Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/July-2005

Featured picture tools
Featured pictures (on Wikimedia Commons) Featured picture criteria Featured picture candidates (on Wikimedia Commons) Featured picture thumbs Featured picture archive Picture of the day (Guidelines) Picture of the day archive (and schedule)
v t e

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

	Older Archive
	Miscellaneous Archive
2004:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Self-nom. I expect to be charged of objectifying women for this one, but there's to much dead things on that page yet ;-). Ericd 19:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's a photograph of photographers which I think is silly. It's a no, no from me. • Thorpe •

Comment. This picture also illustrates Photojournalism where the photographers are the subject. -- Solipsist 19:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I love it. It seems to tell so much. Also, something different than usual FP candidates. Junes 16:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I spotted this on Ericd's images page a couple of weeks ago. I'm impressed that we have professional(?) photographers contributing images of this quality. I particularly like the way the starlet is sunlit, whilst the photogaphers are in shadow. (And curiously the photographers appear to have dated more than the starlet.) -- Solipsist 18:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Amateur. I was in high school when I shot this one. That's beginners luck. Ericd 22:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I umed and ahed but then decided it was very interesting considering when it was taken. Love the fashions on the photographers. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I also found this photo a few weeks ago and I love it, it's somehow very different. I like how it captures the clothing fashion of the time. Teklund 18:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lingerie-clad woman with oogling men -- do we not have enough of this in the media? Need it be a FP too? Chicago god 18:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Notice how no one is actually looking at the woman? They're all studying their cameras, and the photo is of them, not her. How profoundly illustrative. And also great photography. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 01:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - curiously appealing. They're all so stuck in their roles. Denni☯ 02:45, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Support - fine photography and fine psychology. Kosebamse 05:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - psychologically very interesting, adds to the article -- Chris 73 Talk 14:03, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The subject matter is a different beast to many of the other nominations here, and the profusion of action is nice. Enochlau 07:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- good image. - Longhair | Talk 01:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- illustrative, striking and different. - Haukurth 20:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support --brian0918™ 13:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- captures several essence of the times in one shot Robin klein 15:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting. — Chameleon 01:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted Image:Starlette.jpg This link is Broken 1 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)

Gorgeous, scientific, and enhances a string of pages. By Uwe Kils, used on Antarctic krill, Compound eye, Eye and others. - Mark¹ 03:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Mark¹ 03:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• neutral - looks really good if you click twice in the image Uwe Kils 03:30, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Dr. kils' pictures are, as always, a feast for the eye. El_C 12:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support--very informative. Meelar (talk) 13:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Something to make some wonder. Image is wonderful. • Thorpe • 16:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Wow! Sango123 17:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Very cool. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just another macro photograph in a long line of macro photographs. Chicago god 18:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The wider view and closer view are impressive too. And there's even a diagram, so you can build one yourself ;-) Very illustrative. -- Solipsist 19:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Support. Copyright-Fair Use images aren't appropriate for Featured pic. (too bad, it is a nice picture) The larger version says GFDL, so if the copyright is clarified, I will change my vote. Lorax 23:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

changed it to gfdl - did not know it - I would like that many people can see this amazing structure of this mystic animal of the Southern Seas - Uwe Kils 23:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Great, I changed my vote. You know if you put the GFDL in double braces '{' it will put in the licensing box and catagorize it correctly. For an example, look at the picture directly above this one. Lorax 00:20, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Stunning image, hypnotic in effect, and informative too. Tannin 06:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Support.I nominated another image so I oppose his one.. But generaly I have nothing against it.

Actually I am sorry, I didn't knew it is possible to vote for multiple imagesKnutson 23 : 37, Jun16, 2005 (UTC)

• support. Actually, it may be a good illustration to the article Tessellations of the sphere. In the image you see that the small bubbles squeezed into hexagons. It can be mathematically proven that it is impossible to regularly tessellate a sphere into hexagons only. The Nature (or God) surely knows this. Exercise: find pentagonal bubbles in the picture. mikka (t) 23:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice — I think I can see one pentagon. See also Geodesic domes of Buckminster Fuller. So not only does this echo Pollinator's Dragonfly eye, but US Navy Radomes too. -- Solipsist 23:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that you liked it, I have to confess I was a bit imprecise: I was speaking about the regular tessellation, where every edge is shared by exactly 3 faces and every vertex is shared by exactly 3 edges. Also, the whole sphere (or egg, or balloon of any shape (topologically equivalent to sphere)) must be covered. Other examples you've shown do not "use" the whole sphere. Nice they are, anyway. mikka (t) 00:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The detail is astounding. Enochlau 07:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support --brian0918™ 13:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Darwinek 14:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 23:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Promoted Image:Krilleyekils.jpg This link is Broken 1 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)

A striking image, suitable in articles in "middle age" category, it was taken by user "Ncihtich". Roscoe x 16:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Could be categorized as a kingdom of heaven - Roscoe x 16:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks really odd, almost photoshopped (not suggesting that it is). Light spot with off colors in the middle. Junes 16:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not high enough quality, and I prefer pictures of le Mont Saint Michel with the water surrounding it. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Noticeably off color. Chicago god 18:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I like the composition quite a lot. But as others have mentioned, problems with the scanning (colour banding, colour casts, dust spots etc.) falls some way short of a Feature Picture. -- Solipsist 19:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice composition, but far too many technical problems. Denni☯ 02:42, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Oppose has an annoying pink blob in the middle. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose MontStMichel is great image but better photo can be found Knutson 11:10 pm, 16 Jun 20
• Oppose -- Not natural colour. - Longhair | Talk 03:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - very poor quality - Adrian Pingstone 18:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted This link is Broken 1 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)

File:Roycehalluc.JPG

I am choosing to nominate this image because it shows what Los Angeles really is. I know that some parts of Los Angeles aren't perfect but when you look at this beautiful building you see why it can be a great place.

The image is used on the Los Angeles and University of California which was uploaded by Satyriconi. - • Thorpe • 16:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - • Thorpe • 16:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Okay but not really striking. Junes 16:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice photo, but nothing special. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Not sure that is really is illustrative of either Los Angeles or University of California. Also, no licensing information. --CVaneg 18:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Represents neither the best of LA nor UC. Chicago god 18:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose no licensing information and picture isn't that informative or striking anyway. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Although the color and sharpness are good, this is a poor architecture shot, as it suffers from severe "keystoning" (e.g. the building looks like it's leaning backwards) Alight 20:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not that great. Enochlau 01:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- building looks like it is leaning backwards. - Longhair | Talk 01:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose --Fir0002 09:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Cool picutre, nothing amazing, also no licensing. -- IanMcGreene 22:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose--ZeWrestler 16:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted This link is Broken 1 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)

I nominate this image because this artwork is a best illustration of how so called geopolitics goes now days. I feel that image was meant to represent the common mans reaction to the “game theory” which is saying that top ranking politicians are a players who use rest of humanity, and even whole countries as a pieces in the endless chess game. Image shows what might happen if this "game" goes too far. Artists had put himself at the rioting pieces side, but I also know people who associate themselves with a players and are pretty scared by the painting .. Image was painted by Dutch/Georgian artist (and my friend) Nick Gabrichidze at 2003-2004 and will be on display at his upcoming public art project in Holland Casino Amsterdam (opens July 27-28).. Image is used in the articles about Surrealism and Nick Gabrichidze as far as I know.. Was uploaded by Gabrichidze . - Knutson 21:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. First vote here - Knutson 21:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Its a rather nice illustration, but I'm afraid "Fair use" images are inelligible for Featured Picture Candidates, as described at the head of the page. However, with the permission of the artist, it is possible to release a particular photograph of a painting under GFDL, whilst the artist retains the copyright on the original painting. See for example Greencastle Harbour. -- Solipsist 22:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note Copyright status changed 17 Jun - (comment by User:80.126.57.218 16:08, 17 Jun 2005 -- Solipsist 15:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC))

The license has now improved, but the restriction 'for use at wikipedia.org only' effectively still prevents it from being GFDL. -- Solipsist 15:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. This does not add significantly to the Surrealism, where the image should be removed IMHO, because Nick Gabrichidze is not a very well known artist (such an article should have images of the most famous and exemplary surrealist paintings). Note also that there's currently a vote for deletion on Nick Gabrichidze (I'm ambivalent on that one). Junes 09:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• oppose - "Unauthorised reproducion is prohibited." Not GFDL compatible. Kaldari 22:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong oppose likely copyvio. Also, WP:VAIN, and user is presently edit warring to get this and similar art included in a number of inappropriate places. Radiant_>|< 10:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted This link is Broken 1 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)

Bali, an island recovering from the recent bombing incident, is indeed, recovering, however, remains the human paradise, and always be, not any amount of force shall alter that stance. Reflected here is the very indulgence human could ever have, the sunset in Jimbaran Beach is the very need to embrace this lovely island. Photography will help to publicise this message. Used in the Bali article and Slivester Nuenenorl was the photographer. - Slivester 11:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Slivester 11:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Way too small. Enochlau 12:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replaced with a larger resolution version. Slivester 12:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still oppose, ordinary. as per comments below. Enochlau 01:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its not as ordinary as it seemed, the process was tough. There are some elements blind to the human eye. Slivester 02:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by elements blind to the human eye? If I can't see it, what good is it in a featured picture? Enochlau 04:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we unfeature all the Hubble pictures? --brian0918&#153; 13:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Something profound that it should be featured. Slivester 14:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, that does not mean we should unfeature Hubble pictures. It's just that I think this one, although nice, doesn't quite have the stuff for FPC. Enochlau 05:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quite certaintly you deem so, what is then a matter for feature? What is the policy shall we have to refer to? If this isn't, there is more, in my point of view, should be unfeatured. Slivester 11:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, good picture, but not featured material. Phoenix2 19:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, Nice shot, with great color and composition. Alight 19:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I would love to visit Bali, this is just another sunset photo. We have much better already in the FP archives. Denni☯ 22:57, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, its just "another". Well, television is just another form of entertainment, and may not surpass other better medium, and I don't see people stop praising it? Slivester 11:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Just not striking enough. - Longhair | Talk 01:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, how shall I strike then? Slivester 11:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. For all the opposition reasons given. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it seemed all words are given for you too, you seem quite in the middle. Slivester 11:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Caught my eye at the Bali page, and I think it's beautiful. Dzof 11:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Nice picture! so, Submit to commons This link is Broken 16:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted This link is Broken 1 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)

This informative diagram by Jacobolus illustrates beautifully how to fold the US flag. - Josh Lee 03:25, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Josh Lee 03:25, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The animation is much more effective at conveying the information than the accompanying prose description. - Burn the asylum 11:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC).
• Comment: Any chance we can get this in 3D? This is quite boring, sorry. Mgm|^(talk) 12:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I like the animation, but it doesn't show which way the flag gets folded (ie: over under, etc). In all honesty it looks like someone's taking siccors to the flag and cutting along the dotted lines, although I'm quite sure that is not what Jacobolus was aiming for. TomStar81 00:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It goes a bit too fast for me and I'm not sure I quite understand it. There seems to be a large step near the end. What does that indicate? I think a clearer, slower and maybe 3D version of this would have great FP potential. - Haukurth 01:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this would only be of interest to Americans.--Fir0002 09:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong - I'm Polish - but I've got only some idea. Basia from Poland.

• Oppose - I still have no idea how to fold the flag no matter how often I watch it! - Adrian Pingstone 18:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Phoenix2 21:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose because it's not an effective demostration, while noting that Fir0002's objection is quite irrelevant. — Dan | Talk 00:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The animation doesn't really show "folding" in progress, and it's missing about a dozen steps between frames 10 and 11. --Carnildo 03:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. As much as I like the idea (and I thank the creator, because I'd always wondered how you get to the triangle), it doesn't consistently show if the flag is being folded over or under. Put arrows on it and you'll have my vote. Deltabeignet 03:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  it's obviously being foldeed under or the pattern being folded onto would change. This link is Broken 01:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  I beg to differ; when it's been folded horizontally twice and is being folded in triangles, the stripes would remain the same whether it was being folded forwards or backwards. I tried it out in MS Paint. Deltabeignet 18:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support This link is Broken 01:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose — Chameleon 01:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +3 / -9 -- Solipsist 4 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)

My wife took this picture yesterday. I think it is vivid and crisp and illustrates redwing, nest and bird nicely. It does need to be viewed full-size to be fully enjoyed, though. I suppose it could be cropped closer around the hatchlings though I think it's nice that one can see that the nest is on the ground. - Haukurth 15:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We checked on the nest again today. They're all dead now. It was probably a fox - though he didn't even eat them all. We found two of them a meter or two from the nest, blue and lifeless but not torn apart. The scene was just too sad to photograph. - Haukurth 20:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Haukurth 15:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, good, but not quite good enough. --Fir0002 09:41, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, although I do think they look like groovy rockers with their spiky hair-styles. --Silversmith Hewwo 12:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Thank you for voting on the picture. Might I bother you for more specific reasons you think the picture lacks merit? Perhaps it can be improved or replaced (we have a couple more of the same nest) and if not then at least we could have a better idea as to what to look for in the future (try a flower next time, maybe?). - Haukurth 13:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be more specific, I find the birds a bit hard to see, as their colour is very close to the nest's colour, and the shadows don't help. I almost supported, but I don't think it is striking enough to be featured, it's just a nice, fairly interesting picture. Maybe the others you have are better? --Silversmith Hewwo 18:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful :) We looked at the other pictures again but still feel this one is the best. We tried cropping it differently and fiddling with color levels and contrast but still feel it looks best unprocessed. The shadow is there because the lighting is natural. You can see that the nest is placed in a small depression in the ground. The hatchlings are similar in colour to the nest, that's probably how Nature/Darwin/God intended it. The nest is hard to find unless you know exactly where to look. Again, thank you for your comments. - Haukurth 20:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support I happen to like it. If anything, 1/3rd of the nest is a bit in the shadow, but that is not a big flaw I think -- Chris 73 Talk 17:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, I like it, but I don't think it's quite up to featured standard. Phoenix2 21:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - not especially striking. Kaldari 22:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --Bernard Helmstetter 16:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. That brownish stuff at the right is distracting. Enochlau 06:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The moss? That's just what the ground looks like. Would you support a closer crop? Not that it matters at this point. - Haukurth 10:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. As an image its not perfect and the lighting could be better, but it is by far the best illustration on nest. My guess is its not so easy to come across a situation like this and having one unhatched egg is a major bonus. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 08:03 (UTC)
• Support. I believe the poster that the nests are rare to come by and he is probably right that the color coincidence is no coincidence, if you know what I mean. Superm401 | Talk July 4, 2005 03:09 (UTC)

