamic range to work with, I can also provide higher resolution, a different crop, or different curves. - Rhobite 01:07, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. UMASS is a nice campus, but the image does not show the campus very well. The image has maybe artistic value, but it is not informative -- Chris 73 Talk 01:09, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • If you're familiar with the campus, do you have a suggestion for a better location? Or is it just the underexposed buildings? I tried taking wide shots from the 23rd floor of the library but the angle was poor and the windows are pretty dirty. Rhobite 01:21, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • The location is good, and I think one of the best spots for a photo (unless you have an airplane), but the image is too dark. It is hard to recognize anything -- Chris 73 Talk 03:44, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The gradient in the sky is very clear and free from artifacts. It has a nice charm to it I think. Enochlau 14:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC
  • Comment. I would definitely start with providing a larger resolution image. It is hard to see much detail on this version, and also, why upload a low resolution image for starters, the image can be included in the appropriate article whether is gets featured or not. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 14:55, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm a little reluctant to release hi-res images under the GFDL, but since I took this one for Wikipedia I will do that when I get home tonight. Rhobite 15:20, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well if you are just aiming to get your pictures into articles as illustration that is fine (although of course we really prefer higher resolution images). But for a featured picture candidate you really need to give us something to work with. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:51, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose.--Thomas G Graf 17:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks for the input. I uploaded a high-res version of the original image, as well as a new edit with higher levels. I don't like the new one as much. Rhobite 23:01, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • How about going to the same spot on a nice sunny day (summer or winter) and taking another pic? the DuBois Library is certainly cool. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:05, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:27, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cribcage 21:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT Promoted, +2/-4. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:54, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)


Surfing in Hawaii

Surfing in Hawaii
File:Surfing in Hawaii cropped.jpg
Surfing in Hawaii, alternative
Surfing in Hawaii, more color

It just JUMPS at you! An excellent example of how to create action shots, too bad it's not by a Wikipedian, but this picture deserves a nomination. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:26, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Comment. It appears the rotated version I uploaded is not showing properly, WP is incredibly slow at the moment so I can't really fix or verify it right now.
  • Support! -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:26, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose. Decent pic but I'm sure that there are surfing wikipedians that can easily show us a better pic. also, why am i having trouble buying that this is a marine taken or made during the course of the person's official duties?Cavebear42 17:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is not your average snapshot, if you can find one of this quality made by a Wikipedia by all means bring it on. Do you really feel that it makes any difference whether this guy is on duty or not? This is an image contest, not a job review! -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 19:35, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
The issue is whether the image really is in the public domain. It is not a work of the US government if it was taken off duty. Fredrik | talk 19:55, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, as the image is in the official U.S. Marine photo gallery, I believe it is. It also makes perfect sense for Marines to train at surfing, they do not spend all their time at shooting ranges. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:32, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Besides, have you not seen Apocalypse Now? :) -- GWO 08:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have but it's probably too long ago, refresh my memory please, how exactly does it relate to my comment? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:46, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Colonel Kilgore's helicopter cavalry choose Willard's landing spot simply because it has the best waves in Vietnam, and its wasted on the Vietnamese because Charlie Don't Surf. As the colonel says, in his platoon "you either surf, or fight" -- GWO
  • Support, nice colours, nice action shot. "I'm sure that there are surfing wikipedians that can easily show us a better pic", well they haven't yet, besides this picture should be judged on its own merits. Only quibble is that the JPEG compression really takes it toll on the fine detail of the white water. ed g2s • talk 13:27, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Pretty good image -- Chris 73 Talk 14:05, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I like it, except for that ugly sky. Maybe some clipping could improve this one a lot. See the alternative image. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Supoort. Look how clear the water looks under the board. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:28, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Fir0002 06:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose (weakly). The water is excellent and its a good action shot, so I am persuadable, but for me the problem is the surfer. He's fine in the thumbnail, but in the full view he looks less like a surfer dude and more like a heavy-set jock. The puffy cheeks, angry expression and hair cut are also a little offputting. I don't much mind the greyish sky in the original and think it is better to see the horizon. -- Solipsist 07:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose (weakly). Water good, but our surfer's features are totally in shadow. I appreciate that its tricky to do fill-in flash on guy that far away, but that means its not quite there for me. -- GWO 10:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Janderk 15:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, Not technically brilliant, but adequate and a good shot. Dunc|☺ 19:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose the original all - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I have added a version with more color and a brighter surfer. Fredrik | talk 21:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, very good work, I definitely prefer this version now. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:33, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support second version. Colors in third seem too artificial. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:28, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is good but not "brilliant". -- Jpo 16:36, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cribcage 21:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT Promoted, +7/-6. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:09, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


Chinese phoenix

A sculptured Chinese Phoenix from a park south of Nanning city, Guangxi province.

