Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Solitude (talk | contribs) at 10:29, 16 September 2004 (→[[Media:Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg|Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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

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

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

  • Picture A. 7 in favour, none against. This deserves to be a featured picture.
  • Picture B. 4 in favour, 2 against. This one doesn't seem to have a consensus.

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

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


See also: Archive

How to add your nomination

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

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

Current nominations

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




Giant Isopod

Giant isopod brought up by the NOAA Ocean Explorer.
File:Giant isopod crop.jpg
A cropped version, centering creature and removing visually distracting elements

This picture got a lot of attention when the giant isopod article was on the Did You Know on the front page. It's absolutely adorable and fascinating. PD-US Gov't creation. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure adorable would be the first adjective that came to mind, but I =do= wonder if it might make a nice alternative to lobster on a seafood menu. This cropped image suits me better - what do others think? Denni☯ 00:14, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)


Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg

LG-118 Peacekeeper missile system being tested at the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.

This is PD-USGov, and it always sends chills up my spine. "The lines shown are the re-entry vehicles -- one Peacekeeper can hold up to 10 nuclear warheads, each with its own guidance system. Each warhead, were it armed with a nuclear payload, would carry with it the explosive power of twenty-five Hiroshima-sized weapons." I have always felt that these MIRV test pictures always look Biblical (though I am not religious). --Fastfission 16:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)-Fastfission 16:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Will support if a larger version is found, until then oppose for that reason. ed g2s • talk 18:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This image is already quite a bit larger than the minimum size (280px horiz) for a featured picture. Sure, I'd like a poster-sized one too, but this one is a fair nomination. Agree that there are religious overtones; believe it is known as "creating Hell on Earth." Denni☯ 00:20, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)
  • Support, really cool, I wish we had a bigger image though. -- Solitude 10:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


DNA labels.jpg

The chemical structure of DNA

I found our DNA article lacking a chemical diagram, so I created this in photoshop. It took a while, but I think it fills in the gap quite nicely.

  • Support. →Raul654 07:22, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 08:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. High quality work and fits perfectly in the DNA article. But I think it misses something to give it that special featured picture feel. -- Solitude 09:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. One suggestion: an important property of DNA is that adenine and thymine are connected by 2 hydrogene bonds, while cytosine and guanine are connected by 3 bonds (making C-G harder to break than A-T). It would be nice to show that; for reference, http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/582dnadoublehelix.html shows exactly which atoms interact with which. Schutz 10:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - very nice! Schutz has a great suggestion. --mav 07:37, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Red Sunset Panorama

A red sunset panorama

This photo captures the full splendour and colours of a red sunset. It almost looks like the hill is on fire. It is the feature picture on the sunset page.