Not promoted +5 / -5 -- Solipsist 4 July 2005 07:25 (UTC)

Very beautiful and striking. One of the best flower photographs I've ever seen. Used to illustrate the Daisy article. Uploaded by JoJan

• Nominate and Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Wow! Sango123 00:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Groovy colors. TomStar81 00:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Bling bling. Josh Lee 03:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Nice --Fir0002 08:49, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, black background enhances the colors -- Chris 73 Talk 17:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Absolutely fantastic! - Adrian Pingstone 18:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, to some extent a flower is a flower, but this one is especially beautiful. Phoenix2 21:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent colors, high res. Very nice. -IanMcGreene 22:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- I didn't even have to click on the image to know I was liking it. - Longhair | Talk 09:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, very detailed, nice color. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - amazing pic. Guettarda 13:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support --brian0918&#153; 13:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Lovely flower and photo. - Darwinek 14:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Submit to commons instead. Support now that the picture illustrates the right article and has been removed from daisy. See discussion below. - Haukurth 14:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) The image is certainly striking and beautiful. However, it doesn't really illustrate an article on Wikipedia, which is a requirement here. The Daisy article currently deals with three species of flowers, none of which is african daisy (Dimorphotheca aurantiaca) or even a member of the same genus. Until this is sorted out the picture is out of place. As a side-note I think the picture is more beautiful than illustrative. The black background means that we don't see the flower in its natural context. We don't even have any reference to estimate how large it is. - Haukurth 16:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a very good argument. Your reasoning is more in favor of creating an article on the flower than deleting the picture because there is no article. There are plenty of other plant/animal FPs that don't have articles on the exact species, but are illustrative of the type. As for the background color, that's pretty subjective. --brian0918&#153; 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Create an article on this flower species and I will support the nomination. Until then the picture doesn't illustrate an article on Wikipedia (keeping the photo in the Daisy article is misleading). My notes about the background are not subjective. Whether the black background makes the flower more beautiful is, on the other hand, subjective. - Haukurth 20:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • This picture is on commons, and is here. And the picture is fine for the WP article as it is a Bellis perennis which is what the article is about. The other images have just been misnamed in naming them "Dasies". --Silversmith Hewwo 20:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I freely admit that I'm not an expert on flowers. But I don't think the flower in question is a Bellis perennis unless it's been twisted and painted. I'm not sure what species it actually is or whether that species is properly called African daisy. I hope someone with more knowledge can clear this up. This page seems to be the source of the picture: [1] The only info here is that this is an "African daisy with studio lighting". Hmm... Weird licensing info: "If you plan on using this picture commercially, that's not a problem but please use some due diligence. I've tried to make sure I have a valid copyright on something before releasing it to the Public Domain, but the standard for commercial use is much higher. Don't be a dumbass." I'm not sure if we should take this to imply that the person writing is not the actual author of the picture or perhaps that he/she doesn't quite understand the Public Domain concept. I hope it isn't unreasonable to want these issues to be cleared up before the image is promoted. - Haukurth 21:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Regarding the license, it is clearly Public Domain and usable by us. I think the author fully understands the concept of public domain. from the pd photo about page [2]: "However, there are some things to keep in mind: This doesn't mean that you can take the material as is and then copyright it yourself. It's in the public domain and that's where it must stay. And if you intend to use an image you find here for commercial use, please be aware that standards for such use are higher than for other uses. Specifically, if you see a picture here with people you should assume no model release was obtained. And pictures featuring products or property may open you to litigation if you use them commercially without permision." I hope this clears things up. Lorax 01:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
            • Thank you. Yes, that's surely good enough. Now I just want to know what species the flower is :) - Haukurth 02:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be a type of "Trailing African Daisy" Genus: Osteospermum fruticosum. The "Daisy Family" is Asteraceae, to which the plant in this picture belongs. I will make a seperate article tomorrow for this Genus, as that seems to be the system, which we can see by looking at Chrysanthemum. --Silversmith Hewwo 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a cultivar Osteospermum 'Pink Whirls'. This cultivar has pinkish-purple flowers with 'spooned' petals; reverse is purple to lavender-blue; disk is blue. See this site [[3]]. I happen to have this plant in my garden. I'll make a few photos and I'll upload them in the Commons. But I'm afraid the quality of my photos won't be on a par with this excellent picture. JoJan 15:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support–Kaldari 22:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Should obviously be featured --Oblivious 21:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Shivanayak 13:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose and I argue that it is inellgible since it illustrates no article. It isn't mentioned as a variant of daisies in the daisy article and it is only tacked on to the bottom of another. Submit it to commons. Being featured there is no less of an honor. Note: I think it is a great photo. This link is Broken 22:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cultivars hardly get a separate article, unless they are very commmon such as the cultivars of Malus domestica, better known as the apple. Nevertheless I created the article Osteospermum, where I've mentioned this particular cultivar Osteospermum 'Pink Whirls'. There is not much more to be said about this flower. JoJan 13:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good work, JoJan! I now support the nomination. - Haukurth 14:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright I'll change to neutral. My concern now is, do we know exactly what species this flower belogns to? (forgive me i know very little about flowers). This link is Broken 14:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On second second thought. I support. I don't know what i was whining about. This link is Broken 17:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A cultivar is NOT a species, therefore you don't need to be concerned. JoJan 16:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added the photo to the cultivar article, which previously didn't have any images. - Haukurth 16:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A strong image triggering activity in writing articles is part of what Featured Pictures is about. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)
  • Promoted Image:African daisy (Osteospermum sp. 'Pink Whirls').jpg This link is Broken 4 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)

thumb| Gillian Murphy and Maxim Beloserkovsky in American Ballet Theatre's production of Sir Frederick Ashton's Sylvia. Photo by Marty Sohl

Brilliant photograph of Murphy and Beloserkovsky performing a pas de deux in the ballet Sylvia. I self-nominated because I think no one ever sees the picture, its of such a niche topic. I don't think the copyright should be a problem, we have permission from the director of press and public relations at ABT to use the image as we please, as long as the source is cited; Appears in Sylvia (ballet), uploaded by Rmrfstar.

• Self-Nominate and support. - Rmrfstar 2 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)
  • If the copyright doesn't permit third party use, it can't be supported here. If the situation is simply that it can be used in any way by anyone, provided that the source is cited, then it can be promoted here. Hopefully it's the latter, because this is a great picture. --brian0918&#153; 2 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)
    • When I asked for the images (I have more than one from the source), all I was asked of was, "Please credit: American Ballet Theatre's production of Sir Frederick Ashton's Sylvia." -- Rmrfstar 2 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)
      • It matters what you asked them, though. What was your wording? If you said "Can it be used on Wikipedia?", then it can only be used on Wikipedia. --brian0918&#153; 2 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)
      • If could be licensed {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} 'American Ballet Theatre's production... is creditted' then it would be OK for Featred Pictures. Note however, that this tag would allow general 3rd party use. -- Solipsist 2 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)
        • As best as I can recall, I said I was writing an encyclopedia article on the ballet, and I would like to use the pictures. She just sent them with the one request. I have emailed my contact there again asking about the terms.-- Rmrfstar 3 July 2005 03:28 (UTC)
          • I have just contacted the director of press and PR at ABT and she has stated that the image copyrights need to remain as they are. Any ideas? -- Rmrfstar 5 July 2005 14:01 (UTC)
            • Well done, for getting back in touch with the image owner. Unfortunately the tag as it stands is effectively a FairUse tag as far as FPC is concerned, so I think we will have to close the nomination for now. -- Solipsist 5 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)
• The copyright right now is not acceptable. This link is Broken 2 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)
• Support, if the copyright issue is sorted out. Thue | talk 3 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)

Cancelled due to copyright

Pretty good shots of wine grapes. Wine grapes are very different from table grapes in that for the particular wine these were going to produce the "wrinkling" of the grapes is desirable.

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I feel the grapes are too small in the first image, and badly framed in the second, though they look lovely :). - Longhair | Talk 13:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for same reasons as Longhair. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I like both. I think the colour of the grapes is very rich, it contrasts very will with the leaves and the background. I like the way we get to see how they bunch up on the vine in the first pic. I can't imagine better pictures, particularly as I get sick of seeing them not in a natural state i.e. on a plain white background or something. --Silversmith Hewwo 16:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: My bias might be showing. I've seen a lot of grapes on vines :) -- Longhair | Talk 03:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support, I like both images, are both to become FPs or just one? Phoenix2 18:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't find them beautiful or striking. --Bernard Helmstetter 17:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support the picture on the left (Image:Wine grapes03.jpg, but it should be trimmed to remove the partial bunch on the left. No vote on the other picture.-gadfium 02:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Wine_grapes03.jpg has really nice colors. Intersofia 5 July 2005 08:26 (UTC)
• Support the second photo - the close-up of grapes. Harro5 July 5, 2005 09:20 (UTC)

Promoted Wine grapes03.jpg +6 / -3 -- Solipsist 7 July 2005 10:32 (UTC)

Self-nom: very sharp, eye-catching, informative. — Dan | Talk 22:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral - I could be wrong, but I don't think the by-sa-cc license is compatible with the GFDL license (which is required to be a featured picture). Otherwise, I would support. Kaldari 23:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, the instructions say "covered by the GNU Free Documentation License or a similar license", and only fair use is specifically ruled out, so presumably another free license such as cc-by-sa is quite acceptable. — Dan | Talk 23:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, very nice. And yes, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are both suitable licences for FP. James F. (talk) 23:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, for lack of reason to oppose. Phoenix2 16:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I find the reflections of the people too distracting and messy. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The reflections make this picture look too complicated. --Bernard Helmstetter 00:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - very nice. I much prefer the coloured one, it catches the look of chrome better (not surprisingly!!) - Adrian Pingstone 16:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral - I definitely prefer the color version. Kaldari 18:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I find the cropping/framing uncomfortable. Enochlau 05:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support B&W neutral for the other. This link is Broken 16:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose reflections. -Lommer | ^talk 28 June 2005 04:16 (UTC)
• Oppose. The higher contrast B&W version helps, but here the reflections are quite distracting. I've not tried, but presumably a shallow DoF can help reduce the impact of reflections in situations like this. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 07:40 (UTC)
• Support both, esp. B&W. James F. (talk) 2 July 2005 10:55 (UTC)

Not promoted +6 / -5 / 1 neutral -- Solipsist 7 July 2005 11:01 (UTC)

Self-nom. Sharp, eye-catching, and informative. — Dan | Talk 00:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Informative did you say? Enochlau 04:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't understand your objection. It's just as informative as any other pretty picture listed on this page, isn't it? — Dan | Talk 13:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry taking so long to reply, i'm on a wikibreak for exam study... anyway, my main concern is that the composition is perhaps not as good as it could be. It's very hard to make heads or tails of the image, and as noted by Ericd, the face isn't shown. I don't think it captures the 3d-ness or the splendour of the subject that well. Enochlau 05:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Enochlau. Also cannot say that the full res image is sharp. It's also quite noisy. --Fir0002 08:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, not featured material. Phoenix2 16:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As an amateur photographer, I rather wish someone would tell me what is lacking in my photos, rather than giving vague assessments. I'd be glad to hear that it's poorly lit or too fuzzy or not well composed, but "featured picture material" is not an option on my camera. — Dan | Talk 03:20, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well. First your choice of composition is not obvious, we don't see the face, the RR logo isn't vertical and I don't see an element that is centered or match a third of the image. There are some focus issues that are difficult to avoid on a close-up photography. I think the focus in on the RR logo logically this should be most interresting part of the picture but the composition "say" someting else. I also think that's a bit "middle of the road" reguading focus some parts of the pic are out of focus but not so much. That looks unsharp instead of looking like Bokeh. One last point, color is uninterresting the pic would be better in B & W IMO. Ericd 11:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral, but I have a roll of exposed B & W film in the fridge with photos of the Spirit of Ectasy and I hope to get something better. Ericd 17:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, unless Ericd can produce something better before the voting time is up. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose quality concerns This link is Broken 02:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) (also see Template:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Rolls-Royce Spirit of Ecstasy.jpg)
• Support, agree with silversmith. -Lommer | ^talk 28 June 2005 04:15 (UTC)
• Support. The trouble with car photographs is that we are all too familiar with the near perfect marketing images put out by the manufacturers. We are not likely to see GFDL images produced under studio conditions. This picture isn't perfect, but its a good illustration. The car is well polished, the reflections aren't too ugly/distracting. A lower angle to bring in the statuette's face, might have introduced a more complex background. My biggest concern is the level of noise in the dark areas. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 07:31 (UTC)

Not promoted +3 / -4 / 1 neutral -- Solipsist 7 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)

I know that I've nominated a lot of sunset photos in the past on FPC, but I think this one is really something special.

