Support. Nice panorama and good EV, although I feel like the left side is cropped a litttle tight, and so is the right side for that matter. Just slightly. Ðiliff«»(Talk)19:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could explain it but that would mean admitting to the fact that the left side beyond where it is was becoming overexposed (and did not add much) and that roof tops and extraneous objects were intruding on the right hand side and you would not expect me to do that on wiki would you...;) It is certainly one I will look at getting/improving on in the future. Thanks for the interest. --Herbytalk thyme16:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I always wonder who first thought "Hey this hill looks really steep and is precariously overhanging a big river - let's build loads of houses there..." Gazhiley (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. Quite nice, but can I get something cleared up. There seems to be a discrepancy between the image page and the article caption: Image page says "The images depicts an aztec sun calendar" (sic), the article caption says "A late 18th-century representation of a calendar wheel...". Perhaps the caption is just a little unclear, but is this a genuine Aztec calendar (redrawn in the 18th century), or an 18th century conception of what they might have looked like? I would also recommend an English translation of the book title on the image page (should be easy enough to do and I think it may be meaningful for the image). --jjron (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's based partly on this calendar stone, discovered two years earlier, and partly on other calendars. Thus it is a Spanish representation of what, in genral, Aztec calendars looked like. If I'm wrong Durova or Garrondo can correct me. Chick Bowen21:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image is a generalized representation of the Aztec calendrical system, as an introduction to specific concepts and artifacts presented later in the book. The famous Aztec calendar stone had recently been excavated and studied for the first time, and this was arguably the first work of archaeology about Aztec culture. Durova38621:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1b.jpg --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely Done. I'm not sure such a wide panorama is really needed in this case though. A smaller shot of just the mountains and road near the center would have sufficed in my view. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Belvedere is an affluent town in Marin County, California, United States. Belvedere is located 1.5 miles (2.4 km) northeast of Sausalito at an elevation of 36 feet (11 m)above the sea level.Edit 1
Reason
EV, and good quality, interesting buildings that have access directly to lagoon
It probably is a better time, but the the thing is I am not sure, if I will ever find that place again :). We were driving very narrow, very windy roads, that were changing to even more narrow and windier roads. As a matter of fact I am still surprised that eventually we were able to find our way back :) --Mbz1 (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google directions, turn right here, turn left there... It is so boring. I like to drive to the places like "I am not sure how I get here, and I am surprised I was able to get out" :)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The picture has extremely good resolution, but there is to much contrast between light and shadow. The cropped version cuts off too much of the scene. Generally speaking, I guess that if you pointed that camera at almost any scene in the appropriate light you are likely to get an FP. Snowman (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image (original not the edit) has been re-uploaded by me having done a little work on it. Based on clipping there was no real exposure issue but I've toned it a little to reduce the glare without degrading the image (I hope!). I prefer "reality" as far as possible so the work is minimal - I could do a little more I guess. --Herbytalk thyme17:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
High quality panorama of Abbotsbury village in Dorset, UK. The image includes most of the important features in Abbotsbury including the ruins of the Abbey, the old barn and the church. It has a high EV.
Not explicitly - it was an "automatic" stitch with Hugin. I'm guessing over that angle of view, that age of buildings there is likely to be some variations. If there is a specific part of the image that bothers you feel free to point it out and I'll go back to the original images (there are five) maybe. --Herbytalk thyme11:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few of the buildings to the left of the church in particular seem to have a tilt. Adding a few vertical control points (assuming hugin can do this) should fix it easily. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering that this was taken by a 14 megapixel camera, the fact that it's only 1094px high seems a bit small to me, especially since the buildings take up such a small part of the picture. I realise that it's often more convenient to work with downsampled images (I often do it myself for this reason, especially when using Hugin), but I'd like to see a bigger version if possible. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded larger size one (pretty much full size) - "refresh" maybe. I have bandwith restrictions so don't usually upload the full sized image. The height won't be massively better given what is lost in cropping. --Herbytalk thyme16:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Aesthetically, I'm not a fan of the framing, with the ground level extending beyond the top of the shot on the left side of the panorama. I'd prefer to see sky across the top. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Landsat 7 imagery of Death Valley, made from 2 thermal images. Key - (copied from upload page) Green = Forest/Vegetation; Rust/beige/brown = Bare ground; Light blue = Salt pans with a little moisture; Bright green = probably irrigation.
Reason
I first nominated this image back in August 2008, thinking it of high quality. It hasn't changed, and the encyclopedic value is still there - in fact, the only reason the image failed last time appeared to be a confusion when the image was uploaded. It's wonderfully encyclopedic and of high res.
Could you explain a little bit more what this image would be used for--what it tells us that a visible-light photograph wouldn't? It appears to illustrate the paragraph on convection in the article, but there's no explanation there of how those processes are shown by the picture. Also, what's the bright red on the right side about half way down? Is that just a more intense version of what you're describing in the legend as "rust"? Chick Bowen16:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's of very high quality, for one, and tells us more about various aspect(s) of Death Valley. I think it's obvious why the aspect(s) it shows (ie. climate, geology) are important to the article on the subject and overall are highly encyclopedic - as I mentioned in the nom. Is the bright red the pinkish colored thing? ceranthor21:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See to the right--what is the red there? Are those parts hotter, lower, higher, flatter? Also, I hope I'm not being totally dense on the image's function, but it's not that obvious to me. Basically, this image would be used because it tracks vegetation in the valley more clearly than a visible-light image, which in turn shows the relationship between topography and climate--do I have that right? Again, it may seem obvious to someone familiar with this kind of image, but I think currently the relationship between the image and the corresponding prose in the article isn't very clear. Thanks. Chick Bowen22:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's basically it. I can understand your problems with the article; it's not great. I intend to improve it at some later time, actually. ceranthor22:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not sure what the red is. Upon initial looks, I thought it might be open land at a dramatically lower (or higher?) elevation. Thermography might yield some answers. ceranthor22:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. agree with NS, except that I kinda like quirky framing on some portraits. I'd say that for a 'professional' portrait, the framing is not accidental. It's very clearly back focussed though (focus should generally be on the nearest eye), and it made me wonder: perhaps the only reason this was released under a CC-BY-SA is because it wasn't one of the 'keepers'... But having said that, releasing a photo with poor focus and demanding your name be attributed to it wouldn't be great for business either! ;-) Ðiliff«»(Talk)10:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to assume that the target audience for these kind of shots are not photography enthusiasts, and so the technical details are often not that important. Instead, they are just trying to show the subject in a pleasing, memorable way. I would assume that any and all aspects are deliberate. Note that it's also possible that it was the subject that judges which ones were the "keepers", and so may well have missed aspects such as those you mention. J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, but any professional photographer would take dozens of similar photos in order to make absolutely sure that they had a keeper, because even the very best cameras misfocus occasionally. So the fact that this misfocussed image is the one that has been provided says something. But as for exactly what it says, well, you're right, it's debatable. As with most FP condidates that don't pass, it isn't that they're outright poor images, it's just that they're not as good as they could or should be. Ðiliff«»(Talk)13:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about quirky framing is sometimes interesting; however, I think that this image should include to top of the head and not clip the lapel. Snowman (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Ursus C-451 tractor, manufactured by the Polish company Ursus from 1947 to 1959. Copied from the German Lanz Bulldog tractors, this model was intended for the military market. It is even available as a model kit.