  • Support. Self nomination. --Fir0002 08:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great colours. Markalexander100 09:25, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, beautiful. Fir0002, you mention it is a self-nomination. Did you indeed take the picture yourself? If so, could you license it under the GFDL please? Also then, a bit more info on the location and maybe the camera/settings would be appreciated. -- Solitude 11:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I did take the photo, of which I'm proud. Orignally when I uploaded it, I made it GFDL, someone must have changed it. Anyway, it was really a question of taking the photo. I have a pretty ordinarly digital camera, it was just the subject that was breath-taking. So the camera settings were just the cameras preset "nightshot mode". It was taken near my house Swifts Creek Australia. --Fir0002 00:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • This picture was uploaded (according to the image's revision history) by TakuyaMarata in spring of 2003 -- I guess I'm confused now. Fir, are you Taku under another name? If not, how did Taku get the photo from you? Sorry, just a bit puzzled. Jwrosenzweig 00:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Actually I'm pretty confused now as well. I 'm just fir0002. I have put up the image again, so hopefully, it will work good. TakuyaMarata do you have any idea whats happening?--Fir0002 00:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Jwrosenzweig, can you point me to where you found TakuyaMarata in the revision history? -- Solitude 07:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • This is getting really fishy. When I commented, Image:Sunset.jpg was displayed here. It has since been replaced by Image:Red_sunset02.jpg, which is identical (update -- this replacement was done by fir immediately after I made my comment -- why would he switch images and then claim he had no idea what I was talking about?). Sunset.jpg was uploaded by Taku in March 2003. Redsunset02.jpg was uploaded by Fir a week ago. This looks very suspicious to me, and I can't figure out why anyone would try and misrepresent a picture as theirs if it wasn't. Anyone have any idea what's going on? Oppose till we get this sorted out. Jwrosenzweig 15:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • Note: Fir also replaced sunset.jpg with Red_sunset02.jpg on Sunset on the 14th, according to Sunset's edit history. Sunset.jpg, which has been in sunset for over a year, it appears to me, now links nowhere except here (due to the text links). Jwrosenzweig 15:28, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
              • I am Taku and TakuyaMurata mentioned here. I am sorry but I cannot say more than I remember I uploaded a file. Was it the same as Red_sunset02.jpg, one taken by Fir0002. I don't know. I think I found a copyright-free image, so I just uploaded it. True, I should have left a note where I got it. I thought I did as I usually do but it appears I did not. Actually I just found that Image:Sunset_s.jpg contains sunset.jpg. The truth is that I uploaded back in 2003 a larger version of the picture displayed at Image:Sunset_s.jpg as sunset.jpg and was, without trace, replaced by shot by Fir0002. I don't know where the old one is gone. Anyway, I think, aside from dig into the mystery, what we do is just use Red_sunset02.jpg and delete sunset_s.jpg and sunset.jpg. I suspect there may have been a techical glitch; a developer might have presumed, when fixing files, that sunset.jpg was the same as Red_sunset02.jpg. Hope this will help. -- Taku 02:52, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
                • OK, to set the record straight. When I first upload the image, it was called sunset.jpeg After Wikipedia loaded up the "there is already an image with this name. I clicked back, and renamed the image to Red_sunset02.jpeg. Next day I went to the sunset page and added it to the bottom. NOT AS THE MAIN ONE. A couple of days later, I visited the sunset page. The sunset over the ocean was replaced with mine as the feature picture. What must have happened was when I uploaded the initial image, it replaced sunset.jpg. When I went to recommend it as a feature picture, I just went to the sunset page and got the image filename from there. That is why the image i first put on the features page was sunset.jpg. But when all this stuff started up and everyone was questioning my authenticy, I put up the Red_sunset picture. I admit it was stupid to replace the sunset.jpg on the sunset page - leading to false conclusions being drawn, but I thought that it would be bad to put up a feature article without it being on a page. At that time the new "pictures" category wasn't in the sunset page, and it looked pretty good where it was anyway. I sincerly hope everyone believes me, and that this whole issue is resolve. I took the photo. Really. I can upload the orginal with the camera info and all that in the EXIF data if anyone still disbelieves me. --Fir0002 04:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
                • Jwrosenzweig, I just thought of a good idea to prove that I am the photographer, of the photo. When I get back from school today, I'll take a picture of the exact spot where I took the photo, upload it and provide a link.--Fir0002 04:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
                • Jwrosenzweig click on Media:Hill_where_sunset_pix_was_t.jpg to see the place where i took the sunset photo. Also i just checked the EXIF info on the original photo, and it was taken in April 2004, I could upload that aswell if you still doubt me. --Fir0002 06:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
                  • Well I think something just went wrong in uploading your sunset over the previous one. This one is clearly shot by you and we can leave it at that. Let's get on with the voting. -- Solitude 07:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Prisonblues 16:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 04:39, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Oska 08:11, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Joey in pouch

Joey (baby kangaroo) in its mother's pouch.

