Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates
| Featured article (FA) tools |
|---|
|
Wikipedia:Featured pictures is a list of images and diagrams that are beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant (see also Wikipedia:Featured articles). Taking the common saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article. If you believe that you have found or created an image that matches these expectations then please add it below into the Current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image that currently exists in the Wikipedia:Featured pictures gallery should not be there, the Nomination for removal section of this page can be used to nominate it for delisting.
For delisting, this page is similar to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.
For listing, 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, 2 against. This deserves to be a featured picture and would be added to Wikipedia:Featured pictures and Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible as well as the current archive.
- Picture B. 4 in favour, 2 against. This one doesn't have a consensus and gets added only to the current archive.
The archive contains all votes and comments collected on this page and also vote tabulations.
Also, be sure to sign (with date/time) your nomination ("~~~~" in the editor).
When the time comes to move an image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures make sure you also add it to Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible.
How to add your nomination
If you have problems formatting your nomination, someone else will fix it, don't worry! However, you may find it useful to copy this form and paste it in the edit box:
<br style="clear:both;" />
===[[Media:name.jpg|Name of image]]===
[[Image:FILENAME|thumb|CAPTION]]
Add your reasons for nominating it here,
say what article it is used on and who created the image. - ~~~~
* Votes go here - ~~~~
* And here - ~~~~
Once you have nominated the picture, use the Wikipedia template for featured picture candidates on the correspondent image page.
Current nominations
Please add all nominations and self-nominations to the top of this list.
Beautiful photo showing the halo around the sun perfectly. It also is a good photo for the South Pole, demonstrating the exploration, and natural beauty. Only bad thing is that it is PD not GFDL, but you cant have everything.
- Support. --Fir0002 06:11, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Cool pic, and I don't mind PD. Slightly rotated and bigger would be even better, but this one is good enough for me to be a featured one. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:19, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Support William M. Connolley 09:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC).
- Support. Markalexander100 09:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Dramatic, and an excellent illustration of all the main features of an ice crystal halo. -- Solipsist 15:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - FanFtastic! Not only does it demonstrate the major refractory phenomena, but the composition is Right On!! Denni☯ 02:02, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
Eggs where they are supposed to be, in a nest and not on battery farms. Free range eggs on a farm.
- Support. Self Nomination --Fir0002 10:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. While I like the idea and admire the quality, I think the picture is missing the most important subject, the chicken! -- Solitude 12:07, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. I thought about that, but it was either like the photo is now, or having a chicken sitting in the straw. Being free range chickens, they aren't dopey and they certainly wont stick around to get a photo taken after laying an egg. All three (eggs, box and chicken) was an impossibility. --Fir0002 23:44, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Can you take a picture of her on the nest while she's laying and leave an egg near her?
- Comment. I thought about that, but it was either like the photo is now, or having a chicken sitting in the straw. Being free range chickens, they aren't dopey and they certainly wont stick around to get a photo taken after laying an egg. All three (eggs, box and chicken) was an impossibility. --Fir0002 23:44, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good to me. Some more info on the image page (e.g. Photographer) would be useful -- Chris 73 Talk 14:25, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose: the box looks very out of place. Chicken near eggs would be good for me. Markalexander100 01:47, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Its just too boring (sorry) William M. Connolley 09:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC).
- Oppose; too staged, and unnatural unless you find me a hen that lays multi-colored eggs. Davodd 02:22, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
A better doggy action photo. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Colors feel faded, and the background distracts. Happy dog, though. -- Chris 73 Talk 14:23, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose ditto) (William M. Connolley 09:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC).
- Oppose. Oska 02:23, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
OK, now I'm trying to find a dog photo that's excellent photography and not merely an encyclopedic image of a dog. I like this one; shows action with the dogs heading out into the picture for an adventure. Taken by User:jimhutchins and used in Australian Cattle Dog.
- Nominated. Elf | Talk 00:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The dogs are only a small section of a rather small image, and there is not enough detail about the dogs. While they are caught nicely in the act, i think it is not quite feature material. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:02, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too small image, especially for a feature. Also agree with Chris in that the dogs do not make up much of the image. --Fir0002 10:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too small and not even that great. -- Solitude 12:05, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Ditto William M. Connolley 09:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC).