Reason
decent resolution, clear illustration of a tractor from the 50s in use
Do we have such a policy of blanking license plates? I see people do this sometimes as a courtesy, but on the other hand, there's no privacy right for property in a public place. Fletcher (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see some level of blur (motion?) on all of the subject. I am curious about why it has not been commented. Is it acceptable in this kind of images (means of transportation)? franklin 05:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's motion blur, though I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong. I think you're seeing the softness that sometimes comes with poorer quality lenses, and don't forget that you're viewing high res. I think it has not been commented on because slight softness at that resolution isn't an immediate no-no. Does that answer your question? Maedin\talk08:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed look soft all over. Perhaps people were cutting it some slack as being from an 'under-represented part of the world' and an irregular creator, though a good point about no one mentioning it. A 50% downsize would still keep it within the guidelines, and brings it nearer to accepted sharpness so that needs to be considered too. --jjron (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, a closer look suggests the focus has missed. If you look you can see the dirt about five feet behind the back wheel is where the focus is. --jjron (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to disagree with you, but I don't see that the area you've described is any sharper than the rest of it. Definition is being added by the pieces of hay, but as far as I can tell it's not taking the focus? Maedin\talk13:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the focus was missed. My opinion is this: The focal point is on the driver, not behind the tractor. Both and the stickers on the window are most clearly in focus. However, I think that the softness is due to the lens. I haven't had a good look at the EXIF data, but chances are it was just taken with a cheap consumer level lens. They're usually a bit less than tack sharp at large telephoto focal lengths at the best of times. Sure, it's not tack sharp, but it's high enough res to compensate for that. As you mentioned, downsampling 50% would hide the sharpness. I find that's an appropriate litmus test for sharpness issues: Downsample it to a reasonable size and see if you would still hold the same criticisms. Just don't necessarily upload the grossly downsampled image to Wiki ;-). Keep the original online, unless the downsampled image doesn't sacrifice any detail, that is. Ðiliff«»(Talk)17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I quite disagree - I am used to hunting for focus in things like sports images (focus often just misses the action and the only thing to judge by could be say an otherwise indistinct patch of grass, like the situation here, and re Maedin, you don't need the hay, I can see it in the dirt). I believe my assessment of the focus being behind the tractor is correct. Like most assessments, it takes a bit to get used to picking focus in these images and I can understand others missing it. This is more than just softness - downsizing does help hide the 'softness' issue, but even then a good eye can still pick the focus as being behind the action. I'd agree with the comments re the lens, but that doesn't alter the location of the focus. --jjron (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sharpness isn't perfect, but it's not out of focus - just soft. Not too soft to oppose though IMO. Interesting subject. Ðiliff«»(Talk)20:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Marine biologists and others divide the intertidal region into three zones (low, middle, and high), based on the overall average exposure of the zone. The low intertidal zone, which borders on the shallow subtidal zone, is only exposed to air at the lowest of low tides and is primarily marine in character. The mid intertidal zone is regularly exposed and submerged by average tides. The high intertidal zone is only covered by the highest of the high tides, and spends much of its time as terrestrial habitat. The high intertidal zone borders on the swash zone (the region above the highest still-tide level, but which receives wave splash). On shores exposed to heavy wave action, the intertidal zone will be influenced by waves, as the spray from breaking waves will extend the intertidal region above the high tide line. The image shows all of those zones from the sea anemones at the bottom (low tide zone) to mussels and barnacles in swash zone.
Reason
High quality, high EV, hard (because of the very rare opportunities) to obtain image. The image shows dozens of different types of tide pools animals in their natural habitat. The main reason is that tonight is New Year Night, so I hope that after the celebration everybody is going to be in a high spirit and support my image :) Happy New Year!
Support - Interesting. Excellent EV, quality, and caption and provides a variety of specimens to illustrate the zonation of tide pools in an intertidal region. Nice job, ZooFari05:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Excellent EV and fascinating content. However, I noticed quite a few minor technical errors which (if possible) I'd like to see fixed. I've uploaded an annotated version of the image since it's difficult to describe the locations of all the issues. If there's nothing you can realistically do to fix the blurred areas, then that's fine, but I'd like to see the obvious brush marks and places where clear repeated patterns have been created by the clone tool fixed. I realise that some of these issues are very minor, but they add up to be a more substantial problem; if you could eliminate as many of them as possible then I'd be prepared to support. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are right about some situations, cannot agree with some others. If I am to spend lots of time on the image, I might be able to fix some problems, or maybe I will try to take another set of the images one day, but probably not. I like to go to tide pools, but it is way too slippery to carry a tripod and expensive camera I guess, so next time I will go, it will be for my own enjoyment only :) In a meantime I'd like to thank you all for the comment and the vote, and I withdraw the nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is used only in a gallery. The article's imagery needs to be cut down massively- we don't need a gallery to show multiple similar images. Further, I do not think I would be comfortable supporting if it was cut down now- I would rather see it sit in the article for a little while to demonstrate that editors do not generally prefer other images. J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
High quality portrait of a notable politician provided to us by the office of the subject. I know some people dislike these images, but I would certainly be supporting, so I am happy to nominate.
Question How do we know the right person released this image? Since OTRS essentially takes an uploader's word (assuming they have a @senate.state.ny.us email address), that means the janitor (should he have an email address) can release this, per our methods. The NYS Senate actually does release its content CC-BY-NC-ND, which is good, but not good enough. But I don't think anybody but a representative of the Senate leadership has the ability to release this. IMO, the image is owned by "the Senate" at large, not just the senator or his staff, so being released by his staff doesn't seem valid to me. I could very well be wrong, but I'm just not convinced yet. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 23:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a lawyer, but I personally think this is legit. The person sending the email is emailing on behalf of the subject and the senate, and explicitly said they are authorised to release the image. I'm willing to take their word for what they are and are not authorised to do. It's possible someone is out-and-out lying about who they are, but this is a possibility with every submission. J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While a good photo and definitely shot professionally, that speaks of most elected federal politicians in the US. This photo doesn't possess exceptional quality or significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.213.214 (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Generally well done, good DOF (single shot?) or is the flower smaller than I think (perhaps should have an indication of size on image page or in caption)? My main quibble would be the tightish crop at bottom - just looking at the image proportions, you wouldn't have a bit more height tucked away would you? --jjron (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not - I lost a bit when stacking. I'd say 50mm across, roughly. I can't find an online reference with flower size to add detail to the article though. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is this a definite ID? From the article: "It has...star-like yellow to brownish-red flowers". Doesn't seem to gel, or perhaps article is lacking some info? --jjron (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to this there is a rare yellow form. The Tasmanian Waratah or the Common Teatree are other examples that come in different colours. On the ID issue I am confident, google has plenty of matching examples. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading that right it suggests flower colour is "dark red-purple or yellow", so perhaps the article could be touched up with this info. --jjron (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good detail and composition, I would have preferred to have the distinctive leaves in focus as well, but this still has good EV for the inflorescences. One of a nice set of images by Nooodle Snacks depicting indigenous Tasmanian plants in their natural environment. Melburnian (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Silky Hairstreak (Pseudalmenus chlorinda), Tasmania, Australia
Reason
Quite a lucky find given it's rarity. The closed wing habit seems pretty typical - I followed this one about the bush for quite a while and it wouldn't open it's wings except in flight.