An image of a very tiny baby kangaroo feeding in its mother's pouch. Looks quite impressive to me, especially since the little joey is at the same stage of development than a 7 weeks human embryo. I uploaded the picture but didn't take it. The licence is not free, but should be close enough (only requires attribution) The image is licenced under the GFDL. Schutz 02:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Just for the record, the old license was BSD-style. These are free - even freer than the GFDL) →Raul654 01:41, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC))

I was going to mention that, but the old licence was talking about "reuse", and I wasn't sure if this covers modification. In any case, I'll mention that it can be used under both licences. Schutz 01:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It might have been free to use, but specific attribution is a big price to pay. Good work on getting it under the GFDL license. -- Solitude 09:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Good photo, shame about the licence - Gaz 12:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I've found the author email address and will ask him if the image can be relicensed. Schutz 12:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • The author has agreed to release the image under the GFDL. Schutz 22:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. But ONLY on a proper license. Heartwarming and quite impressive. -- Solitude 13:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously. Schutz 10:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It looks sickening. I don't want to see it in the featured pictures list.-Hapsiainen 12:40, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not that squeamish - but this makes my stomach turn. ed g2s • talk 13:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Remember guys - ye looked something like that once! (except not in a pouch). JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 15:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. That this little guy even makes it here is one of Nature's most awesome accomplishments. Denni☯ 00:02, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)
  • Support. Markalexander100 03:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


St Helens from Monitor Ridge

A composite image of St Helens before and after the May 18, 1980 eruption
featherd version

Excellent combination of Wikipidian talent and US federal government PD archives by Maveric149 used in 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens.

  • Nominated by Bevo 16:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Pretty ragged bottom edge. I'm thinking a 20px feather would do wonders for this picture. Denni☯ 01:47, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice photo. Have added a feathered version (is there enough?)--Fir0002 08:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Well done Mav! - This one is good for at least 2000 to 3000 words (feathered version) - Gaz 12:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd like to see the "before and after the explosion" comparison pics closer together, they're separated by a couple of screen widths on my 1024 by 768 monitor - Adrian Pingstone 12:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support --Chris 73 Talk 04:40, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • I just noticed this nomination. :) I really like how the feathered version looks and will do that to the tiff version of the image soon and upload the result. The small photos are where they are only because there isn't any room for them anywhere else. The 550px wide thumbnail in the article is what really counts and all three images can be seen even on a 800x600 screen. --mav21:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Erhard's Wall Lizard

Erhard's Wall Lizard in Santorini

Both its colours and arrangement are not dull, and it has message unlike a cute dog pic. And remember it is hard to arrange a lizard, I have taken some dislocated pictures, too...- Hapsiainen 22:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose this version -- You need to photoshop the bottle out, but what to replace it with? Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The bottle is intentional. Read the image description page -Hapsiainen 22:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • But it doesn't look good! Have you a bigger version? Crop it so the lizard is in the middle of the picture, and perhaps his tail which he's obviously shed running away from something hits the edge of the screen so we can imagine the rest (a short-tailed version would be good to explain how these critters do lose their tails). And then take out the bottle, (perhaps a bit more rock?) Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) It's all in an L shape, and a natural object lizard contrast and a draw the eye outwards both ways. Even if the bottle is intentional, my immediate thought is that it's just a snapshot which happened to have the bottle in the background which you couldn't move for fear of scaring the lizard. Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ouch! What happened to his tail? I think a properly illustrative picture should show a whole lizard. Mackerm 22:44, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Wall lizard can drop its tail or a part of its tail when attacked. It illustrates that. -Hapsiainen 09:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If the picture were illustrating an article on lizards and litter, the bottle would be perfect. But it doesn't add anything to a picture illustrating an article on lizards. Markalexander100 00:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Plastic bottle and cut tail ruin the picture. --Cantus 03:55, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This picture can make a statement about a lizard or a statement about litter. It cannot do both effectively. Denni☯ 04:17, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC
  • Oppose. Poor focus. Pic is OK for an article but not as a Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 08:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Get glasses my friend. --Cantus 10:51, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC
Too late, have a look at User:Arpingstone - Adrian Pingstone 13:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm with Denni - Gaz 11:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a picture of a Lizard, but it makes a great picture for the Litter article. Norm 12:42, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Cantus --Fir0002 08:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Isle of Man Railway

File:Brsince78 iomsr2.jpg
Isle of Man Railway

This is one I requested from http://www.brsince78.co.uk and is a good shot. The loco is a "Manx Peacock" very characteristic of the 3" gauge line. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Poor focus - Adrian Pingstone 08:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    See above. --Cantus 10:50, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I especially like the perspective created by the tracks. The tree makes the sky look less grey. -Hapsiainen 10:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just not quite up there technically - Gaz 11:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