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:57, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - The white rays at the left, which I assume are sun rays, kinda distract from the awe feeling this great shot would otherwise give. I'm open to persuasion to change my vote to 'Support' if it's established I know nothing about sunsets and this is what one would expect to be seeing, but for now I find it distracting. -- Longhair | Talk 15:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, though I think we have a few sunset pics featured already. — Dan | Talk 15:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Love an Aussie sunset. We can always delist an old pic if something new and improved comes along. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, until someone explains what those white rays are. --Bernard Helmstetter 00:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Those 'white rays' as the description on the image says, are funnel shaped clouds (I don't know a more scientific name for them). I can upload a photo earlier (prior to sunset) in which only the strange clouds are visible. --Fir0002 05:58, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • The picture still looks strange to me. Neutral. --Bernard Helmstetter 17:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - the white things are distracting. A curate's egg 06:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This cloud article may be of use - but it's hard to tell exactly what type of clouds the ones in this pic are. --Silversmith Hewwo 12:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree about the white streaks, and also the framing seems to be a little unbalanced. Also, which article could this illustrate and add much to? Enochlau 06:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Really good picture --Nyr14 June 30, 2005 16:25 (UTC)
• Support - I actually like the white rays; it gives the image character, methinks. Sango123 July 2, 2005 16:15 (UTC)
• Support. Stunning - isn't that what FP is about? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Sunset with funnel clouds.jpg +6 / -3 / 1 neutral -- Solipsist 20:17, 7 July 2005

I took this picture back in 2004. Since then, this has remained one of my favorite pictures that I have ever taken. The lead singer was just a few feet away from me singing the song Prayer, and the light shines off him just right to captivate anyone that happens to stumble across this image. This artical is used on both the Disturbed artical and the artical about the lead singer featured in the picture, David Draiman.

• Support. First vote here - ZeWrestler 16:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, picture is too blurry. Phoenix2 16:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, really blurred. Ericd 16:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- You really like this guy eh? Sorry. - Longhair | Talk 17:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The geen lighting is what makes the picture in my opinion. --ZeWrestler 17:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't like that bright mess in the lower right corner. And a bit too blurry. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry, a pic this blurred could never be a Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 20:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - If any pic, this should not be a featured picture. Blurry, weird angle, does not help the article significantly, etc. WB 10:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - For reasons stated above --Fir0002 11:16, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enochlau 06:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, same reasons as stated above --Nyr14 June 30, 2005 16:37 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the green lighting is effective, and I would expect a photo at a live gig under low light conditions is quite a challenge. The problems are the extreme camera shake and other distracting elements. -- Solipsist 30 June 2005 23:02 (UTC)

Not promoted +1 / -10 -- Solipsist 7 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)

Beautiful, clean picture, wonderful angle, and the sky works perfectly for it. Obviously used on United States Capitol and several others. Golbez 06:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. --Golbez 06:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, because the patch of green above is really ugly in the large version. Also, there are a lot of distracting elements (foreground etc.). Zement 16:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's just a good pic of a building. Not outstanding enough for me. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice building, but composition could be better. Enochlau 06:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'd like to support as it is well balanced, well lit, and the clouds are a bonus. However, I agree with the above objections, and there are also problems with jpeg artifacts around the dome and statue on top. -- Solipsist 30 June 2005 22:56 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Sango123 July 2, 2005 16:11 (UTC)

Not promoted +1 / -4 / 1 neutral -- Solipsist 9 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)

Nice flower, and nice photo.

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 11:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry Fir, but it makes me go a bit crosseyed. --Silversmith Hewwo 12:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. My eyes are fine. --brian0918&#153; 13:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's true that I don't have my glasses on...:p But there's more to my oppose than that. --Silversmith Hewwo 13:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - background too fussy - Adrian Pingstone 16:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC
• Support, nice, and the background does tend to go fuzzy in pictures sometimes, but in this case I think it draws more toward the flower. Phoenix2 03:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support I like it. This link is Broken 03:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, very good flower photo -- Chris 73 Talk 09:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - My eyes are fine too, ummm but no... I oppose it --Oblivious 14:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've got my glasses on, but I think the colour is a little dull/lacking something. Enochlau 06:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Nice photo. - Darwinek 15:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, nice photo.-gadfium 30 June 2005 03:21 (UTC)
• Neutral. I can't make my mind up about this one. Its a good picture of an exotic looking flower, but it isn't illustrating any articles particularly well. A bit like the Osteospermum flower, it really needs an article on the plant itself. I'd like to know why the styles are so long, but judging from this page its a popular reproductive strategy in Western Australia. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)
• Support Nice photo -- WB July 8, 2005 07:46 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Pincushion hakea03.jpg +8 / -4 / 1 neutral -- Solipsist 9 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)

This is an image of a shy bird, afraid of humans. Crisp color and features of the bird. Article of the White-throated_Kingfisher with the link White-throated_Kingfisher.

• Support. Self Nom. -- Shivanayak 12:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - focus poor - Adrian Pingstone 16:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just a touch too blurry. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - And the rope above its head is a bit distracting. Beautiful bird though. Sango123 22:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - not enough focus -- Chris 73 Talk 09:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree. Enochlau 06:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +1 / -5 -- Solipsist 9 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)

Illustrates Sweet Chestnut very well.

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 05:27, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Adds significantly. --brian0918&#153; 13:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Perfect... --Shivu 14:08, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Bevo 15:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - excellent pic - Adrian Pingstone 18:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, looks like it's time for another barnstar, nice picture. Phoenix2 02:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Nice --Oblivious 03:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Sorry Fir, but there's something about this style that I don't like. It's a very good photo, but to me it's not an FP photo. --Silversmith Hewwo 12:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice. --Bernard Helmstetter 13:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great picture. - Darwinek 15:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice shot, good color, sharpness and illustrates the subject well. Alight 28 June 2005 14:53 (UTC)
• Support, very nice photo, but shame about the partial image at the right.-gadfium 30 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)
• Support. Sweet. -- Solipsist 30 June 2005 20:33 (UTC)
• Support -- Longhair | Talk 30 June 2005 23:26 (UTC)
• Support. Not 100% perfect but very good never the less. G-Man 1 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 2 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)
• Support - Cute. :) Sango123 July 2, 2005 16:08 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk July 5, 2005 06:01 (UTC)
• Support beautiful photo Uwe Kils July 7, 2005 18:08 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Chestnuts.jpg 18 / 0 / 1 --Spangineer (háblame) July 9, 2005 13:18 (UTC)

File:Praying mantis india.JPG

Contributed to the article of the Praying_mantis.

High resolution by Shivanayak 07:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support version 2. Sango123 16:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Version 2 -- ~ 22:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support v. 2 --Neigel von Teighen 22:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Version 2.0 TomStar81 04:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support #2. Excellent shot. Would have been nice to have the legs in focus as well, but you can't have everything. --Fir0002 05:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support version 2. Kaldari 05:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tacking a picture onto the bottom of an article is not the same as adding significantly to it. Mark¹ 05:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No longer at the bottom of the article. Yet another reason to support fuck Yeahh

my proposed change to policy. --brian0918&#153; 13:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. It's quite a detailed shot, and it would add much to the article, but I have reservations about the background - the artificial grey doesn't go too well - would've been nicer in a natural setting. Enochlau 06:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So you're saying humans and their products aren't natural? What are we, then? --brian0918&#153; 13:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • come...come, it's obvious he means the wild or the great outdoors. Natural meaning not created by humans not natural as in coming from nature. This link is Broken 16:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you're all just in denial about the role humans play in the world. --brian0918&#153; 17:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral, I agree with Enochlau. Great shot, but the background is a bit sterile. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support the second This link is Broken 16:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Version 2 --Nyr14 June 30, 2005 16:33 (UTC)
• Support #2, although I would prefer a slightly wider crop about half way between #1 & #2. -- Solipsist 30 June 2005 20:56 (UTC)
• Support but agree with comment by Solipsist Uwe Kils July 7, 2005 17:40 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Praying_mantis_india.jpg 10 / 0 / 2 --Spangineer (háblame) July 9, 2005 13:17 (UTC)

This is another of the photos that I have used for the kigo article. It is almost too tourist postcardish, but it's grown on me. Currently the photo is only used in the Kigo, and List of kigo articles. USDA photo by Scott Bauer. Image Number K5876-11. The same photographer also took a very nice closeup of the cherry blossoms: Image:Cherry tree blossoms.jpg. BlankVerse ∅ 15:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. BlankVerse ∅ 15:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I like it. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Works for me. Denni☯ 01:41, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Support, I like the trees in the foreground especially. Phoenix2 03:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• support. I like it. - Shivanayak 06:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Sky an unnatural blue. --Fir0002 06:55, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you; the pictures is quite well-much altered, however, why is then unnatural has to do? Its what pleases the eye, and you have to be flexible to please yourself. Slivester 11:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to sound rude, but is English really your native language? Coz you're sounding like master Yoda, but a lot worse. Anyway, I think your saying that post processing shouldn't be a reason to be against a photo. And I agree with you, but it has to be processed so that it doesn't look unnatural. In this case the blue doesn't please the eye, instead, it jars. --Fir0002 02:19, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Trying adding the missing words into the sentence. And yes, English is my native language. We speak another variant of English over here. Slivester 4 July 2005 06:16 (UTC)

• Support - good photo -- Chris 73 Talk 09:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with Fir0002 --Oblivious 14:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with Fir0002, and also the subject is horribly whitewashed. Enochlau 06:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Simply supports. Slivester 11:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose the monument looks funny (image compression problems or just editing?) This link is Broken 22:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The sky does not match the water. If a better photo editor worked with the original, then I'd like to see this featured. --Slac 28 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)
• Support, wonderful. James F. (talk) 2 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)
• Oppose. This wonderfully illustrates why many prefer film to digital. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 3 July 2005 07:11 (UTC)

Not promoted 8/6/0 --Spangineer (háblame) July 9, 2005 13:19 (UTC)

This is another one of the images that I ended up using for the Kigo article. It is also used in the House Sparrow article. The photo was taken by Dennis Mojado and downloaded from [4]. BlankVerse ∅ 15:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. BlankVerse ∅ 15:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - the enlarged pic (even the 640px-wide pic) is in poor focus Adrian Pingstone 16:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  That actually part of what I liked about the photo. There is a nice tight focus on the sparrows, and everthing in the background has become almost abstract. BlankVerse ∅ 17:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I almost nominated this one myself yesterday, but was worried about the low res. I think it's good though, despite that. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, thought about this one, but the resolution is too low. Phoenix2 03:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Too low res + the face of the sparrow looking towards the camera is out of focus. --Fir0002 06:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Fir. the front Sparrow is out of focus, I don't care about the background being out of focus (you can't have them both). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sparrow out of focus. Enochlau 06:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• For the record - both birds are males - MPF 5 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)

Not promoted 2/5/0 --Spangineer (háblame) July 9, 2005 13:20 (UTC)

In looking for photos to help support the article on kigo (season words used in the Japanese poetry form haiku) I've looked at tons of photos here, on the Commons, and on the internet. I really liked this photo of a bunch of grapes. Every time that I look at it the photo makes me hungry for grapes. It is also used on the Grape and Wine articles. USDA photo by Bob Nichols. Image Number K7721-3.. - BlankVerse ∅ 14:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. BlankVerse ∅ 14:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Just a comment: what's with the horizontal line about 1/3 down from the top?? Randyoo 15:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like the original jpeg file was slightly corrupted. I've touched it up; clear your cache and it should be fixed. --Cryptic (talk) 16:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Thank you. BlankVerse ∅ 17:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - I know I'm being extremely fussy but the wire along the top spoils the pic for me (it would be easy to crop it out) - Adrian Pingstone 16:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Wires are an integral part of a vinyard. Check the winter picture on this page for example. [5] I don't think it hurts the picture at all, whereas cropping it I think would ruin the composition and balance. BlankVerse ∅ 17:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I'm still seeing the line when I first open the image, but when I click to download the high res. version it goes. I like the wire. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Beautiful picture. TomStar81 22:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, yes that horizontal line disappears in the high resolution version. Phoenix2 03:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Good job on getting rid of the line. --Fir0002 06:51, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I like it --Chris 73 Talk 09:17, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Juicy. Enochlau 06:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support G-Man 4 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Grapes05.jpg 8 / 1 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) July 9, 2005 13:15 (UTC)

It has been a while since I've felt like trying a self-nom. Hot of the presses, this is what the sunrise looked like at Stonehenge this morning, as some 19,000 people gathered to help a handful of druids welcome the sun on the morning of the summer solstice. The section could use a bit more improvement, but I'm happy with the way this photo turned out. - Solipsist 19:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Self-nominate and support. -- Solipsist 19:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral That parachuter in the middle really bugs me for some reason. --CVaneg 20:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I can remove the parachuter without trace if it would be worth it. Or Solipsist can if he/she has the know-how. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, airbrushing out the paramotor would be a 'breeze', c.f. FPC/Fire breathing ;-). However I quite like him (I'm a sucker for aviation), although I would agree that he is a problem with the composition in that he distracts the eye from the real focus of the picture. However, this picture is illustrating a particular moment, rather than a concept, so I would be more concerned about editing history - the guy was there at the time. I've plenty of alternative images, but many have other minor problems or less defined colours etc. -- Solipsist 21:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would rather him gone, as good as your point is. I just keep looking at him and not at what should be the focus. --Silversmith Hewwo 22:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not totally opposed to airbrushing, but here is alternative (#2) which is taken a little earlier, in the first minute after sunrise. This pic might also be worth considering, although its actually about fifteen minutes after sunrise. By the way, here's my take on the picture that made the front page of the The Gruaniad this morning - shame I didn't get the jump... -- Solipsist 08:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I hadn't even realised in the first image that there were people there (parachuter aside)! I like first pic the best, but I'm still not sure. Knowing that there are people there gives weight to the parachuter. I do like the way in the second pic that you can see the people better and the mist. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support - I liked this. A curate's egg 06:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support I like the parachuter. --Fir0002 08:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support though I'd rather the chap in the paraglider got a taste of the clone tool myself. adamsan 19:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support the top one, with or without glider. Joe D (t) 22:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I like the colours, but what's the pointy thing on the top of the stone in the middle? Mark¹ 04:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's part of one of the mortise and tenon joints that held the lintel onto the stone, the lintel is now fallen. adamsan 07:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's just what I was going to say. I've added a longer explanation, along with details of the solar alignment to the image description page here. You can also see the tenon spike on the right of this daylight photo of the central triliths. -- Solipsist 09:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support, preferrable without the parachute. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I support first image. Saturation of the second image is a bit low. --Oblivious 14:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- I prefer the 2nd picture. TomStar81 04:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support the first picture. The sun looks enticingly warm. The parachuter is fine, adds some life. Enochlau 06:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, magnificent. --Theaterfreak64 03:49, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - OK well the views on the paraglider pilot in #1 seems to be evenly split. But I'm am now persuaded to remove him, so I've now wheeled out the ack-ack guns and cleared the skies. The Ministry of Truth is currently engaged in correcting all mistaken references to any air traffic being in the vicinity of Stonehenge that morning.-- Solipsist 29 June 2005 23:53 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 2 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)
• Support #1. Sango123 July 2, 2005 16:13 (UTC)
• Support very nice --Muchosucko 3 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)
• Support prefer the first (top) one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Summer Solstice Sunrise over Stonehenge 2005.jpg 14 / 0 / 2, pref. for 1 --Spangineer (háblame) July 9, 2005 13:13 (UTC)