Support. As usual, good capture. That macro lens of yours actually seems to have bokeh'ed the background into oblivion though.. If anything I'd prefer a background slightly less uniform. But beggars can't be choosers. Ðiliff«»(Talk)11:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice composition, colours, and very sharp. Per Diliff, agree that background is slightly disturbing as it makes the image appear as a studio shot. Elekhh (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Photochrom of a late nineteenth century world's fair. The domed exhibition hall was designed by Ferdinand Boberg, who was a prominent Swedish architect. That and most other structures in the scene were subsequently destroyed. Restored version of File:Stockholm photochrom.jpg.
Support Awesome, I've actually been at this exact location a few years ago when I went to the Nordic Museum (and Skansen, which isn't visible in the picture). :) Theleftorium11:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the topic is dangerous. Even if all technical details are optimal the search for the optimal photograph can have many approaches in this case. For example I could wish in this case for having an individual with the three sprouts in three different stages: incipient, small (like the three here) and more developed (with an actual stalk and leaves). Also I could wish for having a sectioned individual next to it in addition. The availability of potatoes to everyone make those wishes not so unreal. About the picture itself, I think the light is too bright on the potato (mostly to the left). But this probably can be solved doing some little tweaks. franklin 19:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I thought when Fir (and a few others) where uploading shots like these it was generally agreed that the 'type' of the fruit/vegetable should be identified. --jjron (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this photo needs a rather dramatic crop. It's OK to crop through the shadow, BTW, since we're not a stock photography site, i.e. we don't care about adding this potato onto white stationary and business cards :) Kaldari (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided an alternative showing a sliced version on the left, as suggested by NYer and NS. I have updated the cultivar according to the packaging and used a few more frames on the right version during focus stacking. ZooFari22:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Alt 1 going to be added to the article, or to replace the Original in it? Some little care should be taken. One thing is the nomination of pictures recently added to articles and another is images that are not even in use. franklin 05:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As I said once it makes me worried that the boundary of point 5.1 of FP criteria can be pushed too much. (all the previous supports were given when this point was being violated) The danger is still there. For example, the alt is now (woops, this now is the now of a past time. it was now when I was writing.) only used in Russet Burbank potato. Has it been properly identified? Placing it in potato is less risky. The other requires a more careful study. A specialist or a source can tell whether the differences that I see in potatoes in the article Russet Burbank potato are of a level that doesn't affect being in the same classification. franklin 05:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is that it's a russet potato as noted on the packaging. The russet article redirects to Russet Burbank which IMO is misguided. There are several types of russets forming even more category trees (thanks to these brilliant people called botanists) but some are just hybrids belonging to the upper class potatoes. --ZooFari17:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the alt is used in potato as well, illustrating the low-starch russet. The original is only used in potato illustrating the sprouts in the description section. --ZooFari17:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No No No. We don't junk up articles with every variation of a photograph just so they all technically meet the featured picture criteria. Only a single photograph from a nomination needs to be in the article to qualify all the alts. Whichever photo wins should be used in the article(s). Remember, our primary concern here is improving articles, not winning contests. Having two or more essentially identical photos in the same article is ridiculous. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't intended for a winning championship. I just find alts difficult to arrange which is why I prefer a single image for a nomination. Of course, I could have changed my mind and use the original to go by the FPC process with this given advice , but I could see you already fixed it yourself. --ZooFari04:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original is about 10 cm (4 inch) and the alt is about 4 1/2 inches (11.5 cm) including the sprout at the end. Typically normal. Since I don't know the measurements precisely, I decided not to embed a scale and play guessing games; instead I have posted it on the file page. Scales suit macros better IMO anyways. --ZooFari01:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From 1907 to 1909 a fleet of 18 United States Navy circumnavigated the globe. They were known as the Great White Fleet because during that era US warships were painted white during peacetime. This illustration appeared in the New York Herald on February 22, 1909, the day of their return to home port at Hampton Roads, Virginia. Restored version of File:Great White Fleet return.jpg.
Support What color were the ships painted during times of war? And how long did it take the sailors to paint them all (and how much money!)? upstateNYer07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Roald Amundsen departing for the North Pole in 1920.
Reason
Roald Amundsen led the first expedition to reach the South Pole, was the first human being to reach both poles, and was the first person to traverse the Northwest Passage. There's something stylish about one hand in the pocket and another on the ship's wheel as he leaves on another polar mission. Restored version of File:Roald Amundsen.jpg.
Sorry, everyone, I got keen and closed this without realising that I voted. I apologised at fpc talk, but if anyone would like to endorse the outcome of the closure (or ask me to undo it), that would be fine. It's too cold for me to think properly, :) Maedin\talk11:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I forgive you, but I can't speak for the marauding masses looking for a bone to pick. ;-) It's fairly cut and dry in this case so really I can't see anyone questioning the result, in all seriousness. No harm done. In fact, really, when the result is unanimous, I don't really see why anyone capable shouldn't be able to close it. It just means nominations are likely to sit longer otherwise, when we have a fairly small group of active closers.Ðiliff«»(Talk)13:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your confidence. I know these things can and have been delicate issues though, so wanted to avoid the appearance of evil, :-) Maedin\talk20:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - A schematic for a prototype nuclear reactor using lead as a cooling agent.
Reason
I found this by accident while looking through nuclear reactor pages here. I was stunned by the quality of the image, and it occurred to me that if this image was eye catching to me it may be worthy of an FP star, so here I am with my find. This is an .svg image, so size is not an issue. I have omitted the details of the nuclear reaction since all nuclear reactors are more or less the same, but if it becomes an issue I will be happy to add such information to the caption. Note that the image here is for a theoretical reactor currently under development for commercial use; however, this should not be a problem insofar as OR is concerned, as soviet Alpha-class submarines used a variant of the reactor shown here for propulsion and electric consumption. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks good. I'd ask for the title on the top left corner to be removed and provide the raster source [2] for verification. The holes could also have a realistic 3D coloration, which shouldn't be hard to do. The gradient inside the generator could also use an invert in coloration so that it would fade into white in the middle and extend to black on the edges. Also, de-capitalize the second words of the labels. --ZooFari06:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being someone with expertise in the subject, I'm even having a hard time understanding what's going on in the recuperator and compressors. Also, a very thorough description is needed for me to support this. A simple "This is an LFR" isn't good enough; it must describe what's going on. upstateNYer16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there isn't exactly a starting point in these systems, really. The only place I would consider a start would be the pump that forces the coolant to flow. And now that I say that, no pump is mentioned here or at the source; liquid can't flow without a pump. I'm concerned that DOE may be withholding design information for the sake of national security, which wouldn't be surprising and should be expected, but it leaves us with a very sub-par diagram, IMO. upstateNYer07:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, though I've taken the liberty of changing the lines from the labels so they don't stop at the reactor casing. Time3000 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The article is poorly developed with some limited understanding of the point in the R&D cycle for these investigative reactors, and limited explanation of the process. The image is nice, though. I would nominate the Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor first, though, easier to understand, better sourcing, even if the image isn't as appealing. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me.06:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - - Culex sp. Mosquito. Pictured in Kilimanjaro region, Tanzania
Reason
Good quality and EV. Wikipedia has only one FP of mosquito. This was previously nominated here but was probably lost in the flood. Appears in the article for over 3months now.