High Speed Train

File:Brsince78 photo 2444.jpg
High Speed Train

Another from http://www.brsince78.co.uk, nice sunny day, two modes of transport. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

further note; I think that this is more than a basic snapshot (that's why I chose to ask to have it), it is from below, the Intercity 125 is shown nicely. It's balanced, there are two lines across the photo, one along the canal and one along the railway line. You have the tranquility of the canal compared with the speed and noise of the power car. Compare with other snapshots, e.g. http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=+site:mercurio.iet.unipi.it+HST
  • Oppose. Nothing too sensational about this picture. --Cantus 04:00, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with the picture, except that it's yer basic snapshot. This has few if any of the requirements for featured picture status. Denni☯ 04:24, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see nothing to feature here - Gaz 11:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


fMRI scan

fMRI scan
fMRI scan

I don't have a clue if this qualifies as a featured picture, so I just nominate it here and let you guys decide. It is pretty unique in my opinion. --Conti|✉ 20:17, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • Perhaps slow down the animation, remove the vitamin pill, and pause for a little longer at the end of each cycle? Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:21, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. We've had animations as feature pictures before (traffic thing I think). ed g2s • talk 00:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. While this would not translate well to a paper Wiki, this is not a paper Wiki. This kind of illustration demonstrates the real strength of a computer-based encyclopedia. Denni☯ 04:21, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
  • Support. The pill doesn't worry me: it's part of real-life MRI. Reverence the cheese-like brain. Markalexander100 05:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - A wonderful example of a picture telling a thousand words - Gaz 11:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It would be even neater with a side view of the skull next to it showing the scan progress, though. Fredrik | talk 13:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not voting, for obvious reasons, but I just wanted to say that I originally just made this for my User page and so it isn't done with any particular attention to detail, file size, or anything else. I do, however, have the original source files it was created from and so if anybody had any suggestions for a new version (such as putting another angle side by side, or changing the colors, or whatever) it would be not difficult to implement that (just some monkeying with ImageReady and the source file). The source files allow me to render my brain either as slices (such as this one) along any axis, or to render it in 3-D. For examples, see User:Fastfission/Brains. If anybody wants to monkey with the source file (30MB) and MRIcro, you can also contact me via my talk page and maybe I can send it to you. I'm glad you all like the brain, getting it was really a pain in the neck, somewhat literally (as part of an experiment involving transcranial magnetic stimulation, ow!). :-) --Fastfission 15:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow! Neat. Support. --mav 18:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support only if you can find an animation displaying the full (head to toes) body. --Cantus 21:06, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice anim --Fir0002 08:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


4 bit counter.jpg

File:4 bit counter.jpg
The circuit diagram for a 4 bit TTL counter, a type of state machine

A little something I whipped up as an example for finite state machine and Circuit diagram. →Raul654 19:27, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • Well... no. I don't understand a thing; lots of numbers and names without explanation. For Circuit diagram, we should best just use a made-up diagram to illustrate clearly how components and circuits are represented. Finite state machine is not really written in a language I speak, so I can't judge it fairly. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 19:37, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The numbers below the chips are the chip numbers - you have to know it if you want to know what they do (IE, find the truth table), or if you wanted to buy them. In this case, 74LS107 is a JK flip-flop. The numbers next to each wire is the pin number on the chip. →Raul654 19:42, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose. It's a very nice circuit diagram, but with no electronics background (me and what other percent of readers), this is just "whaaaa?" A featured picture should be accessible to all. Denni☯ 04:28, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd prefer a more interesting example of a circuit diagram like the one at http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/Radio/ZenithCircuit.html - I don't know if we can get the right to publish that exact one, but let it stand as an example of the alternative to thinline diagrams like the one nominated here - Bevo 21:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Same reasons as Denni. Nothing much to look at --Fir0002 08:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not that interesting, not accessible. -- Solitude 12:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Ribblehead Viaduct