I really like this sculpture, and I really like that the picture was taken at sunset. The quality is quite good, and I think it does the sculpture justice. Picture taken by me in 2004. It is used in the Albert Memorial article. - Silversmith Hewwo 13:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Silversmith Hewwo 13:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Good picture. I'm a bit confused by the licensing information. I gathered that there was some kind of fatwah against non-commercial pictures here. - Haukurth 17:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That licence is my own template for all the images I upload which I took. Both CC and GFDL are fine for FP's. The GDFL means that it can be used for commercial purposes, the CC means that if you don't want to use it for commercial purposes, you can use it without including the massive page of GDFL text. The main point being though that anyone can use this image. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we had this problem before with another one of your pictures. "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike" is a deprecated license. The problem is the "non commercial" part. --brian0918&#153; 18:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People, please actually read the image description page. The picture is under the GFDL. End of story. Now vote on the merits of the photo. — Chameleon 01:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also see this, for an answer about the licence from JamesF. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did read the image description page, all of it. Obviously you didn't. It's licensed under GFDL and then under a non-commercial license as well. I don't know how that works, but at least I've acknowledged that there was dual-licensing. --brian0918&#153; 17:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well, I hope this licence business is clear now anyway. If there are any more questions about it, please write to me on my talk page, or put up a querey on the discussion page of FPCs. :-) Silversmith Hewwo 17:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Is it just me or is there somthing funky with the image quality? This link is Broken 03:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, my camera is not a good one. But I think it's quite sharp and not out of focus at least. I understand if you will oppose because of it. I can't get a better picture though. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support Sweet. - Darwinek 11:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose I'd have to agree with Broken Segue (alias This link is broken) --Fir0002 June 28, 2005 10:41 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good to me. G-Man 30 June 2005 20:29 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 2 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)
• Oppose The subject is fascinating, but the quality of the photo is sub-par. Sango123 15:07, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted Enochlau 13:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my quest to make gas metal arc welding a featured article, I created this diagram that shows the important components of the GMAW weld area. I'm quite pleased with the results, so I'm nominating it here. If there are concerns about coloring or other minor issues, they can be readily fixed. Spangineer (háblame) 18:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Self-nominate and support. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm no expert, but is the black thing supposed to be curved? It just look a little wrong. --Fir0002 04:41, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is what the end of most GMAW welding guns look like, so yes, in many cases, it is curved. But if you have suggestions on how to make it look better I'm all for them. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:46, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - it may be simple but it is illustrative. I'm all for more diagrams, especially ones made by wikipedians. This link is Broken 16:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I am all for good diagrams -- Chris 73 Talk July 5, 2005 06:00 (UTC)

Not promoted -- Enochlau 13:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice photo showing devastated capital of South Carolina. It's striking and adds significantly to its article. Photographed by George N. Barnard. Photo it's from public domain National Archives and Records Administration.

• Nominate and support. - Darwinek 15:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The image probably needs to be in the history section, rather than the Attractions section, although there isn't much space there. Also, it might benefit from some photoshop healing. --brian0918&#153; 17:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What kind of "healing" do you mean? - Darwinek 17:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Using the healing brush to get rid of some of the specks, and using the Auto-Level command to... auto level. --brian0918&#153; 18:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with brian, the damaged part of the photo on the LHS ruins it. Maybe a crop would be better? --Fir0002 23:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment for the benefit of non-U.S.A.ns who may not be familiar with our history: The event depicted happened during the American Civil War of 1861 through 1865. Michael Hardy 30 June 2005 22:26 (UTC)
• Support, the only picture of the bunch that was interesting enough to actually look at, to click on and see the larger version. Carries emotional impact; most/all other pictures on this page are pretty but empty. linas 1 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
  • It's a moment of history. However not striking IMO. I can barely have an idea of the devastation by looking this pic. Ericd 3 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)

Not promoted -- Enochlau 13:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great photo with sweet focus. Author: CrazyD. - Darwinek 17:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Darwinek 17:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I doubt it can be fixed much, but the background is overexposed. --Fir0002 23:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

( − ) Oppose Overexposed background --Fir0002 July 2, 2005 12:00 (UTC)

• • I tried some fiddling in Photoshop, but I think it's beyond recovery. --203.54.74.31 05:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Fir. It could be possible to darken the background....--Silversmith Hewwo 00:18, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I applied auto-levels/contrast/colors. Not sure if this helped with the background. --brian0918&#153; 01:53, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'd be interested in seeing the flower on a pure black background, like the African Daisy I've nominated further down the list. I'll try it out myself maybe tomorrow if no-one beats me to it. --Silversmith Hewwo 28 June 2005 09:54 (UTC)

I gave it the requested black background. It already looks like a totally different picture JoJan 4 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)

It's an improvement, but the borders need work. --CVaneg 5 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)

Not promoted -- Enochlau 13:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful image of the common snowdrop. It is eye-catching and aesthetically appealing, illustrating its article very nicely. Photographer: Aka.

• Nominate and support. Sango123 18:44, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. --brian0918&#153; 19:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It strikes me that since the background is so completely out of focus anyhow it might as well be studio black - as in the recent cultivar nomination. Certainly a pleasing photo anyhow. - Haukurth 19:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Very detailed; Support. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 28 June 2005 17:54 (UTC)
• Excellently done --Fir0002 23:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

( + ) Support Reason above. --Fir0002 June 30, 2005 08:52 (UTC)

• Very good. --Silversmith Hewwo 00:19, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Nice, support this. Shivu 03:35, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. G-Man 1 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 2 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)
• Support. -Hoekenheef 2 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't catch the composition and highlights are burned out. Ericd 3 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)
• Support - excellent picture, highlighting the flower and not the background. JoJan 4 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
• Support, very high level of detail -- Chris 73 Talk July 5, 2005 05:59 (UTC)
• Support. Lovely. Enochlau 13:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Galanthus nivalis close-up aka.jpg -- Enochlau 13:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photo from a recent trip to an animal "safari park" of sorts. Let me know if there are any problems with the image (specifically: cropping, brightness, contrast).

• Nominate and support. - brian0918&#153; 19:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know if its supposed to be like that or not, but the image has an overal blueness to it. It may be just the river. --Fir0002 23:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've lowered the blue level a bit. Compare [6] and [7] (you may need to clear your cache, or force a refresh) --brian0918&#153; 01:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• All details in place, reflection of bright sky is making it blue. Shivu 04:07, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Support as the 2 day thing is mainly to prevent people opposing for fixable reasons, I assume. Great picture. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 28 June 2005 06:02 (UTC)
• 'Support, great picture, nicely captures a caribou. Phoenix2 Canada Day Weekend! 3 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
• Support, good pic. Minor color adjustment preferred, but support even in the current version. -- Chris 73 Talk July 5, 2005 05:58 (UTC)
• Support. Good. Enochlau 8 July 2005 07:25 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Wapiti from Wagon Trails.jpg

Selfnom; While Wikipedia was down, I decided to work on my maps, and I particularly love the way this one turned out. I'm not sure if it's FPC worthy but it's among the best work I've made, so I wanted to put it forth and see what happened. At present is only in Cyprus, will be in a districts page when I get that made. --Golbez June 28, 2005 06:18 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Golbez June 28, 2005 06:18 (UTC)
  • Comment: I made a small change due to a factual error. --Golbez June 30, 2005 06:09 (UTC)
• Comment you've screwed up the text somehow. Dunc|☺ 2 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)

( − ) Oppose - just not that interesting. --Fir0002 July 2, 2005 12:00 (UTC)

• Oppose. As stated above, the text is messed up. If you can get a version with better text then I might change my desision. -Hoekenheef 2 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)
  • Can y'all be more specific? The text looks perfectly fine on my end... --Golbez July 2, 2005 16:42 (UTC)
    • Parts of almost each letters are gone and it just makes the text totally unreadable. -Hoekenheef 3 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
      • Is it possible for you to take a screenshot and post it? Maybe to imageshack, or hell, just upload it here and I can delete it when we're done? Because it looks pristine to me... --Golbez July 3, 2005 02:39 (UTC)
• Comment At full size the text seems clear. But since the blue area is often called the Green Line, might it be possible to change the colours? (I know it is the UN buffer zone, but even so.) --Henrygb 5 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)
  • The text problem seems to be the black on transparent letters (fading to grey/transparent) seen using MSIE - they are fine on Firefox. --Henrygb 5 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)
• Thanks for the comments. 1) Yeah, good eye, I tried to use UN blue :) I'll fix that. Looks like this is gonna fail anyway, but I still appreciate comments. 2) Oh, okay, it's not my fault then. ;) --Golbez July 6, 2005 02:02 (UTC)

Not promoted -- Enochlau 13:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good photo as well as being informative. I will understand if you oppose on the grounds that it has been faked in photoshop (compare the original)

• Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 June 28, 2005 10:47 (UTC)
• I don't mind the photoshopping, but only the stuff in the foreground is clear, which I don't think is acceptable. --Spangineer (háblame) June 28, 2005 12:15 (UTC)
  • Object because much of the pomegranate is out of focus. --Spangineer (háblame) July 1, 2005 03:10 (UTC)
• All of the pomegranate should be in focus. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 28 June 2005 17:56 (UTC)
  • IMO it's not possible... Ericd 3 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)
  • Support, the picture is high quality, even with the pomegranate in the "background" slightly out of focus. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 30 June 2005 19:54 (UTC)
• The only part that's jarringly out of focus to my eye is the one seed lying on the table. I've taken the liberty of editing it out (Version 2). --Cryptic (talk) 29 June 2005 20:21 (UTC)
  • Support either version. --Cryptic (talk) 30 June 2005 20:31 (UTC)
  • Support (version 2) It would be better if everything was in sharp focus but it's still a good pic. G-Man 1 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)
• Support either. The focus is fine. Enochlau 2 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 2 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)
• Support version 2 - Sango123 July 2, 2005 16:04 (UTC)
• Support either version -- Chris 73 Talk July 5, 2005 05:57 (UTC)
• Support either version -- Shivu 08:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Pomegranate03 edit.jpg (apparent preference for version 2) -- Enochlau 13:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the most beautiful structures created by humans, a most stunning expression of Norse art and craftsmanship: a Viking ship (1180 years old) in a vantage exactly from the front. This photo was produced to share the artistic aspect and to start an article about Norse art. We contacted family and friends in Scandinavia to go on.