This is just a question for myself. Is the abdomen of the mosquito only the brown thin or is it transparent and continues until the shinny part? franklin 21:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the abdomen, that line of little bright dots. Are those hairs or is it that the abdomen is transparent and that's the end of i? franklin 14:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Awesome shot for such a tiny little thing, I like the angle and framing. Shame we don't have a species ID, but I guess you'd have to really know you stuff to identify more precisely. J Milburn (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entomologist required more than just a picture to id the mosquito. Tricky subject + little research + taken in a remote forest = very hard to id ;-) --Muhammad(talk)14:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Good. The bristles look great! Would you consider getting rid of the white out of focus circle, top right near the critter's leg joint? Please? In the article's taxobox, it seems disproportionately prominent. I'd try myself, but I wouldn't have a clue how to fix it, :) Maedin\talk22:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Meat-eater ants (Iridomyrmex purpureus) working cooperatively to devour a cicada (possibly Psaltoda moerens however damage to the victim makes a definite identification difficult to confirm). The cicada is approximately 60-70mm long, the ants are approximately 15mm long.
Reason
A little gross perhaps, but good EV and good quality. DOF is shallowish, but about as good as possible for a single shot macro. The main focus is well placed, showing the ants feeding around the head in a variety of positions, especially the one on top munching into the empty eye-socket.
Weak support. Not the most exciting butterfly, but that is of course no reason to oppose. Instead, the "weak" comes from the fact it clearly wasn't flat when photographed, which means the wings are not shown precisely, and the tips are out of focus. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the photos I have of this fellow (three different branches) exhibit the same pose, so I'm not sure I can do much. The wingspan is 25mm, which isn't so big for a butterfly. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: V good illustration of the iridescence. Unlike J Milburn, I think the butterfly is very pretty/interesting/exciting, :). I don't see a problem with the wings or that they're out of focus at the tips. Good environment, too. Maedin\talk09:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading this, it sounds like I don't see that the tips of the wings are out of focus. I do, I just don't think it's a problem. Maedin\talk13:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It's right in front of the tigress (just look where she's looking). I saw it literally the second I saw this photo for the first time. As for the pose, again, the tigress is looking at her cub, and I've seen it frequently in documentaries about various animals, including tigers.--TwilightHelryx21:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he means you can't see the cub's face, or that you can't see the second cub (the image page says there are two of them - "Cubs Thyme and Warner, with their mother Sungari"). --jjron (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport. Despite a slight problem with the framing (too much foreground, not enough background), there's a universality to the relationship between mother and child that's enough to disregard the rational thought of big honkin' carnivore who'd feed the likes of me to this cub in favor of awww...toss them a steak.Durova39100:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A high quality, esoteric image depicting the team with some of their own flavor (rather than simply the stiffer team photos the LoC has for many teams). I left a lengthy note about "Shelton", the unidentifiable utility player on the Commons talk page (I believe he's a minor leaguer who never appeared with the team officially in a major league game). Also note that the ship itself is labeled "Harry Cramnitz", "Frock", and "Leever" below those players (who are labeled elsewhere as well). And yes, the title is something of a joke on this.
Support. Useful for the historical purposes of the team and the times. Makes you wonder about the significance of the portrayals of the players. I like how they're making the opposition coaches walk the plank. --jjron (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely pic, can't see any obvious defects. A couple of the boats sem very low in the water though - especially the small one to our left of the open-able part of the bridge - couple in dark blue and purple tops... Almost looks like they're sinking! Gazhiley (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the latter can be explained by two things. The first being that this picture was shot from a non-raised pier. Further more, there was a gusty wind blowing, which created some waves. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice it on the first viewing, but I'm pretty sure the 'boats low in the water' that Gizhiley refers to is a stitching fault. Well, one boat in particular anyway. The little boat centre-right (with a red dot on the motor) is sitting extremely low in the water - in fact, it looks like the guy in the back is dragging his butt in the water. ;-) And the boat seems to have some slight ghosting artifacts and inconsistent colour and texture at the back. It takes an eagle eye to spot the faults (assuming I'm even right - could you check the RAW file to confirm?) so it isn't a big deal, but probably should be corrected if possible. Ðiliff«»(Talk)17:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the RAW file for you, but it really isn't a stitching error... I can make a screenshot. if you would like me to do so. You are right though. If there is a flaw in the panorama, it should be fixed. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you say so, I believe you! But it still does look rather strange, and I don't think waves would explain it, as they look too small and choppy. Ðiliff«»(Talk)20:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I'd prefer to not have the far left side cropped at the top, and the lighting could be slightly better (looks slightly warm tinted, especially the sky which is either fairly hazy or not quite the right colour), but otherwise very nice. Ðiliff«»(Talk)14:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These pictures were taken about six months ago during summer. They have been shot during the period the sun was setting, so this might explain the warmer colours. I've just rechecked the RAW-files and I can't improve the crop in the upper left corner, but I do agree with you. It should be more spacious. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Holding back from full support because of the framing: would prefer less foreground and more sky. Otherwise fine. Durova39119:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support:GerardM (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC) It is the size of the water that makes this bridge special.. Please leave the amount of water as it is because this is what makes the "magere brug" so special[reply]
Support: I think that, like Diliff's recent Thames FP, the water here is important. I agree about the crop at the top left, but it isn't enough to prevent full support. This is a good capture of the activity on the river, and especially nice to see the bridge in the process of being raised/lowered. Maedin\talk07:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The apricots in the main page are pretty close, but the gap between them is properly centered in the picture which makes it look fine. Here, on the other hand, due to the vertical placement of the apples in the frame, it looks like the sectioned one is going to fall out of the picture (not a desired feature in this case). Also it can be repaired, or at least they did something similar in Pinnacles National Monument's nomination when added more sky. franklin 06:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. FWIW I think the variety ('cultivar') may be misidentified here. I suspect it's a sundowner, not a sundown (see here for example.) Coming from the same area of the world as Fir, can't say I can ever remember seeing a variety identified as sundown. --jjron (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you check my original link, it appears your final link is calling the Sundowner a Sundown - the other information seems to match, except for the harvest period, but presumably your link is an American site vs my Australian site which would explain that, and they are an Australian apple so would probably go with that for the name. Maybe the shop Fir bought if from had it labelled as a Sundown, but as I say I can't remember seeing them as such anywhere, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. My first linked site says "Cripps Red apples of an appropriate quality may be sold using the trademarked brand name SundownerTM", so maybe it would be more accurate to label it a Cripps Red anyway. --jjron (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Johnson's animated GIF comparison of purported 1970's era typewritten Killian memos with 2004-era MS Word document using default settings.