Ribblehead Viaduct
Adjusted for brightness and contrast

Just sortof wondered what this needed doing to it. I just cut out a lot of sky. Wilderness and Victorian engineering? Maybe the light is a bit wrong, but the evening light highlights the arches well. Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:17, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, it's very dark. I know it's grim up north, but I don't think it has to be that grim. I'd adjust the contrast and brightness to make it less murky. I do like the arches, though. Markalexander100 05:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The bridge is mainly in the shadow which ruins it for me. Nice but not featured. The image should have been taken of the other (sunny) side or at another time of the day. Now if I could only move the sun around whenever I take a picture... Janderk 16:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (the adjusted one). Nice. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:37, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose both too dark and too small. It's not necessary to include the entire aqueduct; getting a lot closer so as to give some appreciation of the finer points of the structure would result in a much more interesting photo. Denni☯ 18:23, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)


Sombrero Galaxy M104

File:M104 ngc4594 sombrero galaxy.jpg
Messier Object 104, the Sombrero Galaxy

Used on Sombrero Galaxy M104; created by NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA). —Joseph | Talk 23:07, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Nominated by Joseph Dwayne
    • Joseph, per your concerns about the process of nomination: just fill in what you want to create a nomination, someone else will add the rest of the structure. - Bevo 01:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Bevo 01:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. BTW, Joseph, Jesus (your son?) does not use templates, and he's nominated several pictures her with no significant difficulty. Might come with being omnipotent, I dunno, but calm down, lad. Denni☯ 01:43, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
  • Support. Markalexander100 05:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, since I added it.  :) Neurophyre 01:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. And you want me to believe that this is a real photo? As in not created by an artist in photoshop? Wow. Janderk 16:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 03:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Lake Fryxell

File:Lake Fryxell.jpg
Added more sky as per Ludraman's request, couldn't find any good cloud photos to add that would work well. Raises same arguments as before about editing images. Original can be found here, didn't know how to make a thumbnail of it though.

YAAPFTFG - Yet another awesome picture from the federal government. It's just a shame there's no decent article to feature it in. (Here's the original) -- Prisonblues 17:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support either. -- Prisonblues 17:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support either. This might also fit the Brine article. - Bevo 21:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --AllyUnion 02:59, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Support original version only. Why is "more sky" necessary to make the picture better? I don't think it's necessary. --AllyUnion 08:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --huwr 06:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. - needs more sky. Support as is now. For those wondering why I wanted more sky, I felt that the picture needed sky not because I'm a sky-lover or anything but the pic looked unbalanced and strange being cropped just after the top of the mountain as if height cost extra. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 08:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Added more sky, couldn't find a good (free) cloud photo to add though. Thoughts? -- Prisonblues 12:19, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • The edits to the image just don't work for me. The "sky" shows some sort of strange image banding artifacts while rendering (although it seems that after it paints completely they are not visible), and as you point out, the original's cloud is missing. The highlight of the image is the ice, not the sky, so I don't see the need to add more sky. - Bevo 14:24, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support modified version [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 16:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Gorgeous. Hopefully it will inspire an article to do it justice. Davodd 23:28, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support version with more sky. Nice. (forgot my tag again) Janderk 22:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 03:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Emperor Penguins

Emperor Penguins

Another superb photo from the federal government. Very striking colours. - ed g2s • talk 23:19, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. ed g2s • talk 23:19, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Awesome pic. --Cantus 06:36, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --AllyUnion 08:52, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I wonder what's on their mind... -- Solitude 12:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --huwr 06:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Norm 10:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Autiger 14:50, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A properly illustrative picture would show the whole penguin. Mackerm 05:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - Bevo 14:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 03:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Antarctica satellite globe