Wow, I saw this image and really liked it. The shot is taken from a kind of low angle, but it actually enhances the image in a way because it makes the phoenix look so proud. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 12:52, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 12:52, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Busy background, low angle and poor lighting means you can't really see the features -- GWO 13:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose. i dont mind the background but the angle makes to hard to see what the scupture is of.Cavebear42 17:52, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Cavebear. -Hapsiainen 19:52, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for same reasons as listed above. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:29, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Odd angle detracts - Jpo 16:35, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT Promoted, +1/-5. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:09, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • support very good jobPixeltoo 00:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Bat

Bat

Granted, it's a bit smaller than the others, but it looks good. AlbinoMonkey 11:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • good picture, but too small. I'd support the original.Dunc|☺ 21:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Now support, nice. Dunc|☺ 21:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Now I think it's a copyvio. I can't support a copyvio. Dunc|☺ 13:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • A bit smaller! Oppose. Can't see any detail, would support a much larger version. ed g2s • talk 18:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Uploaded larger version, Change vote to neutral, not as good as I though it'd be. ed g2s • talk 00:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm leaning towards support. Its a good image, but we could use a source link so that the PD status can be verified. There is a larger version here, but its a bit grainy. -- Solipsist 20:08, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, now that the larger version is uploaded -- Chris 73 Talk 01:06, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Impressive. -Hapsiainen 19:52, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very Cool! --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:29, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose until public domain status can be independently verified.--Eloquence*
  • Support if license is confirmed. Janderk 15:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • comment it appears that this is from http://www.batcon.org/ so is maybe copyvio see [1] claims it's copyrighted by them. We should probably be nice and ask permission Dunc|☺ 21:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • That looks like a completely different image to me. ed g2s • talk 01:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I was having trouble spotting the connection myself. I guess we are talking about the thumbnail next to 'New Mexico Bat Survey and Acoustic Library' on the second link. Its not the same photo, but I managed to find larger versions on Batcon at [2] & [3] which are sufficiently similar to suggest it was from the same roll of film. The photo credit is for Dr. Merlin D. Tuttle, so if we can find the university he works for it might turn out to be the University of Tokyo and a PD photo as originally suggested. I don't think Batcon holds the copyright. -- Solipsist 08:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • It looks like Dr Merlin Tuttle is the founder and president of Bat Conservation International (BCI), ie. www.batcon.org. -- Solipsist 09:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm still not sure its the same roll of film. Either way we can't promote an image until we know what its copyright status is. ed g2s • talk 01:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose until public domain status can be verified. Mark1 06:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT Promoted, license status is unverified. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:11, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


Birthday cake

Birthday cake
  • Support. Self nom. --Fir0002 05:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too much blurry foreground (especially the yellow candle), also background is distracting. Sure it was delicious, though -- Chris 73 Talk 06:08, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose. agree, hard to look at Cavebear42 17:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It looks clumsy. -Hapsiainen 19:52, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:30, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. -- PaulLomax 10:03, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cribcage 21:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Thomas G Graf 19:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT Promoted, +1/-7. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:06, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


Total internal reflection

Total internal reflection

A good illustration of that optic phenomena.

  • Support. Self nom.--Fir0002 21:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose (we should have only one of these two anyway) good concept but it came out messy; Dunc|☺ 21:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • We should _have_ both, but only feature one. I hope that's what you meant? — David Remahl 16:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose, looks washed out. should have used longer exposure (I think, I'm not a photographer). — David Remahl 16:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ok idea, but not visually appealing. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:31, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cribcage 21:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT Promoted, +1/-4. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:58, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


Prism splitting light

Prism splitting light

Light breaking into the visible spectrum. The photo doesn't look spectacular as a thumbnail, but as a full image it looks pretty good.

  • Support. Self nom. --Fir0002 21:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think light effects like this are a shoo-in for featured pics, but I'd like something a little more dramatic. This is a cool effect, but it looks kind of messy and washed-out in this shot. --Twinxor 21:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above; better examples at [4] Dunc|☺ 21:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:31, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cribcage 21:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT Promoted, +1/-4. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:59, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


Lots of Common hazelnuts

Lots of Common hazelnuts
a Wikipedia:Featured picture

Lots and lots of nice hazelnuts.

  • Support! I almost went and nominated this the moment I saw it in RC. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 00:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 22:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice shot! – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 00:08, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good one -- Chris 73 Talk 00:42, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tasty, and I don't even eat nuts. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:12, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Solipsist 17:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mmm...hazelnuts. Neutralitytalk 22:01, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very tasty. Tra 12:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:33, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- you'd be nuts not too! (sorry...)-- PaulLomax 09:42, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Promoted, +10/-02. -- [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


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

Old nominations should be archived when they are removed from this page. When you promote an image, please perform the following:

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

Mediæval Micky

Mediæval Micky.

Indeed its mildly interesting that is bears such a resemblence to a modern day cartoon character, but it doesn't meet FP standards. It adds little if anything to the article it's in (Mickey Mouse), it's neither striking, stunning or beautiful, and it weighs in at a less than acceptable 243x263px. (NB it was promoted before voting was introduced). ed g2s • talk 12:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support delisting. ed g2s • talk 12:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, good catch. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 14:30, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. It doesn't add significant value to Mickey Mouse, the only article it is associated with at this time. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. Janderk 09:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. Definitely not up to specs. -- Barfooz 06:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delisted, +5/-0. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:37, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


Bozen aerial

Bozen aerial

Cavebear42 brought this image to my attention, it was likely promoted to FP before we had a voting system, further more it is not up to FP standards, the image is very grainy. Finally, it does not even have a license, let alone a free one. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 18:28, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support delisting. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 18:28, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. I was about to nominate this one but then I started the batch-renomination process on the talk page. ed g2s • talk 01:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. Janderk 09:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. What is this? It's not good, whatever it is. -- Barfooz 06:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support delisting. - thomas g graf ~ talk 14:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delisted, +6/-0. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:37, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


Calendars

Template:OctoberCalendar

Template:NovemberCalendar

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=7453504"