Reason
On the one hand, this animated gif powerfully illustrates the case that the so-called "Killian documents" (alleged documents that were presented or came to light in the run-up to the 2004 U.S. presidential election that related to George W. Bush's Vietnam-era military service) were forgeries. On the other hand, 450 × 202 pixels and "PD-BECAUSE" licensing. Still, I think the nom is worth discussion.
Oppose. Too much recentism and systemic bias for me. Is this image still going to be notable in 100 years? Not likely, IMO. Apart from it's current notability, the image doesn't have any other compelling qualities. Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have no concerns about recentism/notability- if it has a place in an article, it has every right to be here. This just doesn't seem to be much of a featured picture to me- there's not really much to it, and I personally find the animation a little annoying. I'd rather compare the two alongside each other. J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. The main attraction of an FP for me is when i look at it and instantly want to know more about it - I can't even be bothered to read the text in this as it's very uninteresting looking and as mentionned by j milburn the annimation annoys me... Gazhiley (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My response: the content of the text is really beside the point. The principal EV offered by this image is in the Killian documents authenticity issues article. The main trust of that article is that this document (among others) was purportedly prepared with an office typewriter at a National Guard facility in the early 1970s (and Dan Rather and CBS News published reports which relied on this); but the animated GIF demonstrates that it appears much more likely that the document was prepared on a contemporary version of Microsoft Word. The animation shows the similarity betwen the purportedly 1970s document and the result that would have been obtained with Microsoft Word. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and thanks for your reply... But I still think it's really uninteresting and thus I can't see how this can be considered a featured picture... But each to their own... Gazhiley (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Petronas Towers, home to the headquarters of the national oil giant in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at one time was the tallest building in the world from 1998 to 2004.
Reason
Unique and eye catching Blue luminous tone. nice resolution, excellent contrast.
Oppose There are severely blown highlights on the top half of the towers. I wouldn't normally oppose just for that, but in this case the affected area is a substantial portion of the image. Also there's something strange going on with the colour spaces: firefox shows the sky as a strange shade of purple, which ought to be fixed. Time3000 (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do see the "whiting out" of some of the lines at the top portion of the structure. Was hoping that the overall coloring effect would compensate for it. Shame indeed CalmerWaters10:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful sky. I used to live in Malaysia, so I have witnessed Petronas Tower countless times. However the top part of the left tower is somewhat out of shape. In addition the foreground (Entrance to the philharmonic hall) was too dark. Too bad, the background was wonderful. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk)13:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi, thanks for nominating my image, but as the creator, clearly I do not like it either. To my personal view, it's just horribly photographed and too much overprocessing. That's why I wrote under the Image Creation/Manipulation headline as quoted "To be honest this isn't a very good image produced by me; I don't consider this my personal favourite". Therefore, I strongly oppose my own work. Still, many thanks and much appreciated. Someformofhuman (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Goes a step toward correcting our shortage of South American FPs. Already featured at Commons and de:wiki. Good find. Durova39116:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Based on Noodle's above comments, I gave the original a very slight de-noise (detail was quickly lost in the mountains, so the sky is still a little noisy) and also kept the original colours; the edit that was voted on was over-saturated (I think, or it may have been a colour profile issue). See edit and "original" aggressively denoised and over-saturated edit. It may be taking too much liberty, but I uploaded over the top. As I see it, this was only a correction of a previous mistake, not really an alternative, and those who object can oppose the image and upload the painting-like one as an edit. Or, of course, you can revert my edit, I don't mind. I'm just extremely reluctant to see the spoiled version become featured due to people not coming back to the nomination and updating their votes (which is common). The other reason I decided to upload over the top is that both the Commons and the de.wiki nominations were for the noisy original: the aggressive de-noise and alteration of colours only happened months afterwards. Maedin\talk10:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Photoshop CS4 with the Noiseware Professional plug-in. I've got the software to do it, I'm just not sure how to, and would question my results. Maedin\talk11:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I probably won't keep reviewing all the edits, but did notice when I voted that the mountains were soft on detail as mentioned here. So if someone improves on that situation while keeping the essence of what I voted on, consider this my support of said version. --jjron (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Two white rhinos eat dry grass. These animals are completely wild. They live close to, but outside Waterberg National Park, Namibia.
Reason
I think the image is illustrative because you see a rhino from the front and from the side in a single image. It's valuable because there are not too many wild living rhino pictures. It's one of the highest resolution rhino pictures we have.
Weak Oppose In my opinion (and I may be wrong about the technical definitions here) there seems to be a lot of noise on the rhinos themselves, especially the furthest away... It looks like it has a fur coat in fact... The horn of the closest seems very blurred too... Shame though as its a very rare photograph I would imagine... Gazhiley (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is somewhat unreasonable. The picture has >8MP (more than 4x as many pixels as Noodle snacks butterfly and almost 5x more than Muhammads Culex sp, both of which just got promoted). Judging images at 100% without any regard for resolution makes no sense. You are basically punishing the uploader for not uploading a degraded downsampled version that would fool amateurs into thinking that the image is tack shap. Lame! --Dschwen23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not unreasonable at all... I have no idea about technical reasons/fixes... They just look like they have fur coats and horns due to the fuzziness... End of... Gazhiley (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Image page needs English description for en:wiki. The image itself is very nice, but re quality, I'm at a bit of a loss too - with the camera and settings you wouldn't expect much noise, but there does appear to be quite a lot in the background. Perhaps the lens used? --jjron (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - "Thracian Girl Carrying the Head of Orpheus on His Lyre", better known simply as "Head of Orpheus", by Gustave Moreau (1865).
Reason
The picture has beautiful contrast, exposure, and color balance—credit, of course, is due to the painter's haunting original. 1,313 × 2,069 px. It is by far the best example of this piece of art (see also the bigger but blurry and desaturated File:Gustave Moreau 007.jpg, the smaller and wildly contrasty File:Gustave Moreau Orphée 1865.jpg, and the much smaller and wildly contrasty File:GustaveMoreau01.jpg) and the most captivating portrait of Orpheus available.
Good resolution, good image quality; clearly illustrates one of the most notable rivers in Canada and North America. The image also shows much of the Fraser Valley.