A satellite composite image of Antarctica

Lovely and informative stuff from the US federal government. - Markalexander100 08:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. - Bevo 08:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A beautiful photo - Adrian Pingstone 09:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 17:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very very nice. Would be nice to have a link to the original one though. Janderk 22:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Clean pictures of Antarctica are not easy to come by. Denni☯ 01:06, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm usually quite reticent to support PD works, but this certainly qualifies - Gaz 12:15, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:17, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: it really ought to have a link to the original. Also, I'm pretty sure its false colour (doesn't rule it out of course, but ought to be noted) (William M. Connolley 22:34, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
  • Support on the condition that a link to the image source is added. I've put a request on User talk:Cantus for this information as they were the original uploader of the image. Oska 06:15, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Added. --Cantus 06:36, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • Appreciated. I found it interesting to read how the image was obtained through a polar transform. Oska 21:01, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
        • Especially as the image would have been originally taken from (probably) directly above the Antarctic, then converted to rectangular formats by NASA (along with, I'm sure, a load of other filters), then converted back to polar coordinates by Cantus -- Prisonblues 21:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Cantus 06:36, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. That's amazing. -- Prisonblues 21:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --huwr 06:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


ChessSet.jpg

ChessSet.jpg

Nice picture, from Alan Light (user:Alight). Used on chess. -spencer195 05:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Chmouel 07:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comments: I see a distinct "lean" to the left. That piece of lint on the board is distracting. I like this idea for image content for the Chess article, but I think better lighting and background would make it more of a candidate for a FP. - Bevo 15:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cheap plastic chess pieces are not what the great game of chess deserves. Plus the picture is far from sharp which is most obvious in the left bottom corner. It is probably taken without tripod at high aperture value. That and the lean to the left. Janderk 23:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cheap plastic pieces, lean, unfocused, poorly chosen pieces (I think the photo should have been either of a game in progress or the starting positions) Generally speaking, this photo isn't very good. --Fir0002 23:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    No, we've pictures of starting positions and other positions, all are too messy to make a good top illutstration of Chess. A picture composed something like this is just what makes a good illustration of Chess. Comment on picture: Support, adds a lot to the article. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 10:31, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    Unfocused? Seriously? This photo is pretty sharp. It has a very low depth of field - which gives it a nice look. Apart from the slight lean, Support. ed g2s • talk 20:16, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think the molding seam on the bishop makes me cringe the most - Gaz 11:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Thousands upon thousands of variations of chess sets, and you pick this one for a featured picture candidate? --AllyUnion 08:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I had the exact same feeling as Gaz, that's just awful. -- Solitude 12:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- perhaps the rest of you are well-off enough to afford fancy chess pieces, but this is the look I associate with the actual game. More expensive pieces, in my experience, are almost invariably so stylized that they would give an unrepresentative image of the game. The picture is clear, somewhat striking, and definitely a good choice for Chess. And frankly, even if you don't think it should be featured, I think calling it "awful" is hyperbole. I'd welcome a better picture, but I think this one very fine. Jwrosenzweig 21:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Heh, I was actually referring to the seam on the bishop, trying to describe the feeling Gaz experienced as well. The picture as a whole is defenitely not awful but not FP-level to me. -- Solitude 23:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Chess set looks too cheap and nasty, they don't sit on the board square, either. --huwr 06:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - composition and lighting are nice, but the Bishop looks obviously made of plastic. --StoatBringer 22:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Bikini