• Nominate - Uwe Kils (I took the photo) - June 28, 2005 23:58 (UTC)
• Do you have a better angle? Since it's called a longship I feel like we should probably be able to see the length of it. --CVaneg 29 June 2005 18:59 (UTC)

  This photo was produced to dramatize the artistic expression and symmetry of this structure from an exact frontal vantage. An oblique view is on the Viking ship page and on the museum sites. I also have a side view, but (for my feeling) this is the most beautiful Uwe Kils June 29, 2005 19:10 (UTC)

• Oppose- The picture doesn't really show what the whole boat looks like and just having the bow of the boat showing doesn't inform the viewer. -Hoekenheef 2 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)
• Oppose. Composition is a problem as noted above. Enochlau 2 July 2005 08:09 (UTC)

( − ) Oppose Agree with the above comments --Fir0002 July 2, 2005 12:01 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like a mathemathic "thing". It's very informative about the sophisticated design of those boats. Ericd 3 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
  • <JOKE MODE>Is there any way to vote twice ? Ericd 3 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)</JOKE MODE>
• Oppose bad angle of ship, hence the picture looks odd, and I had to look twice before I understood. Also, the upper half has a low contrast and is only black. -- Chris 73 Talk July 5, 2005 05:56 (UTC)

Not if you use a fair resolution B&O screen or go to the offered higher resolutions, the lines of the clinker planks just get that close together, and like in a Siemens star the areas where the lines are closer together than the resolution of the screen get grey - with many beautiful creations one has to look twice, we take that as a compliment, the contrast was the best we could get from this 1000 year old wood (on high resolution 60 mm film with Leitz lens) - the vantage was intentional - we donated this photograph to Wikipedia to share the Norse art - side-view pictures are there by the thousands, 4000 on google alone Uwe Kils July 5, 2005 13:20 (UTC)

Not promoted -- Enochlau 13:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Avsa, this is one of the more creative diagrams I've seen. It rightly discards land altogether, and shows the respective sizes of each body of water. This is about as close as you can get to an "oceanocentric" worldview. Illustrates Ocean, and definitely pulls in article readership. --brian0918&#153; 29 June 2005 01:36 (UTC)

• When dolphins become ultra-intelligent, their world maps will probably look something like this. Nominate and support. - brian0918&#153; 29 June 2005 01:36 (UTC)
• It's neat, but my eyes keep seeing the familiar outlines of the continents. Would be much neater if... like... well, maps of the world in this fashion are usually topographic, right? Mostly green and blue and brown, with blue oceans? Why not switch it? Show the mountains and valleys of the ocean, and have the land in formless blue? I dunno. I'm rambling. :) And I love your point about the dolphins. --Golbez June 29, 2005 02:37 (UTC)
  • Of course this will retain the land's outline, because water surrounds land. I was thinking more of the maps like this that completely ignore the water. As for the colors: land is fairly green and brown, and water looks blue. I think what you're talking about would be a bathymetric map like this (although interesting, not as creative/original, and not made by one of our own creative/original users). --brian0918&#153; 29 June 2005 02:53 (UTC)
    • The more I look at it, the more I enjoy seeing the shapes of the oceans. --Golbez June 30, 2005 17:43 (UTC)
• I am the author so I don't think I can vote, but just to discuss: This map ignores land altogether: the background is not white but transparent, and I choose not to use the mercator projection because it distorts the southern seas. You still se the continents because you are so used to them. I agree that using bathymetric data would add to the map, but I wouldn't know how to do it. If someone wants to improve it, well the image is GFDL! I hope this image reaches featured status (none of my article ever got :( ) --Alexandre Van de Sande 29 June 2005 23:01 (UTC)
  • You can vote for your own picture. --brian0918&#153; 29 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  • Actually, I thought that in general one can't/shouldn't vote for your own work. But, what do I know. This link is Broken 29 June 2005 23:33 (UTC)
    • Well you can "self nominate" images that you created, so I don't see why you shouldn't be able to vote for your own image if it was nominated by someone else. --brian0918&#153; 29 June 2005 23:35 (UTC)
      • But, when you self-nominate your vote doesn't count (or that's how I thought it was). This link is Broken 30 June 2005 05:00 (UTC)
        • Your vote doesn't count when considering the minimum number of votes for it to be considered a featured picture, but if that minimum is passed, then it counts. --brian0918&#153; 30 June 2005 13:35 (UTC)
• Support - Dolphins have progressed far beyond the point of making simple world maps. :) Sango123 July 2, 2005 16:02 (UTC)
• Support. It is a very dramatic way of demonstrating that the surface of the Earth is mostly water. BlankVerse ∅ 3 July 2005 09:28 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk July 5, 2005 05:55 (UTC)
• Support An attractive projection. --Henry Bottomley 5 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 9 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
• Support. Most certainly unique. Enochlau 13:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Interesting and informative. - Longhair | Talk 13:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Oceans.png -- Enochlau 13:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. This has been here for ages. But I think It's very pretty and illustrative and is one of my favourite photographs. I hope everyone else agrees. G-Man 30 June 2005 20:53 (UTC)

• Nominate and support 1. - G-Man 30 June 2005 20:53 (UTC) (I get the impression G-Man doesn't support the modified sky by Fir0002 -- Solipsist 18:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• The sky is a bit too washed out IMO --Fir0002 July 3, 2005 00:40 (UTC)
  • I think the sky is mostly white clouds, which is probably why it looks washed out. Besides its usually rather difficult to expose properly for both the land and the sky. The sky isn't really the focal point of the picture. G-Man 3 July 2005 11:30 (UTC)
• Support 1,2. I like it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)
• Support 1 -- Chris 73 Talk July 5, 2005 05:55 (UTC)
• Support 2 I should have done this during the 2 day period I know, but didn't get around to it. Support the edited version (with clouds) --Fir0002 July 5, 2005 12:17 (UTC)
  • Comment I still prefer the original. The contrast on the second version looks a bit overdone to me. It might be better to tone it down a bit. G-Man 5 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

Do you mean how I've changed the blue hills into green hills (right near the horizon)? --Fir0002 July 6, 2005 02:12 (UTC)

• Oppose 1,2. In the first, the sky is a wash, in the second, the lake belies the photoshopping. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 7 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)
• (Support) second version, if the sky is original and not a cut/copy job. -- Chris 73 Talk July 7, 2005 17:53 (UTC) (This one is presumeably not a support as the sky in 2nd is a cut/copy job -- Solipsist 18:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortunately due to the extreme burn out, all I could do was copy a better exposed sky onto it. Sorry --Fir0002 July 8, 2005 00:42 (UTC)

As I have already said (but no-one's paid any attention) the sky is not "burnt out" it is white clouds, that is more or less what it looked like when I took the picture. G-Man 8 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the sky naturally is that pale cyan color. Another tell-tale sign is that the blue is a gradient (it is darker in the center, and lighter around the clouds) --Fir0002 04:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Support 1,2. James F. (talk) 9 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
• Neutral 1 on the first. I grew up in the Peak District so I like this sort of scenery, but it doesn't seem particularly special. Oppose 2 second - in principle it is nicer to see clouds, but the sky is too dark - I'm fairly sure it is impossible for the sky reflected in the lake to be brighter than the sky seen directly, which is what makes the photoshopped version look artifical. -- Solipsist 10:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 1,2. Agree with Matthew Cieplak. Enochlau 13:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made some improvements to the original version (although it doesn't seem to have updated to the newer version yet). I have improved the cloud definition and cropped it slightly. Although I still cant see why your all making such a fuss about the sky?. Does the improved version make you all happy?. G-Man 18:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's much better, but still too burnt out for my liking, to me the sky is an essential element of a good photo --Fir0002 22:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Agree. Enochlau 03:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 1,2 - focus is too soft - Bevo 17:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This process really is quite an absurd parade of nit-picking at completely irrelevant details. I dont think I'll be bothering with FPC again. I've seen many photos worse than this one get through. G-Man 18:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 1st +4 / -3 — 2nd +3 / -4 -- Solipsist 18:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

V. striking, IMHO. Love how it looks like an eye. jengod June 30, 2005 22:35 (UTC)

Illustrates Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. -- Solipsist 8 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - jengod June 30, 2005 22:35 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 4 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)
• Strong support - extraordinary picture JoJan 4 July 2005 15:08 (UTC)
• Support' - Great picture (Zement 4 July 2005 15:39 (UTC))
• Support - pretty. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk July 5, 2005 05:54 (UTC)
• Support - wow. Makes me want to read the article asap. Batmanand 8 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)
• Support. The secret is to bang the rocks together. -- Solipsist 8 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)
• Support - yay :-D ! How could I not support?--Deglr6328 03:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• support - ZeWrestler 14:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wow. Just wow. -- Titoxd 00:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:First Gold Beam-Beam Collision Events at RHIC at 100 100 GeV c per beam recorded by STAR.jpg +11 / -0 -- Solipsist 18:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ford.circles.gif

I created this one. It's a very simple picture. I think it can make clear to any 15-year-old or other layperson (except perhaps those who dislike mathematics) the concept explained in Ford circle that might otherwise be understood only by mathematicians. Michael Hardy 30 June 2005 22:45 (UTC)

• The only improvement I can see might be coloring the circles some shade of gray so they stand out from the background. --brian0918&#153; 30 June 2005 23:08 (UTC)
  • Or indeed more interesting colours (but note red/green colourblindness) Dunc|☺ 1 July 2005 09:42 (UTC)
    • How, specifically, would colors help explain the concept (that being the purpose of this picture)? Michael Hardy 1 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)
      • It would make it nicer to look at. It could increase the illustrative value if some sort of color coding was used (no obvious system strikes me). This link is Broken 2 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
• Personally, I'd say colours wouldn't add that much... Enochlau 2 July 2005 08:09 (UTC)
  • But the gist is there - this plain picture could be a little more interesting. Neutral. Enochlau 4 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
• From a mathematical POV color will suggests discs instead of circles ? Ericd 3 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)
  • I think that would be the case if the interior of each circle were colored in while the exterior remains white. Therefore that would be a bad way to do it; it would mislead the reader. Michael Hardy 4 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)
• What a beautiful picture. Support.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 06:23 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Michael Hardy 8 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)
• Why not have the background gray? Support if you do. Proto t c 8 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)
  • The circles are gray. If the background is a slightly lighter gray, the circles may be hard to see. Michael Hardy 22:43, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I find the image interesting but not quite striking. Sango123 20:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Striking is not what they're supposed to be! They're supposed to be edifying. The fact that it clarifies for people who know little math what might otherwise be comprehensible only to us math nerds is what matters, according to the criteria. Michael Hardy 23:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not striking, and certainly not suitable for Commons FPC, but well-executed, interesting in its own right, and adds significantly to its article. —Cryptic (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted +3 / -0 / 2 neutral : insufficient support -- Solipsist 11:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A photo that really captures the moment when the tsunami following the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake hits Thailand. Simply the fact that the photographer reacted by taking a picture rather than running for it is amazing.

Originally uploaded to Swedish Wikipedia by User:Etxrge but taken by a guy from Stockholm named David Rydevik, who does not appear to be a Wikipedian.

• Nominate and support. - Salleman 1 July 2005 03:07 (UTC)
• It would be good if we knew where in Thailand this photograph was taken. On a photo like this, it is necessary to question its authenticity (people do put out fakes), but I don't see anything out of place here. Everyone appears somewhat oblivious to the wave, but I think one of the things we learned from this Tsunami, is that last year few people knew how to react to them. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)
• Great (but sad) pic. Incidentally,I don't see how they are "somewhat oblivious" to the wave since 4 of the 5 people seem to be fleeing _ Adrian Pingstone 1 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)

'Oblivious', because apart from the young lad front left, everyone else is either watching or seems more concerned with not getting their feet wet crossing the road rather than actually fleeing. -- Solipsist 2 July 2005 09:32 (UTC)

• Support, wow, what a dramatic photo. Phoenix2 Canada Day Weekend! 3 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)
• Question - a very good pic, but at the bottom center the author has photoshopped his name and email in -- this is the kind of thing that is proper on the image page. Is it possible to get an untagged image? →Raul654 July 5, 2005 06:41 (UTC)
• David donated this pic to PD with some hesitation. He is a friend of my daughter. I think the place is Khau Lac. --Etxrge 5 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)
• Support -- I'm Awe-struck. TomStar81 6 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)
• Support -- Thanks for the info on location, which I guess is the same as Khao Lak. == Solipsist 6 July 2005 07:06 (UTC)
• Support, hope author and friends/family are OK. -- Chris 73 Talk July 7, 2005 17:52 (UTC)
• Support - dramatic shot Uwe Kils July 7, 2005 18:14 (UTC)
• Support. Enochlau 8 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 9 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
• Support -Important but highly disturbing. Surely not all in this picture made it out alive.--Deglr6328 04:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A unique view of the waves. --Shivu 07:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose because of the name/email in the picture. There's lots of room to give credit to the photographer on the description page. (If there was hesitation about placing it in the PD, maybe GFDLing an untagged version would be better — PD even allows the tag to be retouched out) --K. Sperling 01:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I agree with K. Sperling. The watermark should not be included in this. --ZeWrestler 14:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support if someone erases the attribution from the image. Lupin 13:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:2004-tsunami.jpg +10 / -2 with a preference for removing the watermark contact details if possible. -- Solipsist 11:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In New_York_Stock_Exchange.

• Nominate and support. - CGP July 1, 2005 20:22 (UTC)
• I think the picture can't decide what it is of. You can't seee much of the building itself and the flags are nothing special. This link is Broken 2 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)
• I would agree. The composition is not ideal. Enochlau 2 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)

• Further, this angle of the stock exchange is not uncommon. In fact, I have an almost identical photo that I took a few years ago. -- mno July 7, 2005 01:59 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose OK, but that's about it--Fir0002 July 8, 2005 00:41 (UTC)
• Oppose. I like the pic, but it is roughly the same shot that a great many tourists take of the NYSE. -Uris 00:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- Enochlau 02:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't decide b/w these two photos, so as well as commenting on the technical problems of the photos, could you please also state your preference.

• ( + ) Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 July 3, 2005 00:32 (UTC)
• I would support the first picture. Interesting. Phoenix2 Canada Day Weekend! 3 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
• I think the first one is the better, but maybe with a slightly tighter crop. (Just enough to drop the people on the left out) --CVaneg 3 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)
• Agree with Cvaneg. Sango123 July 3, 2005 20:29 (UTC)

Have removed people --Fir0002 July 5, 2005 00:50 (UTC)

Support the first one then. Sango123 July 5, 2005 13:39 (UTC)

• Support edited version of blue rider. - Mgm|^(talk) July 6, 2005 09:16 (UTC)
• Support. - Third image. -Hoekenheef 6 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)
• Support. - Edited image. --CVaneg 6 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
• Support any version -- Chris 73 Talk July 7, 2005 17:51 (UTC)
• Support first or second. Amazing action. Enochlau 8 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)
• Support edited version. Lupin 13:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Number 3 - the tape bother me. Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 22:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:MotoX racing03_edit.jpg 1-edit +8 / -0 : 3rd +2 / -1 -- Solipsist 11:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this because it's a damn good photograph if I do say so myself. I've never gotten a single negative comment on it, and it was even a top-rated photograph on Photo.net for a time. Here's its critique page: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1216885. This image appears in the article "Plasma Lamp", obviously. I think it adds a nice artistic touch to the page while still appropriately depicting the subject. I took this photograph. It was an 8 second exposure with my old C-720 Ultra Zoom in macro mode. I put my hand on top of the outer sphere to draw all of the current into a single stream. The stream moved back and forth, creating the double-streamer effect in the picture.

• Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek July 8, 2005 22:41 (UTC)
• Excellent photo. I might suggest cropping a bit horizontally so that it's more centered, but otherwise it looks nice. --brian0918&#153; 8 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)
• Done. PiccoloNamek July 8, 2005 23:15 (UTC)
• Support. My new desktop. Deltabeignet 01:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Great photo! My only problem is with the noise, and how some of it looks a little dirty. I have uploaded an edit, but it maybe too blurred. --Fir0002 04:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

( + ) Support edited --Fir0002 09:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Support original version only. -Lommer | ^talk 05:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Shivu 07:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, original version was fine. Phoenix2 17:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support either version. --brian0918&#153; 21:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I do like the reduction in grainyness of the second.--Deglr6328 05:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version (#1 was fine), stunning. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A true work of art. How could I not support this? Enochlau 13:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support . --Oblivious 23:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Longhair | Talk 07:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version. -- the wub "?/!" 21:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version. TomStar81 23:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version. -- Titoxd 00:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. either. --Silversmith Hewwo 16:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version. James F. (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support first was fine. -- Solipsist 07:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice image =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, 2nd version is slightly better. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This image has been here just a few hours shy of fourteen days, and with such overwhelming support, I think it's safe to go ahead and add it to the featured pictures section, don't you?PiccoloNamek 05:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Photos-photos 1087592507 Energy Arc.jpg

This image depicts the best example of willow catkins I've ever seen. Used in the willow article. Photographer: Aka.

• Nominate and support. - Sango123 July 4, 2005 22:51 (UTC)
  • The only issue I have with this image is that it's tacked on at the very bottom of the article. Also, since the taxobox stretches to the bottom of the page, therefore narrowing space for the body text, it would be a bit awkward to shift the image up. Any suggestions? Sango123 July 4, 2005 22:51 (UTC)
• Really nice. Phoenix2 5 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
• Support A bit shallow DOF, but very nice seperation of the subject. --Fir0002 July 8, 2005 00:41 (UTC)
• Support, good picture, nice focus -- Chris 73 Talk 09:35, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. The bit of the stick that's out of focus is distracting to my eye. Enochlau 13:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I find it just boring. -Lommer | ^talk 05:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the focus is lost at the bottom left. Normally I woudn't be so fussy but this is Featured Pic candidates - Adrian Pingstone 16:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I really, really like it. --Silversmith Hewwo 16:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Bevo 04:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Willow catkin 2 aka.jpg +5 / -2 / 1 neutral -- Solipsist 19:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A stunning painting by Wojciech Kossak. An allegory for the Battle of Warsaw (1920) (also known as the Miracle at Vistula, see the related Featured Articles), the key battle of the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921. Since I saw this image years ago, I can't forget it - it seems to perfectly capture the very essence of that conflict.

• Nominate and support. - Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)
• I realize what this image may mean to you, but frankly, I doubt this "cuts it". I can barely understand what happens in the picture by looking at it, and the colors seem very unnatural to me. I'm not sure if this has to do with the photo/reproduction or if the original painting looks like this, but I don't find it appealing. Phils 5 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)
  • If you mean it is red, well, it is supposed to be like this on purpose (remember, the Red Army, the Reds, etc). Of course, what's appealing to one, may not be for the others - that's for the voting to come to determine, I guess :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 5 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)
• support--Witkacy 5 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)
• comment - this particular reproduction is really, really bad. The colours are flawed, the sharpness is gone... If we had a better version I would surely support it since it's one of my favourite Kossaks. However, the way it is now I abstain. Halibutt July 5, 2005 17:32 (UTC)
  • I tried searching for other versions, but couldn't find anything. Do you know what is the paintings full name and where the orginal is now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 5 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)

• It seems that Cud nad Wisłą is in Muzeum Wojska Polskiego in Warsaw. Though the colours are completely different. The picture there unfortunately is very bad. http://www.muzeumwp.pl/stale_pietro2.html --SylwiaS 5 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)

• I've found it, though it's not red at all, so I'm not sure if it's the one. Still it seems that apart of colours everything looks the same. Click the URL there and choose Drogi do Niepodległości and then picture 115. http://www.muzeumwp.pl/dodatki/dodatki.html --SylwiaS 5 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

• I'd support that version - brilliant painting. But I dislike the red. I can see the power of it. Have a look at the version I found, looks like it's been computer rendered - the machine gun is out of place as well. --Fir0002 July 7, 2005 12:24 (UTC)

• Oppose, regretfully. As others said above, it is a terrible reproduction of a excellent (and featureworthy) picture. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - the colours are utterly wrong so I can't see why this pic is on FPC! Just go to the URL above (the muzeumwp one) and you'll see how far off the colours are - Adrian Pingstone 19:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted +2 / -2 Insufficient support -- Solipsist 21:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Represents the country life of Australia well.

• ( + ) Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 July 5, 2005 00:48 (UTC)
• Nice picture, textbook photography. Will support. Phoenix2 5 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)
• Support -- A fine candidate for featured status. Credit to the photographer. - Longhair | Talk 7 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 9 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work, as always by Fir0002 -- Chris 73 Talk 09:31, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well done once again. Enochlau 13:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice. -Shivu 13:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Striking David D. 23:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. very good. --Silversmith Hewwo 16:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent shot. Sango123 18:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Solipsist 06:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Australian cart.jpg +10 / -0 -- Solipsist 21:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As with my other nom, I found this on geography of India (which will be up on the main page soon)

• Nominate and support. - →Raul654 July 5, 2005 06:45 (UTC)
• I see a lot of strange artifacts on the cliffs, and the sky looks a bit too bright for my taste. Phils 5 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)
• I had touched up this image. You can see the original image here: [8]. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 5, 2005 13:00 (UTC)
• Support - Sundar July 6, 2005 06:48 (UTC)
• Egads! Overexposed, highly compressed, and the resolution is such that one can't really even tell where the focal point is. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 7 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)
• Agree with previous comment. I like the other geography of India nomination, but this one's too blurry. Oppose. Sango123 July 7, 2005 21:01 (UTC)
• I like the rocks, but there are too many dark patches. Weak support.
• Oppose - blurred - Adrian Pingstone 9 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)
• oppose, as above -- Chris 73 Talk 09:31, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. As above. Enochlau 13:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A great & grand view; but poor on technicals (lighting, reflections on water, angle, composition etc.). Oppose - Mahadevan Subramanian 08:06, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted +3 / -5 -- Solipsist 21:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pangong lake by martinl.jpg

Found this on geography of India (which will be up on the main page soon)

• Nominate and support. - →Raul654 July 5, 2005 06:44 (UTC)
• What are those dark regions in the corners of the picture (especially the upper left one)?Phils 5 July 2005 10:37 (UTC)

It's Vignetting. Often happens when you use a polarizing filter with a wide-angle lens without a step-up ring.

I also just noticed a strange graininess in the clouds. Phils 6 July 2005 09:48 (UTC)

• Support. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} July 6, 2005 06:49 (UTC)
• What a great picture. The compression/reproduction is really not up to par though. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 7 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
  • Oppose, despite main page presence. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 08:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wolf530 July 7, 2005 02:06 (UTC)
• Nice, will support. Sango123 July 7, 2005 21:02 (UTC)
• Support – Great image. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 8, 2005 07:13 (UTC)
• Support.-- WB July 8, 2005 07:52 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 9 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 09:30, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The high contrast between the different elements lends a hard feel to what otherwise is supposed to be a serene environment. Enochlau 13:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. -Shivu 07:35, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I can overlook the vignetting, lovely pic - Adrian Pingstone 16:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose Dislike the look of the water --Fir0002 09:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Though the cloud formation doesn't look conducive to the impression exhibited by the image, still support. - Mahadevan Subramanian 08:02, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Wow. --Silversmith Hewwo 16:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support although the vignetting makes me waver. -- Solipsist 06:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pamri 10:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Pangong lake by martinl.jpg +14 / -3 -- Solipsist 21:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice photos showing the beauty of mist

• ( + ) Support Choice 2. --Fir0002 July 6, 2005 01:17 (UTC)
• Choice 2 is the nicer of the two. Phoenix2 6 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)

Yeah I like it better too --Fir0002 July 7, 2005 08:41 (UTC)

• Support second. What engaging pictures you take! Sango123 July 7, 2005 21:07 (UTC)
• Support for the first one. Nice pictures. -- WB July 8, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
• Support either one, preference for the first one -- Chris 73 Talk 09:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Fascinating details of clouds. I prefer the first to the second, but the second's good too. Enochlau 13:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, marvellous pics - Adrian Pingstone 16:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. 1st one. --Silversmith Hewwo 16:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Choice 1. Housing adds the human element. --Uris 01:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Choice 2. Excellent picture (my new wallpaper ;)). Don't care for the house in choice 1 too much. Sortan 23:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with a preference for 1. Although since they are quite similar, I don't think we need both on the mist page. -- Solipsist 06:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support first one, slightly less of a support, but still a support, for the second one. The first one with the houses provides a "totality" perspective with it, plus how the houses look so sleepy in the face of the mists. -- Natalinasmpf 05:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just had an idea, I'm wondering if it could possibly make for a separate candidate, well if it gets done - if someone can engineer the image to have an army (I'm thinking one from the 1800's, Civil War, Crimean, or Napoleonic might do) looking over the hill, with perhaps a banner fluttering (and small enough for artifacts to be very very obscure), it would make for quite a dramatic effect. Small enough not to detract from the photo, and would be quite subtle (easy to spot, but when the eyes catch it gasps)....and integrated with the clouds and mist it would make quite an image. But of course, that's just a crazy idea....-- Natalinasmpf 06:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Misty morning02.jpg +11 / -0 Almost evenly split between two, I'll choose to promote #1 -- Solipsist 21:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does a good job of illustrating both the structure of the chamber and the effects of a shot. Adds significantly to JET and a couple of other articles. The right-side image is - and sorry for the cliché - striking.

• Nominate and support. - Kizor 08:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It is certainly striking, but the {PD} copyright tag looks wrong. The image should have a source link so that the PD status can be verified. Fortunately the French version does have a source link (even though it was originally copied over from the EN wiki). The notice at the top of JET's image gallery indicates this should have an educational use only tag, which would be one of the deprecated tags, making it inelligble for FPC. -- Solipsist 10:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, unsuitable licence. Should be de-listed. James F. (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a fantastic image. I offer conditional support if the tag is fixed. This image is from the JET site, run by the [| Euratom] agency, but I'm not sure what the copyright for images by this organization would be.Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• ( + ) Support Agree with User:Semiconscious --Fir0002 10:01, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Agree with User:Fir0002 and User:Semiconscious --TomStar81 19:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agree with User:Fir0002, User:Semiconscious and User:TomStar81 -- Chris 73 Talk 22:50, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted Unsuitable license ed g2s • talk 01:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caterpillar india 2.jpg

A picture by me, Shiva shankar. This is macro view of caterpillar Caterpillar found in our locality. (thanks to --User:Brian0918 for editing.) -- Shivu 07:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate . - Shivu 07:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• It seems to me that much of the caterpillar is out of focus or obstructed by the leaf... Maybe crop out the entire right side? -- Rmrfstar 16:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The caterpillar is still mostly out of focus, and its more apparent because you cropped it. Try cropping out part of the caterpillar itself. -- Rmrfstar 14:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for focus reasons. Enochlau 03:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as above. Phoenix2 17:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, good detail and color. I might have opposed if I had bug phobia :) — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose Version 4 would be great but for the small res. --Fir0002 10:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted 2 / 3 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) 21:54, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

File:MountMonadnock-3.jpg

A picture by me, Shiva shankar. This is 360° view of mountain Monadnock from top of it. -- Shivu 07:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate . - Shivu 07:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• The joins are visible, and the current placement in the article is very poor - it's only 16 pixels tall. —Cryptic (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeh you might need to adjust the brightness/contrast of the individual pieces so that the finished result is seamless. Enochlau 10:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or use autostitch which can do miracles with this kind of pictures. For non commercial purposes is free. Nova77 22:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • V2 and v3 are using autostich. Thanks to Nova77 for pointing at better tool. --Shivu 10:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • You can still see the individual sections due to the large variations in the contrast/brightness unfortunately. Enochlau 03:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • V4, this is with different combination on brightness/contrast setting. --Shivu 15:26, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry to say, but it's still not right - in a panaorama, you must not be able to see easily where the individual sections start and end. Oppose. Enochlau 03:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Good panorama, but I'm not sure what to vote for. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • the two versions next to the original are the result of the request from users. --Shivu § Mesg 4 Mè § 03:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted --Spangineer (háblame) 22:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

File:Manly Beach Hires.jpg

Self-nom. A classic photo of an Aussie beach, it captures together iconic elements such as the surfboard, the flag and the sea spray, as well as the heat, the glare and the peace from going to the beach. It illustrates Manly, New South Wales and Northern Beaches (Sydney). Enochlau 02:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Enochlau 02:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The glare on the left seems a little much. It kind of obscures the beach in the background. The rest is great though! -- Rmrfstar 16:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Image is too small to support...--Deglr6328 23:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's at a size that's comparable to many of the other images here, but regardless, here's a higher res version. Any other comments Deglr6328? Enochlau 13:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • yeah, don't get uppity. Images are posted here so they can be criticized.--Deglr6328 17:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's cool. Enochlau 03:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support new larger version.--Deglr6328 17:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose Dislike the sign --Fir0002 06:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - the sign is in just the wrong place it seems to me. Maybe it would be improved by some careful cropping? Lupin 02:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not brilliant to me. Circeus 12:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support The sign and the glare capture the atmophere of Manly! Kewpid 14:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Larger version that is. Reason, it brings back good memories. Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 22:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose for reasons stated by myself and others. -- Rmrfstar 00:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I guess the beach is known for surfing, but the picture gives mixed signals. There are some heads in the water, but otherwise the place looks a bit empty and the sign largely seems to discourage surfing. -- Solipsist 07:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 4 / 5 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) 22:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

A picture by German Wikipedian Bernard Landgraf. This is of course nominated because it ably illustrates a juvenile lynx in its forest habitat — either that or because its just too cute. -- Solipsist 19:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Solipsist 19:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Fantastic image --Fir0002 04:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• support, nice image --Shivu 07:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Superb. Phoenix2 16:59, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Phoenix2 04:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• support-- ZeWrestler 14:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --brian0918&#153; 03:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Longhair | Talk 07:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• awwww... fluffeh! Support -- the wub "?/!" 21:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Very nice. Support. Enochlau 03:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Kaldari 05:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yeah - that is so cute. Picture is good quality as well. • Thorpe • 11:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 16:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though higher resolution would be nice. James F. (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but I think that the foliage surrounding the face should be sharper, and is a bit distracting. Overall a high-quality shot worthy of support. Alight 15:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very good! — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This support vote is unneeded by now, but I need to chime in on "awwww" factor Circeus 11:45, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, although it doesn't show the animal itself all that well. Very high quality photo though. And to all of those who say it's cute: it's a wild animal! It'll bite you! Balster neb 17:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Lynx kitten.jpg --Spangineer (háblame) 21:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

The balanced choice of neutral (but not tasteless) colors, and a strong but hand picked typography makes this map unexpectedly attractive. It´s a simple, but a small jewel of graphic design ; Made by User:Mark Dingemanse (see also other of his works) for the senufo group of languages.