Oppose Large bluriness in the foreground. Also exagerated curvature makes sides of pic look almost 20 degrees off horizontal... Gazhiley (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry Mimigu. It's an interesting and impressive scene, but the technicals on this one aren't quite good enough. As Gazhiley mentions, there is a blurred frame in the middle (next time, try to get a good focus lock, then set the camera to manual focus to complete the set. That way, the focus doesn't vary and hunt on each frame), and the panorama itself is curved. Also, if you live nearby, perhaps you could take it on a clearer, sunnier day? That way, the sky would probably avoid being blown out and white. Ðiliff«»(Talk)13:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have a good point. To fix the exaggerated curvature Gazhiley mentioned, I can re-stitch the panorama using different settings. As for the blurriness, the very old and crappy Canon EF 28-80mm lens I have also suffers from a mild de-centering defect causing half the frame to be blurred at times. I don't know when I will have time to go up to Westminster Abbey again, but when I do, I will use a better lens and do it in better weather. Maybe I'll even do it in HDR! Mimigu (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh thanks for the explanation re the lens. Although I have to admit, if one of my lenses was doing that, I wouldn't use it anymore, since there's no point taking photos that are almost unusable! It's probably too old and cheap to get repaired unfortunately. Possible, but you might as well buy a new lens for the same price, if you haven't already got one. And yes, I guess you would need to re-stitch it. You should always attempt to keep the horizon straight though, it's not so much doing it with 'different settings' as doing it 'correctly'. ;-) Ðiliff«»(Talk)11:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is too blur. If you are really want to use the Auto Focus, then try to find an area that is clear at the foreground as AF would most likely focus on the foreground. Else use MF to focus on the river. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk)12:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A glorious image that's received a nice bit of press attention over here- see this BBC article, for instance. I've seen it on TV a few times. There's possible even enough for an article on this image itself. The image illustrates our current cold snap extremely well. Currently only used in one article as it is so young (as well as my userpage :)), but I have no doubt that such a striking and high quality shot has a place in many. I'd just like to anticipate comparisons to the equally beautiful File:Scandinavia.TMO2003050.jpg, and note that this image illustrates something completely different- the idea of Britain being covered in snow like this is strange- I don't think it's occurred in my lifetime, and this is the longest cold snap for several decades. I appreciate that there is a little cloud cover here, and so this is not quite at the same level as the other in terms of being a "perfect shot", but this is not meant to be a shot of a "typical winter Britain", as the other is a shot of a "typical winter Scandanavia". And, of course, a little cloud cover is to be expected (and even favoured) in this case, due to the fact this is trying to illustrate the weather, rather than the geography.
Support: This is why my flat won't get warm and why I can't bring myself to get up for work in the morning! Apart from that sentimental value, very good image, great in its article. Maedin\talk06:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As soon as I saw this picture on the main page headlines I came straight in here to make sure it was nominated... Very striking picture and certainly a rare image given how long its been since we were this snow-covered...Gazhiley (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I did the same as Gazhiley, it's a really fantastic image. There's currently no FP for the PotD on Monday (11th), what's the process for adding this in (assuming it's becomes an FP)? bad_germ09:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I never... You learn something new every day around here! Thanks! Though now i won't have the feeling of anticipation every time i log into wiki to see if a FP I've voted on is front page... Ah well... Gazhiley (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This image appeared in all the Spanish newspapers today to illustrate their stories, if that counts as international impact ;-) The image also has educational value: if you look carefully, you'll see a few bits on the West coast that are not covered by snow, an effect of the North Atlantic Current. Physchim62(talk)14:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to mention this also appears on the front page of our local newspaper today in South Wales (albeit a cropped version showing just Wales) so i can attest to it being all over the media if our little old paper has it too! Gazhiley (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it a lot, but... it could be better. The lower-res image (commons:File:British Isles on 7 January 2010.jpg) is slightly larger in scope - it includes Orkney and Shetland, whilst Shetland is cropped out of this one and we lose half of Orkney. The master copy from which both were made must exist somewhere - is it possible to obtain a high-resolution version of the complete one rather than the incomplete one? Shimgray | talk | 14:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The raw data this comes from is available from NASA here. However, MODIS imagery suffers badly from bowtie distortion and its not at all easy to fix it. I've had a quick play can generated a image covering the whole of the UK and Ireland with a resolution ~4500x5000. However, NASA are much better at fixing the distortion than me. I can upload my version and present as an alt if required.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, however there is some nasty banding artifacts in the sea. (I can see some in just about every area of sea without cloud cover) I'd prefer one with that fixed.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A fantastic image which shows a beautiful blanket of snow unprecedented in my lifetime. Used on the front page of multiple newspapers in Britain. - hahnchen22:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the epitome of a picture speaking a thousand words, and truly something you don't see very often. I archived a copy on first sight! 81.157.43.45 (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I probably wouldn't put it in the articles mentioned by Caspian Blue unless there are references in either direction mentioning the storms specifically in relation to global warming. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you could upload locally or not but that image is going to end up on COM:DR soon. According to my experience at DR, they take FOP seriously. --ZooFari02:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my! I got completely lost. Can you provide the meaning of the acronyms so I can learn what interesting thing is happening with Dubai? Thanks franklin 02:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That one hopefully will be saved by the "incidental inclusion" recourse. But no idea how a huge thing like this can be included incidentally in some picture. Crazy copyrighted world. franklin 06:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it wouldn't, if I understand the law and our policies correctly. The copyright in this case only applies to the building, not to the photograph. Thus, some of the NFCC would apply and some wouldn't. Obviously there wouldn't be a prior publication requirement (NFCC #4), but since the only possible infringing commercial use would be a poster of the building, it would make sense for these kinds of photographs for the resolution maximum to be higher than normal (to put it another way, the only thing enforceable by the NFCC is the resolution of the display of the building, not that of the image as a whole). Someday we're going to need an actual FOP policy, but it would be extremely complex because the rules are different in every country. A WMF directive would be useful. Chick Bowen02:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason we'd need a specific policy (which wouldn't be that great) was if we started trying to make distinctions like this. The image is of a non-free object, and so must be considered non-free itself- it's just the same as images of contemporary artwork- in countries with no freedom of panorama, it's exactly the same law. Thus, the images should be treated no differently. J Milburn (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - I´m sorry, I voted to quick. But it should be able to be a featured picture; the building and the photo are both magnific. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 23:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not only does it have stunning color, but patterns; makes for interesting image. Upon closer view, I can almost feel the texture of the fabric. --Neon Sky (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Close-up of juvenile Southern Elephant seal, showing face and mouth detail
Reason
Focus is bang on and photo is sharp, great resolution, super pose (also characteristically aggressive), and certainly the clearest image we have of facial and mouth detail for seals.