Bikini
File:Bikini-Ericd.jpg
My version - Ericd

Very nice picture. Eric B. and Rakim 23:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) And the big deal is that there are many bikini images but not many as stunning as this one and FREE (no copright issues at all). I wonder who the girl is. I hope she will marry me. Ericd's one is even better! Eric B. and Rakim 23:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Nothing special about this image; there must be a million more which are practically identical. Plus, does wearing a bikini too much really make palm trees grow out of your head? Lupin 23:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A girl in a bikini doen't make a big deal for some peoples. Chmouel
  • Oppose : Except if someone can keep the girl and get rid of the background :-) 00:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) Ericd 00:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support my own version. I don't think this vote is valid. Ericd 21:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nicely focused, nicely lit and quite striking (the version without the palm trees) - Adrian Pingstone 09:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Like Lupin says, out of the gazillion bikini images and this one is quite mediocre. A bikini image on wikipedia should be classy. Something you won't get in front of an old garden hose and cheap apartment complex. --Janderk 22:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • She's classy... She just needs to model for a better photographer... Like me for instance ;-) Ericd 23:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Brings down the tone of Wikipedia. It will make people pause, a question Wikipedia as a reliable source. --Fir0002 23:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Janderk is spot on. -- Prisonblues 10:16, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The Bikini needs a photo like this, but to be featured here I would expect at least a beach. - Gaz 11:51, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - gives justification to the so called "fact" that women are simply objects to be owned and lusted after - we don't need that opinion anywhere - let alone here. Selphie 12:28, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) *
  • oppose. A tad too sleazy, and also agree with Janderk . How about Image:Beach Towel (occupied).jpg instead? -- Chris 73 Talk 14:19, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Article woould be better with a better picture of the designer responsible for the name - like this: http://www.bikiniatoll.com/louisreard.jpg - Davodd 22:02, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Although you did a good job of removing the palm that was growing out of her head. Davodd 21:00, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Inappropriate licentious look in model's face. --Cantus 06:41, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose --huwr 06:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but good gods, folks, get a grip! Some of the reactions here are like this image had been taken from the pages of Hustler (or whatever occupies the top skin mag spot these days). This is a woman in a bikini. This is less "licentious and lewd" (if that's how your mind works) than you can see on most European beaches. "Objectifying women"? You MUST be kidding. ("Objectifying" this woman would be using her as a flowerpot for the palm tree. Nice job of removal.)
    • Please sign your posts with four tildes. It is not the bikini what people are fussing about, it is the expression on the woman's face which is the very opposite of stylish, it is not natural, and is not what I see here on our beaches. -- Solitude 02:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Fractal Broccoli

Fractal Broccoli

Great image to illustrate the featured article fractal. Public domain source, name of photographer unknown. Uploaded by me. - Chris 73 Talk 08:56, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support (nominator)- Chris 73 Talk 08:56, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Martin123 09:42, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fixed some brown discolorations on tips of broccoli. --Fir0002 10:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Is this image "beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant"? No. Object. Denni☯ 23:22, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful, striking, impressive, just brilliant — absolutely. Markalexander100 03:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very much so. — David Remahl 05:02, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Yum! Broccoli. --Aqua 06:59, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Highly striking pic - Adrian Pingstone 07:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Striking - Gaz 12:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose, because it was edited. Lorax 13:23, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Striking and informative. Support. James F. (talk) 14:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the finest examples of a natural fractal I've seen, and excellently captured, too. Fredrik | talk 17:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've eaten one of those; they are more interesting than tasty. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 18:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Seen some fractal broccoli and cauliflowers but none as striking as this. I wonder if it was bred for its fractal display? Also like to commend Chris for the excellent work he does in digging up photos for articles, this being just one example. Oska 22:28, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • hey, thanks! Contributed 500+ images to wikipedia so far ;-) -- Chris 73 Talk 14:22, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's just a shame the bottom has been cropped. -- Prisonblues 11:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Cropping addressed with a quick paint job. Fredrik | talk 22:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Damn, that's impressive work Fredik. -- Prisonblues 01:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree on the cropping. There are some brown spots too, which you wouldn't see in a professional image. Still very good though. Janderk 23:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I think Fir0002 fixed those. Did you try CTRL-Reload? -- Chris 73 Talk 14:22, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Striking, and a very clear example of fractals in nature. Neurophyre 01:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Absolutely fantastic. -- Tlotoxl 16:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Cross on Mount Royal, Montreal

Cross on Mount Royal, Montreal

Created by Aarchiba. I like the gradation of the night sky behind the cross and the contrast between the bright illumination and the silhouette. - Montréalais 03:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Not terribly stunning, and not terribly sharp. Lupin 03:50, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Larger version is not sharp enough to be a Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 09:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Pretty ordinary photo. Not sharp --Fir0002 10:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The image quality of the larger photo looks pretty bad. --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 06:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Ok on its own page, but not "featured" material - Gaz 12:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Another normal photo. -- Prisonblues 11:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (not that it'll do much now :-) Nice angle and gradient of light. LUDRAMAN | T 18:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Sarajevo valley at dusk

File:SarajevoValley.jpg
Sarajevo Valley at Dusk

An excellent picture of the city at night.