• Nominate and support. - Alexandre Van de Sande 9 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)
• How about giving us a geographical reference so we know what we're looking at? TomStar81 9 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)
  • Er, the names of the countries are in the map - Ivory Coast, Mali, Burkina Faso, Ghana...Dunc|☺ 9 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)
    • The Ivory Coast is in Africa?!? When did that happen? I thought it was part of France. At any rate, You answered my question. Thanx TomStar81 9 July 2005 09:30 (UTC)
      • The Ivory Coast is in France?!?!? Time to acquaint yourself with a map of the world? — Trilobite (Talk) 02:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it is time I acquaint myself with a map of the world. In the meantime, allow me to support this map. TomStar81 21:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Fantastic color choice, and really great typography (notice the green area so nicely accomodates "Duun"). However, the map is a little confusing, as it's tough to identify the national boundaries (especially on the thumbnail) and the river and border create a new kind of line on Ghana's border, making the frame of reference especially confusing. For those familiar with the geography I'm sure it's fine. Furthermore, the language groups are also a bold font while country names are not (a statement about the meaning of borders, perhaps?). And however tasteful it is, it is also somewhat boring. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 08:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I could try to add a little picture of Africa (like the one on the top right corner of Image:Nubia today.png) to provide some context. I don't think the country names need to be bolded. — mark ✎ 10:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, a "where in Africa" inset would be welcome. I'd also suggest the language group texts don't need to be underscored (they're already bold and in a different font, so the underscoring seems like visual noise to me). It would also be nice if the Karaboro and Nafaanra labels managed to dip a toe into the little areas they describe. The Black Volta line seems to go under the main green blob, when it should be on top. It would be nice to have miles as well as km on the scale (say km on top, miles on bottom). Ideally the little "island" in the Suppire area should have a label saying which other language is spoke there. The Sikasso label should be moved so it doesn't touch the Mali/BF border. Would it be possible to smooth the river vectors, as both are angular in exactly the way rivers aren't? Also, would it be meaningful to use several shades of green for the several Senufo languages? Oh, and I think the whole thing should be much bigger (for futureproofing and paper hardcopy), and ideally you'd upload the editor source file (uuencoded if necessary). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Support this very nice map. Clear, informative, well-sourced, and sufficiently impressive that it could pass as a copyvio scanned from a professional publication! I'm not sure a context map is really needed, as the countries are named in nice big letters, but a small one as an inset would be tolerable I suppose. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this professional and highly informative map. - Mustafaa 13:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - most excellent - Adrian Pingstone 16:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support its nice--Shivu 13:21, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support but the association between some of the language subfamily labels and the green regions isn't always clear - Karaboro looks like it could be the name of the area bordered by the Black Volta. It might be an idea to use dark green for the language group labels to help distinguish them from the country and town labels and tie them into the green shaded regions. -- Solipsist 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Senufo_languages.png 8 / 0 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) 21:51, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

File:Kosciusko-county-lakes-alternate.jpg

An excellent aerial shot of the landscape of Kosciusko County, Indiana (and used in that article) taken by new(ish) wikipedian User:Tysto. It looks great, but more importantly it gives a really great idea of how the land looks and how the landscape has been altered by man. The tangential light gives a better impression of the relief than you'd get from any map. Wow.

• Nominate and support. - Finlay McWalter | Talk July 9, 2005 00:14 (UTC)
• What a gnarly shot! However, there seems to be a fairly limited color palette... sort of strange for such a high resolution. It looks more like a camera thing than a compression issue, but if it is compressed it would be great to get the original. The haze on the top is sort of distracting as well, but I don't know what the image would look like without it. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 08:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added an alternate version with the haze color burned in photoshop. It looks a little unnatural, but if this is preferred I can spend a bit more time on another version and make it look better. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 08:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last thing: it could probably be illustrating an article that's a somewhat more general, such as the landscape type it shows. Not knowing what to call that landscape except "plains" I don't know where specifically to put it. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 08:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too grainy. Enochlau 03:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There's a lot to like here, most especially the oblique lighting. I don't understand the graininess/posterisation on the full view, its not your standard camera noise - in practice the picture only looks good at reduced sizes and even then there's quite a lot of noise visible in the lakes. The Silver Lake picture looks a fair but crisper. It would also be nice if the Kosciusko County, Indiana article spent a bit of time discussing the geography of the county. The image caption suggests that these small lakes in an arid region are characteristic of the county. -- Solipsist 07:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support version 2. Excellent aerial view. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 2 / 2 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) 21:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm nominating this because it's a damn good photograph if I do say so myself. I've never gotten a single negative comment on it, and it was even a top-rated photograph on Photo.net for a time. Here's its critique page: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1216885. This image appears in the article "Plasma Lamp", obviously. I think it adds a nice artistic touch to the page while still appropriately depicting the subject. I took this photograph. It was an 8 second exposure with my old C-720 Ultra Zoom in macro mode. I put my hand on top of the outer sphere to draw all of the current into a single stream. The stream moved back and forth, creating the double-streamer effect in the picture.

• Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek July 8, 2005 22:41 (UTC)
• Excellent photo. I might suggest cropping a bit horizontally so that it's more centered, but otherwise it looks nice. --brian0918&#153; 8 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)
• Done. PiccoloNamek July 8, 2005 23:15 (UTC)
• Support. My new desktop. Deltabeignet 01:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Great photo! My only problem is with the noise, and how some of it looks a little dirty. I have uploaded an edit, but it maybe too blurred. --Fir0002 04:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

( + ) Support edited --Fir0002 09:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Support original version only. -Lommer | ^talk 05:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Shivu 07:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, original version was fine. Phoenix2 17:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support either version. --brian0918&#153; 21:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I do like the reduction in grainyness of the second.--Deglr6328 05:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version (#1 was fine), stunning. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A true work of art. How could I not support this? Enochlau 13:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support . --Oblivious 23:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Longhair | Talk 07:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version. -- the wub "?/!" 21:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version. TomStar81 23:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version. -- Titoxd 00:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. either. --Silversmith Hewwo 16:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version. James F. (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support first was fine. -- Solipsist 07:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice image =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, 2nd version is slightly better. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This image has been here just a few hours shy of fourteen days, and with such overwhelming support, I think it's safe to go ahead and add it to the featured pictures section, don't you?PiccoloNamek 05:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Photos-photos 1087592507 Energy Arc.jpg

A rather nice action shot of a female Mallard Duck coming into land, framed by two darker bands in the background. It appears on the Mallard article, but it could do with a more prominent position. The picture seems to be the only contribution by Mike Correns.

• Nominate and support. - Solipsist 7 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
• It might look better cropped a bit, and auto-leveled in Photoshop. It might also need better placement in the article. I'll probably support either way. --brian0918&#153; 7 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)
• Support. I like this cropping just fine. —Cryptic (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Superb photo, very sharp for such a fast action -- Chris 73 Talk 09:21, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. That's very nice. Enochlau 12:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. -Lommer | ^talk 05:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice shot. -Shivu 07:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, really nice. Phoenix2 17:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support --ZeWrestler 14:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Longhair | Talk 07:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support Good photo --Fir0002 09:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It looks like crap in the thumbnail, but the big version is crystal clear and nicely illustrates both the duck's anatomy and its mode of flight. I'm very impressed Martin caught this moving subject so well. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Support really wonderful picture.--Bhadani 15:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 16:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, lovely. James F. (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Ferg2k 05:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Shame the background is so blurry though: although yes, excellent capture of the subject. Some photo manipulation could be in order...just to enhance the "totality" feel to it. -- Natalinasmpf 06:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support---excellent photograph. nickname (talk) 14:47:10, 2005-07-23 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Flying mallard duck - female.jpg --Spangineer (háblame) 21:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

This shot out of a breaking wave by new arrival Ole Kils shows the beautiful colors breaking in the clear waters. Used in article Ocean surface wave and surfing.

• Nominate and support. - Uwe Kils July 7, 2005 17:31 (UTC)
• Great picture, but do you have a larger version you could upload? --CVaneg 7 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, it's too small and low-res for viewers to thoroughly enjoy the beauty of the scene. Agree with CVaneg. Sango123 July 7, 2005 20:21 (UTC)
• I find the scene a bit too dark. - Mgm|^(talk) July 8, 2005 07:54 (UTC)
• This file has no copyright information. It needs to be under a free-license. This link is Broken 9 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)
• Oppose. Thumbnail-sized picture with significant compression artifacts. —Cryptic (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: too small and no copyright info -- Chris 73 Talk 09:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Way too small. Enochlau 13:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - far too small - Adrian Pingstone 16:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose as above --Fir0002 09:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- It's a nice image, but far too small. - Longhair | Talk 13:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - blurry and small, but the wave looks nice.

Not promoted Spangineer (háblame) 21:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Images illustrate beach and Lakes Entrance very well.

• ( + ) Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 July 7, 2005 08:30 (UTC)
• Support second image. Great pictures! Sango123 July 7, 2005 20:51 (UTC)
• Support nice pictures. I support the first one. -- WB July 8, 2005 07:49 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sloping horizon on the first image. On the second, were the clouds photoshopped in? Somehow, they don't quite look right, though I can't put my finger on why. —Cryptic (talk) 8 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)/04:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find a reason why someone would do that, but yeah, it also occured to me that it looks a bit editted... But then, it might be one of those lens mistakes. -- WB July 9, 2005 07:06 (UTC)
• Support second image. The symmetrical composition is very highly pleasing in this instance. --Deglr6328 04:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the second image. TomStar81 08:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support second image, assuming there was no photoshopping -- Chris 73 Talk 09:26, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose both. The first is fine, there's nothing particularly wrong with it, but then again, there's nothing special about it. The second is plain boring; yes, it follows the rule of thirds, but there's nothing pleasing about it here. Enochlau 13:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both, agree with enochlau. -Lommer | ^talk 05:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - just boring (sorry!) - Adrian Pingstone 16:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support number two. Reason, the straight lines between sea/sky and sea/beach are striking. Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 22:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Both are very nice, but neither seems too special. Number 1 does a good job of illustrating beach, but their placement on tourism with repeated captions is dubious (Image:SunsetBeach.jpg would do better there, since it shows some tourists). Number 2, rather resembles a tricolour, so could make a nice alternative flag of Australia. -- Solipsist 07:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the Union Jack ;) Enochlau 15:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 1st: 2 / 5 / 0, 2nd: 6 / 5 / 0 --Spangineer (háblame) 21:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

The image caught my eye because of the colors in it and because of the extra interest added by the boats and their position relative to the sun. More impressive was the fact that this photo was taken by Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii in 1915.

Mis-spelled 'Sochi' when nomating, very sorry!

• Nominate and support. - mno July 6, 2005 22:29 (UTC)
• I support the nomination. It is worthwhile to point out that it was originally nominated by me in December 2004 but was not promoted, although most votes were in support. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Black_Sea_in_1915. --Ghirlandajo 6 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)
  • Please hold off voting until the 2-day period has passed. --brian0918&#153; 7 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
    • The link above is broken. Enochlau 03:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops ;( I fixed the link now. --Ghirlandajo 06:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• You may want to submit to the Commons FPC instead. --brian0918&#153; 7 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 9 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)
• Support -- Chris 73 Talk 09:28, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - the colors are truly great. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. The colours are nice, but perhaps a little on the dull side for a sunset shot. Furthermore, the horizon is sloping very slightly, but perceptably. Enochlau 13:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed up the horizon. What do others think now? Enochlau 03:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the horizon is indeed sloping (I checked in Photoshop) which is not acceptable (IMHO) for a Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 16:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support second version. Is it really that old? -Uris 17:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Irpen 04:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:04, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Support edited version -- mno 13:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that the image is made a lot more interesting by the lined up boats. I don't think I would have nominated it had the boats not been there. And yes, the colours are quite impressive for 1915.
• Support second version. Still impressed by Prokudin-Gorskii's work even if there isn't a centre of interest. -- Solipsist 06:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very interesting photographer. For one, it's an excellent colour image depicting well, a genuine coloured portrayal of what things looked like in 1915 (you see, I keep imagining the 1910's in black and white...), makes it come to life, as well as a serene photo. -- Natalinasmpf 05:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I think you would be interested to check another image of his that I uploaded and nominated: Wikipedia:Picture_of_the_day/March_6,_2005. For other interesting samples of Prokudin's work check Gagra, Still-life, and Staritsa. --Ghirlandajo 11:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quality of some of those photos amaze me. Like this one: Image:Staritsa.jpg -- mno 20:34, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • If you like those, check the gallery on Commons. Personally, I've a soft spot for Prokudin-Gorskii's picture of Alim Khan. -- Solipsist 21:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks like it was taken just recently. The quality really is amazing. Of course, probably that is because the image size has been reduced to increase the quality. But still, amazing. -- mno 21:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Sochi edited.jpg Preference for edited version, 11 / 1 / 1 as stands, but problem of sloping horizon was corrected. --Spangineer (háblame) 21:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

--Self nom:

Since there's a map already in FPC, I thought I'd try my luck. Purple shades are North Goa district, and orange are South Goa. This is my first nomination here.