I would support any such proposal. I am also happy to co-chair the subcommittee which decides the background colour of the page for the organisation of the vote count. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: In pictures of birds, I have seen that people ask for it to be a profile picture to be able to see the features of the beak, tail and wings. Why is it that in this case it is not asked? Not feature of wings, tail and shape of the body are really distinguishable. Is is different this in birds? franklin 22:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is particularly important for birds so that you can see the plumage. I guess this picture is supposed to be about "face and mouth detail", ie a portrait. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for that once or twice. My big difference is per Noodle Snacks, this guy another foot down is going to have basically the same coloration and such. Admittedly you get no tail detail here, but it provides significant information. Also, as Zoo mentions, more pics does tend to create higher standards. Staxringoldtalkcontribs16:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: you have a Sony α 350, which is a 14.2 megapixel. Assuming that you took the photographs for this panorama in landscape format and at full resolution, this means that the panorama could potentially be up to 3056 pixels high, albeit minus the content that is lost by the need to crop Hugin's output into a rectangular shape. The fact that this panorama is only 1360px high, coupled with the fact that its width is a round number (7500px), would suggest that you have significantly downsized this picture. I'm not opposed to this practice per se, but in this case it seems like the picture has been so heavily downsized that a lot of detail has been lost. The land beneath the summit of each hill, in particular, has a really odd texture to it. As is, this picture is not something that I would be willing to support. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the full one is 10000x1800. The crop looses quite a bit (as does a slight rotation). I can't see anything significant lost at all. As to the texture beneath the tors I am not clear what you mean. There is a covering in places of snow, dead bracken shows through in places as does other dead vegetation, there is a lot of broken rock in the area (it was extensively quarried) - might or might not explain stuff. Cheers --Herbytalk thyme12:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just mean that so much of the fine detail in this picture, such as the branches of the trees and of the ground on the hillside immediately beneath each tor, is of a very low resolution: to the extent that it's impossible to resolve the texture of the trees' branches, and to the extent that the hillside has an unnatural distorted texture to it. If this picture were larger then, assuming it were in focus etc, we might be able to resolve some of the fine details that I'm talking about. I realise that in some cases these fine details aren't particularly important to the EV/beauty of the picture, but in this case I don't find the composition to be particular striking either, so I'm afraid it's going to have to be Oppose. I'm surprised that you have had to crop so much out of the picture given its composition, but apologies if I jumped to the wrong conclusions: perhaps it might be worth thinking about getting a lens with a longer focal length, then doing panoramas which are two or three rows high. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Battle at Lanka, Ramayana by Sahibdin. It depicts monkey army of the protagonist Rama (top left, blue figure) fighting the demon-king of the king of Lanka, Ravana in order to save Rama's kidnapped wife Sita. The painting depicts multiple events in the battle against the three-headed demon general Trisiras, in bottom left - Trisiras is beheaded by the monkey-companion of Rama - Hanuman.
Reason
Very good quality and resolution. Also adds encyclopedic value to the article. Already a FP at commons.
Already a FP at a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (passed with 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral) and on the Turkish Wikipedia
Nothing similar to this genre in current FPs
Rather strange image as it is a depiction of the great climax war of the Hindu epic Ramayana (there are only 2 Hindu epics) by a Muslim artist Sahibdin from the Mewar school of Rajput painting
Note: Online ref to support that Trisiras or Trisira (lit. "three-headed") battled with Hanuman as described in chapter Yuddha Khanda of Ramayana by Valmiki. There is another Trisira in Ramayana killed by child Rama in Bala Khanda[6]. Another Trisiras exists in Hindu mythology. --RedtigerxyzTalk13:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Artist unknown, eh? Hmm. . . There aren't that many images of Schiller from life. I'd bet this is from a later drawing loosely based on the much-imitated 1794 bust by Heinrich Danneker (which was copied several times, with variations, by Danneker himself, before being mass-produced later on). Those busts mostly have the head inclined to the left (his left, that is) rather than the right, but they're unique in having the long, messy hair, as in this drawing, rather than what appears in the early paintings (as in our articles). Chick Bowen05:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I gave this a slight de-noise; detail is preserved, so although noise is not gone, it's at least better than it was. I uploaded over the top; the difference wasn't enough to warrant a separate upload, imo. Maedin\talk10:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To elaborate on my vote - the quality really detracts from the EV here. It's hard to make out what this face fan behavior is all about because of the noise and poor lighting. Makeemlighter (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Plague Column in the main square of the well-preserved medieval town of Kremnica, Slovaki. Built between 1765 and 1772, it is one of the last plague columns in the former Habsburg Empire.
Reason
Absolutely beautiful image found while cleaning out images with ambiguous file names. Has already been featured on the Polish Wikipedia. Nice resolution and very clear with excellent contrast. used on articles on at least six of our other Wikipedias. Also OK under Freedom of Panorama for this country.
Weak Oppose I know its not exactly the photographers fault, but there's a lot of shadows on this and I can't help feeling that there's detail missing in those shadows... Gazhiley (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tend to agree with Gazhiley. Taking the photo with minimal shadows might be a challenge, but it would show the detail that this image just does not. -- mcshadyplTC01:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too much sharpening and post-processing. At full resolution it looks like FDR's face has the texture of fuzzy suede. File:FDR_in_1933_edit.jpg, although not as sharp, seems far more accurate as far as skin texture, etc. Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have 3 or 4 versions of this image on Commons and they are all edited to hell, IMO. I would support an unedited cropped version of the original LOC file if people could be convinced not to mess with it. Durova might be able to work some magic on it, but I wouldn't trust anyone else with a restoration this difficult. Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose latest version. Huge areas of his face have just been wiped of all detail making it look really weird. BTW it's standard practice to add edits below each other like the noms just below this, not just keep swapping over the 'Original' with new edits (I think you've done this twice?). --jjron (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I think, for me, for this sort of subject to stand out enough to be FP it would need to be a series showing all of the stained glass in the church, as I assume there is a lot more that is not shown in this image. Perhaps something similar to this: File:Albert Memorial Friese Collage - May 2008-edit1.jpg. Obviously it's a very different subject, but that's my first impression when I see the image - I feel like it's a small fragment of the stained glass, and I want to see more of it, and perhaps more of the context of it. It's quite well done though, it's high res and (I assume) perspective corrected. Ðiliff«»(Talk)12:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Various Apache containers: baskets, bowls and jars. 1907. The women-made woven baskets could hold heavy loads and were made mainly from yucca or willow leaves and juniper bark.Edit 1
Comment It's a good photo and certainly has potential, but it could do with some cleaning up to remove the dust and fingerprints from the background and the scratches from the left-hand side. Time3000 (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a very quick dust removal on it - I won't vote on it since it's my own work. It could possibly do with a slight crop to get rid of the borders, but I haven't got time to get it perfect at the moment. Time3000 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, but the article makes no mention. How and of what material are they made? What are they used for? The article or the caption needs work imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good and referenced. Another problem though (sorry to nitpick) exactly what has been done during the restoration doesn't seem to be noted on the image page. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this old b&w photo have some advantage over a modern photo of present-day baskets or a modern photo of old baskets? I imagine that many museums have old Apache baskets in their collections. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Koala joeys will remain with their mother for another six months or so after leaving the pouch, riding on her back, and feeding on both milk and eucalypt leaves until weaning is complete at about 12 months of age