  • Support. Self Nomination - Asim Led 01:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too low resolution and much too restrictive license. Otherwise a nice image. — David Remahl 01:15, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic photo. Too bad about the license --Fir0002 06:36, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Could be any urban valley at dusk. I like that it appears so calm, considering where it is, but that does not improve its value as a photo. Denni☯ 23:25, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see nothing to feature here - Gaz 12:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The landscape looks like mishmash. -Hapsiainen 10:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Polyphemus moth

File:Polyphemus moth cut out.jpg
Polyphemus moth - Black background
Polyphemus moth - Transparent background

I nominate this moth, because I think it exceedingly handsome and having very striking colors.

  • Support. Self Nomination --Fir0002 09:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I support black background version only. JediMaster16 14:00, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I would support a white background version.--Eloquence*
    • Comment. I have replaced the original photo with one with a white background.--Fir0002 06:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support either version, slight preference for black background. -- Chris 73 Talk 07:39, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. White Background. --Martin123 09:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support both (although the black background for some reason seems better)...what software makes this "backgrounding effect" possible? - Bevo 14:36, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment, I cut the image from its background in Photoshop --Fir0002 09:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support black background. Denni☯ 23:27, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
  • Support - (black) - Gaz 12:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support either version, slight preference for the white. It's a shame jpg's can't have transparency. -- Prisonblues 11:34, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment. I have replaced the white version with a PNG file which has transparency. The white is now transparent. --Fir0002 00:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but it's now 10 times larger, and nearly a megabyte in size. -- Prisonblues 10:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Would you rather I restored the white background? --Fir0002 22:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support either, preference for black background. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, black version. -- Solitude 09:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Lioness face close-up, lying down.jpg

File:Lioness face close-up, lying down.jpg
Lioness face close-up, lying down

Stunning picture. →Raul654 09:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. →Raul654 09:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Featured pictures of wild animals should be taken in their natural habitat. Not in a zoo, a cage or an aquarium. While the lion is perfect, the background is as unnatural as it gets. The same picture with an African Savanna as background would be a clear winner. Janderk 09:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree that the unnatural background kills the pic - Adrian Pingstone 12:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Could be used to illustrate animals in captivity. I added it to Zoo. I agree that he images on Lion should depict the animal in its natural habitat, but there are cases when a constructed environment is at least as good, if not better, for illustration in an encyclopedia. — David Remahl 14:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I just had almost done the same thing (ie putting the image on the zoo page ) but decided not to, as a zoo image should have a bunch of happy kids standing outside a fence pointing at the giraffes or lions. This image has no bars and no fences and no visitors that are typical of a zoo. However, it is probably better than nothing. Janderk 14:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, I think Zoo should have several pictures. One like you describe, one with the lion on the unnatural background, and one showing animals in near-natural environment. Next time I go to a zoo, I'll bring a camera. Several POVs should be represented in the pictures as well. — David Remahl 14:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • David, you've missed the point. We are not discussing if this is merely a good pic for WP, the brief for this page is images and charts that we find beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant. I don't think this pic is any of those - Adrian Pingstone 15:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • I tend to put more weight on the add significantly to Wikipedia part of the page description. Further more, in my opinion, this image is both beautiful, striking and fascinating. YMMV. — David Remahl 16:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • I agree with you David, the picture is pretty good (admiting the background is poor) and I whole-heartedly subscribe to your outlook on this page. It is the photos that pass through the nomination stage that really need to be aboslutely perfect --Fir0002 09:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Although background is unnatural, still a great pic. JediMaster16 14:03, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Simply a 'cute' pic. Wikipedia is not Disneyland. Oska 05:13, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The bench destroys any greatness this picture might have had. Denni☯ 23:30, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
  • Oppose - OK, but not "featured" material - Gaz 13:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A Zoo is not all "shiny and happy people", the negative impact Zoo's can have on animals is captured well by this image. If I was a lioness behind bars, I'd be looking like this. -- Solitude 09:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


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

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



Nomination for removal

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=5920927"