• Nominate and support. - =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't really like the idea of maps on FPC, but it is a nice one. Phoenix2 16:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Nothing at all wrong with maps on FPC, though I would strongly prefer higher resolution. Also seems a bit too tightly cropped on the right and bottom. —Cryptic (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can rectify this; the original resolution of the map is pretty decent. How large a size is acceptable? (I have BW constraints though, so will avoid too many kilobytes on myside) =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd feel much better about supporting something about twice as big in each dimension - that is, around 800x1000 or so. —Cryptic (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say so too. Enochlau 03:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've uploaded a 1000x795 map and expanded the canvas size slightly. That should take care of potential objections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:29, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Looks greatly improved from the original. The only thing I would consider adding is a scale key. Kaldari 05:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I'll be doing that. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

If you have any suggestions please list it below. I'll implement all the suggestions in bulk a day or two before voting ends instead of uploading repeatedly after every suggestion. I hope nobody has any objection to this? Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Support -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support good enough. --Shivu 12:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - pretty good and informative, particularly if issues raised above are resolved.--Bhadani 15:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It might sound strange, but I think it would look much better if "GOA" were not underlined; this is mainly because the line starts very far form the points of the "G" curve straight above it, but stops exactly under "A"; it gives a sense of imbalance, particularly for such a short word. My wording is clumsy, I know, but I'm sure you understand what I mean. Phils 16:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Understood loud and clear. If there are no objections, I'll modify that. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:25, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know, but the mix of serif and non-serif fonts is unusual. Also, the colour palette is a little subdued. Enochlau 03:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that would mean that I would have to increase the saturation a bit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:40, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's just all purples and yellows/browns at the moment... doesn't look that nice... Enochlau 13:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the similar shades represent a district. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Now that you've explained it to me that makes a lot more sense. But is it obvious? Perhaps something else (e.g. changing the colour of words, emphasising some borders, etc.. to better delineate north and south? Enochlau 02:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for your suggestions. I can mark the divisions in another shade, but in some areas the two are separated by rivers and by colouring them, the rivers will get hidden. Aren't the words: North Goa and South Goa spread across the divisions sufficient? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:12, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes, I see what you mean, the river is in the way. Regardless, I think it has been much improved. Support. Enochlau 11:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if this is a scale map, it should probably have a scale.--nixie 08:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added scale, removed the underline. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:08, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. —Cryptic (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Assuming the arrow is indicating north, I would also consider moving it to the top right or bottom right (perhaps as a simple compass symbol such as this). At the moment, it looks a little like it is indicating that Goa is somewhere further up the page. -- Solipsist 14:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do that. I'll move it right on top. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:57, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Would you mind uploading the source files (illustrator, photoshop, whatever) that you used to create the image? That way people can edit it in accordance with GFDL in the future. — David Remahl 06:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bandwidth is limited unfortunately, and its a whopping 20mb for me. I also believe commons doesn't support these files as of now. The moment I get access to unlimited BW, I'll upload the source file. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:03, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • I checked the size. The image size says its 17.3/126.3 M. 127MB is a bit too large for me. BTW: The original image resolution is 2190 x 2756. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Support--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. clorful and shows the subdivisions, but maybe more villages and cities should be shown. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would make it too cramped. Besides, the map shows the most populated towns and the taluka HQ which constitute 50% of the urban populace. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• ( − ) Oppose looks OK, but I've never been one for maps --Fir0002 10:11, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not actionable is it? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Impressed by the process of improvement demonstrated above through constructive criticism from wikipedians and the willingness of the creator to listen and respond. We ended up with a very nice map. Oska 11:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose--ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:17, 27 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd have to state a reason why you oppose, so that I can take care of it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Goamap.png +9 / -2 / 1 neutral -- Solipsist 19:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons:

• it a big, clear and beautiful image
• it's licensed under free license
• (added later) the house in background shows that a such beautiful thing is near us

It appears in Dandelion article and was shot by me (Paulnasca).

• Nominate and support. - Paulnasca 18:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Although most people have only seen dandelions within the vicinity of their own homes, I'm sure people are going to oppose the picture for having a house in the background. --brian0918&#153; 19:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It looks amazing! Compared to the other photos at dandelion, this one has a special colour that's hard to describe. --Menchi 21:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreee, it's just the right color. Interestingly Image:Dandelion_clock.jpg is a featured picture at the commons... Circeus 13:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree that the dandelion itself is striking, but the background is less than appealing. Sango123 18:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Photoshop, anyone? Lupin 02:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photoshop out the background!? A bit hard... Enochlau 03:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could manually blur the background more (being careful not to blur the edges of the dandelion), then use the heal brush to remove some of the details, such as the windows. --brian0918&#153; 23:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I know, I'm not a photographer, so perhaps I'm wrong, but the background is, for me, one of the attractive things about this photo. It's a flower in its real setting, not in some carefully staged neutral zone, and the background is not at all distracting to me. Trying to blur and remove the background seems to me something like taking a picture of the Houses of Parliament from the opposite side of the Thames, and then working to get Westminster Abbey out of the shot -- that's the environment (or context, if you will) in which the HoP exist. Backyards, in my (allergic) experience, are littered with these sneeze-inducing yet attractive little flowers, and I don't see that this is anything to be rid of. Just my two cents, Jwrosenzweig 23:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- I like it. The background adds to the overall beauty of the image, showing the flower in a natural environment. - Longhair | Talk 07:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No qualms to have about the background IMHO Circeus 12:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Support I love the house. In my reading of the image, the dandelion, something that we think of as small and barely worthy of notice, is magnified and transformed into thing of beauty, while the house, a thing we find vital and interesting, is shoved into the blurry background which makes it impossible to focus on. Whether the photographer intended it to or not, this image makes a statement about the relative value of these items in a striking way. (See what being married to an art historian can do to you.) Dsmdgold 02:52, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am of the other opinion that the house and background are distracting. The house and the tree act to create a disbalance that is uncomfortable to look at. Enochlau 03:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The house looks fairly attractive and is well blurred. Dandelions are common in house gardens (at least in mine!) so the house is not out of context - Adrian Pingstone 06:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the background is distracting, it's by no way a beautiful Bokeh, it's by no way a natural environment and this pic show a terrific barrel distortion. Ericd 23:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support Good photo, bokeh is fine and the distortion is only visible on the tree trunk. --Fir0002 06:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Look at the left of the pic... And BTW, the ground isn't horizontal. Ericd 15:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I like it. The house takes nothing away. This link is Broken 20:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is very nice, the colours are excellent. I don't mind the house in the background, though it would be better if the horizon was straightened. However the FP standard on flowers is quite high, and other good dandelions are available on Commons, for example Image:Taraxacum-zoom.jpg. -- Solipsist 08:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flower in the candidate picture looks much better than Image:Taraxacum-zoom.jpg, probably because of the angle. Thue | talk 19:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree with you on the angle. You've got the better lighting too, and there is something to be said for a background that gives an urban context. On the other hand the symmetry and detail in the Taraxacum-zoom.jpg photo are rather nice. There is a temptation to replace Image:Dandilion plant.jpg in the Dandilion article, but despite its small size, it perhaps does the best job of at showing a dandilion how most people find them - growing between the cracks of some concrete. Plus it illustrates the leaves. -- Solipsist 20:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent color, sharpness and bokeh. Alight 15:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very sharp, context is shown well. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Solipsist. The background is also a bit distracting for me. --Spangineer (háblame) 08:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• support per Dsmdgold. Djadek 19:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TomStar81 00:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It took me a while to decide but i too think the background is too prominent. It definitely draws your eye from the flower (despite the art historian liking it above ;-). Do you, Paulnasca, have anything for the same flower without the house in the background ? David D. 21:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have another picture with the same flower Paulnasca

Not promoted +10 / -7 -- Solipsist 19:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An image of a tobacco plant which has been genetically engineered to express a gene taken from fireflies

Interesting photo of a tobacco plant genetically engineered to glow. Adds significantly to Genetic engineering and Bioluminescence, and pulls in readers wondering what's going on in the picture.

• Nominate and support. - brian0918&#153; 03:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting picture, resolution may be an issue. Phoenix2 16:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Phoenix2 22:23, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• I like it. --ZeWrestler 17:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It's good. I'll support it provided licence information can be confirmed. Lupin 13:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the classic photo by David Ow of a transgenic plant expressing firefly luciferase. This photo is in quite a few text books. For example, Biology of Plants by Raven, Evert and Eichhorn, 6th Edition (Freeman/Worth) page 699. Are there copyright issues?? David D. 23:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • i just read the file history and this photo is supposedly in the public domain. What is strange is that all the authors were at the University of CA when the work was done. The USDA did fund some of the work with along with NSF. Is it the funding source that makes it public domain? David D. 23:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put PD because I was under the impression that the Ow group at UofCA was part of the "Plant Gene Expression Center" which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "Agricultural Research Service" [9]. But now I don't know maybe he wasn't part of that group back then? Maybe I should email Dr. Ow.--Deglr6328 02:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • He was a post doc in San Diego when the paper was written. Now he does work at the PGEC in Albany. In your favor, I have seen the picture in at least a couple of text books. May that imply it is public domain? My guess would be to contact Science magazine since they were the original publishers. Usually the publisher holds the photo rights and you have to get their permission to release the picture. David D. 12:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't particularly trust whoever I may happen to contact at Science magazine to not simply claim copyright on it when they themselves may be unsure. Waiting on reply from Dr. Ow. What does your book say in the attributions section?--Deglr6328 19:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Biology of Plants book credits Keith Wood, University of California, San Diego. David D. 20:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Geez he was a tough one to track down. He now apparently works at Promega making luminescent cellular assays [10]. Looks like there is no contact information out there though. Found it: kwood@promega.com --Deglr6328 22:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • • Ha beat me by two minutes :-) Good luck with getting permission. David D. 22:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • i found this info for Keith Wood. It looks current. David D. 22:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the reply from Dr. Ow see the image talk page--Deglr6328 07:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Enochlau 11:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --ZeWrestler 11:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Titllating pic. Circeus 12:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support assuming PD status is valid. But I can't see any explanation of why the plant was made to glow. People tend to misinterpret this as 'Franken-food', whereas I vaguely recall the real reason was that the luciferase gene was just being used as a marker to clearly demonstrate that a transgenes were present in all cells in the plant. -- Solipsist 12:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solipsist you are correct above. Did you see the description of the picture? It seems quite clear. An image of a tobacco plant which has been genetically engineered to express a gene taken from fireflys (specifically: Photinus pyralis) which produces luciferase. The image is an "autoluminograph" produced by placing the plant directly on a piece of Kodak Ektachrome 200 film. When the plant is watered with a luciferin containing nutrient medium, tissue specific luminescence is observed.
    • Yes, but it doesn't really say why you would want to do that. Who needs glow in the dark tobacco plants? And as I say, I think the answer is 'no one', except that a visible marker in each cell was a useful way of checking that the genetic manipulation had worked in this early experiment. -- Solipsist 00:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The genetic manipulation was known to have worked because there was a second gene that gave the plant resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin. So, the luciferase was not required for that purpose. When the experiment was first performed the goal was to develop a visible marker for gene expression. One use is to take the regulatory regions of a gene of interest to drive the luciferase gene. This allows scientists to address from a spatial and temporal perspective when that gene of interest is expressed. The best example of this was to track the expression of circadian genes (express on and off in a 24hr period). You can literally watch the plant glow go on and off with the changes in gene expression. So, in summary, it was not done just for fun but developed as a tool for scientific research, this is highlighted by the fact that Keith Wood is still working at promega to develop tools utilising luciferase. May be, if it is helpful, some of this background can be incorportated into the photo's description? David D. 00:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very educational and fascinating. Image page provides a lot of information. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great example of genetics, and very "eye grabbing" Uber nemo
• Support. Pretty cool. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted +10 / -0 , but following good work to clarify the licence, it looks like this image may not be PD, but rather copyrighted with permission to use on Wikipedia - a {{Copyrighted}} tag makes it ineligible for WP:FP. -- Solipsist 07:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this photo on the main page and was impressed with the quality but sorely disappointed with the resolution. * Support Too small --Fir0002 08:41, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Acceptable now --Fir0002 09:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• The original (linked from the image description page) is much larger. We should update the image, which is otherwise quite featureworthy. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 08:56, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose delisting, now that it's bigger. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:42, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Well, it's not much larger (500x500, unless you're seeing a different one than I am), but the quality is much higher. I can understand why it was cropped (even if I don't think it really needed it), but can't see why it was scaled down. Oppose delisting if replaced with the original image, else support. —Cryptic (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I was just coming here to say the first recourse with 3rd party pictures is to look for a larger version. Most particularly with USGov sourced images, if you dig around a bit you can sometimes find much larger versions. In the days of yore (2003), I think you couldn't resize images on the fly, so people uploaded thumbnails to the recommended 250px width. I've replaced it with the 500x500 version for now, but from Cryptic's comments I see I need to crop it a little (now done). -- Solipsist 09:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose delisting. It's fine now. Enochlau 03:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose delisting. - Bevo 00:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose picture looks good to me. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:18, 27 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]
• After alternative image provided, Support delisting - 0 Oppose delisting - 7, Kept as a Featured Picture - Bevo 02:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]