Nice shot - every considered it for here? Yeah I heard they can get very aggressive - especially if handled... The article seems to mention it under behaviour, and draws reference to political issues raised around this behaviour... I must admit though the two I got to hold in a zoo both seemed very dosile and quiet, but who knows if they were 100% compusmentus... They do sleep a lot though... Maybe they are the furry version of teenagers - sleep all day and get angry if disturbed! Gazhiley (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This iamge appears to be saved with the AdobeRGB colour profile. This is going to cause some problems for viewers. I actually only noticed when the preview on the image page had vastly different tones to the full sized image (I assume Imagemagick strips the profile metadata and assumes it's sRGB). To be entirely honest though, the preview image looks more natural than the full version with AdobeRGB which is a little too red hued IMO, and that is puzzling. Benjamint, you haven't shot it in AdobeRGB and then done your post-processing in software that doesn't recognise colour profiles, did you? ;-) Ðiliff«»(Talk)20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative 1assuming the colour profile issue is fixed. Very nice image, and extra EV for showing the mother/baby interaction too. Ðiliff«»(Talk)00:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was shot in RAW and then converted with ACR which would have applied AdobeRGB. I've uploaded a new version and tweaked the color balance very slightly.. I think it should all be correct now. Most past uploads should be fine since I had only begun using RAW at about that point :-) Benjamint00:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ACR only applies AdobeRGB if you tell it to. Best not to if your images are going to appear on the web. You can always go back to the RAW files and export an AdobeRGB version when you specifically need one, but yeah, keep the default as sRGB. Ðiliff«»(Talk)10:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one over at least one of the existing FP's, a delist-and-replace might be in order, or if this one passes a delist on one of the previous FP's might be in order. — raeky(talk | edits)12:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Burgan Ti-tree is a shrub growing widespread in Australia and New Zealand, particularly in coastal/scrub areasAlternativeFile:Ti-tree sprig3.jpgNot for voting Showing how is it anomalous the stem going to the very edge of the picture. A solution is this, a less unnatural is the one with the fingers.Alt2-fingers removed, scale provided
Reason
good quality close-up showing detail in leaves and nuts of plant with fingers for scale
Coment. Only the alternative image is in Kunzea. Also, didn't your mother tell you to clean your nails before taking a close-up photo of them? ;-) I suppose you're forgiven if you've been out messing with shrubs. Ðiliff«»(Talk)14:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original per nominator. I prefer the original for the fingers a more gentle presentation than only the white background and the cut at the bottom. Also give sense of a scale. franklin 21:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw them as the earth where the plant came from. The hands of a farmer. They help to center the plant without having to cut it with the frame. Although the plant is probably cut anyway (but let me keep that in secret) franklin 14:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support either with preference for the original. I don't find the fingers that distracting, although if the alternative is used, would prefer a scale. Ðiliff«»(Talk)12:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added an alt (Alt2) with the fingers removed and a scale added. To get the scale I assumed the finger nail to be of 1cm width. Is that an acceptable procedure? Can it be better computed from some metadata of the picture? franklin 14:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this new version is preferable, but the quality is still not ideal. I would instead Support the "Alternative" version but with a scale bar. -- mcshadyplTC18:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know how to put the same license as in the original. If someone knows how to go ahead. The image is going to be deleted after Friday 22 is that enough time for the nomination to finish? franklin 04:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --I appreciate the illustration, very intricate; enjoyed studying all of its features. To me, the crease adds character to the historical feel/value. --Neon Sky (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - its damage means it is not an accurate depiction of the banknote - the severe staining along the bottom could be misinterpreted as being part of the original design. (Maybe the stain could be edited out using photoshop?) Meowy22:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is it the obverse? Looks like the reverse to me - all the signature / date of issue / serial number / promise to pay the bearer stuff is normally on side we call the obverse. And it is cropped, it does not show the entire note: see http://www.atsnotes.com/shop-paper-money/russia-14.JPG
Weak Support Alt You replaced the alt image I added on Cologne with yours, I feel the alt is better composed and visually compelling so I put it here and voted for it. Weakly supporting it though because it's focus isn't entirely on the bridge and it's probably not the best vantage point for illustrating the bridge since it doesn't show it all. — raeky(talk | edits)11:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've gone and confused things by adding the alt (which was not nominated, nor is it in any articles currently), so I've changed the caption to state it is not for voting. You should probably adjust your vote too - either support or oppose the nominated image. However, I agree with you. They are both good images but I prefer the composition (with the focus more on the cathedral) in the Alt image, although the control of the highlights is superior in the nominated image. Ðiliff«»(Talk)12:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that, but the way it works here is that the image has to currently be in an article to quality as a candidate (the exception is usually when various edits of the original photo are presented for consideration in the nomination, not different images by different authors). If there is debate over which image should be used, the appropriate location for that debate is the article talk page, not here. Ðiliff«»(Talk)15:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware, but when i was looking where this image was used I noticed it was placed as the lead infobox image on Cologne and just put there before the nomination, so I looked at what was there before and I found the image it replaced to be likely better in my opinion. I sorta have an issue with putting a self-made image in the article lead replacing existing good images in the processes. But yea It should be brought up at Talk:Cologne. — raeky(talk | edits)20:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original on the basis of high EV for Cologne, as it presents three important buildings (including the Museum Ludwig on the left), and is more centered on the Cathedral. For the Hohenzollernbrücke article I would use the Alt as it is better focused on the bridge. Elekhh (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
high-quality image with good composition; not the best photo of the ship (that would probably be File:Uss arizona.jpg), but the only one that is large enough to qualify for FP. The angle this is taken from highlights one of the major differences of First World War capital ships from the same in the Second World War: the extremely low bridges. Compare the bridge on Arizona here to Nevada's in the Second World War.
Original - The pre-dreadnoughtbattleshipUSS New Jersey (BB-16) in 1918, near the end of the First World War. Note the camouflage scheme she has been painted with and the 8-inch guns mounted on top of the 12-inch turrets. This was an experiment only tried with the Kearsarge and Virginia classes, and was not repeated. Normal mountings were used on the following Connecticut class, while all American battleships after that utilized a superfiring arrangement.Edit 1 - Durova's compensation for the tilt.
Comment. Image is badly tilted (check the horizon). This can be fixed. While you're at it, is there a version where that mast/antenna or whatever is not clipped at the top? --jjron (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Crewmen of the dreadnoughtbattleshipUSS Texas (BB-35) pause for a little fun and a picture soon after they have returned from the European theater, 1918
I keep my vote. If the focus is then on the guns, the the crew members are distracting and take the focus off the guns (they provide some, be it limited EV with the ship). In addition, a side view of the guns would be a better angle. SpencerT♦Nominate!00:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, have to agree with the limited EV, seems kitschy rather than encyclopaedic. And also brings back creepy and unsettling memories of Cher in that filmclip. --jjron (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose, I've got to agree on the limited EV argument, plus the focus should be on either the guns or the crew, not both. I say this as one of two editors who have brought USS Texas (BB-35) up to GA/A and have a vested interest in the article on the ship here. -MBK00405:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The German battlecruiser Moltke at Hampton Roads, Virginia in 1912.
Reason
Previously nominated here, saw only support votes but was closed due to lack of reviewers (so please join in!). Time has passed, and Ed has nominated several ship-related images so I thought I'd give this another go! Already featured on the Turkish Wikipedia.
Original - The Château de Chenonceau castle , near the small village of Chenonceaux, in the Indre-et-Loire département of the Loire Valley in France. It was built on the site of an old mill on the River Cher, sometime before its first mention in writing in the 11th century.ALT1 - The Château de Chenonceau castle , near the small village of Chenonceaux, in the Indre-et-Loire département of the Loire Valley in France. It was built on the site of an old mill on the River Cher, sometime before its first mention in writing in the 11th century.
Reason
very detailed with a deep improvement of a high resolution image. EV value
Comment: ALT1 would be the one submitted to be voted on. The original was placed to show the difference between the original and this touched up version. CalmerWaters07:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Alt 1 Oppose Orig. The colour is better in Alt 1 but there is a massive loss of sharpness from the processing work - seen most clearly to left of picture - the trees and the bricks look like this is an oil painting almost... Unless its time for an eye test for me anyways! Gazhiley (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]