- Oppose. Oska 02:25, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
If you can handle another dog photo, I also like this used in English Cocker Spaniel; face is alive and happy. - Elf | Talk 00:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Self-nom. Elf | Talk 00:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Good colors, nice background, good posture. Do you have this also in a larger resolution? -- Chris 73 Talk 01:00, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Done--but I didn't compress at all so its file size is huge. Elf | Talk 04:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I compressed it a little bit and uploaded it over the first picture Image:EnglishCockerSpaniel wb.jpg. Maybe we can delete Image:EngCockerSmileBigger.jpg now since we don't need to have two identical photos? -- Chris 73 Talk 09:04, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Done--but I didn't compress at all so its file size is huge. Elf | Talk 04:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Great photo. Cant say that I particularly like the English Cocker Spaniel breed, but I like this photo. --Fir0002 11:03, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry but I think this is really boring, I'm much more interested in a dog photo with some action, like presented above. -- Solitude 12:09, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. If I'm going to support a doggy photo, this one looks like the best choice. Despite being sharper, it doesn't beat Spot Fetcher, but it's close. -- Solipsist 00:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I love it :) →Raul654 00:29, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 01:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. (But no more dog nominations, please!) Markalexander100 01:49, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- A better job of Getting Down to the Pet's Level, but still not a reined-in-enough photo. This picture ought to have been taken after the commands "sit" and "look pretty". Regrettably, Oppose. Denni☯ 02:04, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
- Oppose. Remember the criteria for a Featured Picture: beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant. This is none of these and there is a better dog picture already posted—sorry. NickP 04:53, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
I find the curves mesmerizing. Used on scanning electron microscope and taken by me for my thesis so this is a self nomination.Pschemp 02:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very good image. Could you also add more detail about what type of fiber (Ribbed?) and maybe add it to the appropriate "fiber" article if possible -- Chris 73 Talk 02:25, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Note: I reverted to your earlier, larger version. The pixels you got was the old small image in your cache sized up to the size of the large image. Next time try CTRL + reload for Internet explorer or just reload for Firefox/Mozilla -- Chris 73 Talk 02:28, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Oh thanks so much, I was very confused by the pixels. I'll just blame Mozilla :) I added detail too. Pschemp 02:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Again one of those images that makes you curious. Janderk 11:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I've seen more striking SEM images. Simon A. 14:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 15:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support Lorax 00:52, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm not too fond of this image, I was going to vote support for being a very useful illustration to a SEM article, but I think Image:Ant SEM.jpg is doing a better job there already. -- Solitude 12:14, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment - BUT you can see an anthead with the naked eye. You can't see this because its only 40 nanometers across.Pschemp 18:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. This image is very striking and has a lot of depth. I also like the fact that it is Black and White. cats_rule Cats rule 20:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Just not very interesting in itself William M. Connolley 09:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC).
- Oppose. Concept of image ≠ image. This looks like a bottle of poorly-packed tube worms. To the uninformed, it is huhville?. Especially in B&W. Denni☯ 01:59, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
Very striking, nicely composed. Used on Ant and attributed to Scott Bauer from the USDA (PD), uploaded by User:Ellmist.
- Nominate. (just too bad it wasn't taken by a wikipedian) -- Tlotoxl 20:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Mr. Bauer has a superb eye. Oh, and ouch! Denni☯ 23:11, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
- Support. I like this photo, but I didn't like the grainyness of the background so I have tried to fix it. --Fir0002 11:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Great job of smoothing the background! - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 13:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Really capures your attention, glad we don't have 'em over here. Nice work on the background Fir. -- Solitude 12:19, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Support Fire ants02.jpg - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 13:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 15:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A very large cloud formation with other smaller formations in the background. The 'whipped cream' look is captured pretty well IMO.
- Support. Self Nomination. --Fir0002 06:40, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I like the photo, but I think it needs some clone tool work to get rid of the dust/specs(sp?), and some color adjusting. Ivan 07:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment have tried to fix those problems. I took the original on film, so the scanning detracted from the quality of the image --Fir0002 09:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: would support if the meteorological conditions were explained. The clouds are very striking. Its odd that the wave cloud is in the foreground - I would expect it to be high. (William M. Connolley 12:33, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
- Comment. um.. Meteorological conditions? I just pointed the camera and took the photo. It was a warm summer day, hardly any other clouds about, and I didn't think to do much other testing. --Fir0002 11:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Oska 02:29, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
From Imperial guardian lion and Forbidden City, photo by User:Allentchang. Very striking and definitely enriches the articles, particularly the first one. My only very minor complaint would be the person in the background, but this is hard to avoid in tourist places.--Eloquence* 04:11, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Good photo. --Fir0002 09:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - distracting elements (man in bg, fence in fg) - this is a good snapshot, lacking the flair to make me gasp the word "brilliant" - Gaz 14:09, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- 1.2 billion people in China, and one of them has the audacity to show up in this photo - we can sort that :-). Not sure I would want to tackle the fence post though. -- Solipsist 14:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support Forbbiden_City3.JPG - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 23:58, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose any version with a misspelt filename. ;) Markalexander100 08:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor and cluttered composition. Good for article, bad for featured pic. Filename is misspelled. [[User::WibblyLeMoende|WibblyLeMoende]] 28 Sep 2004
- Oppose - echo WibblyLeMoende's opposition Lorax 00:55, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Taken by Sannse, used on Large White. Nice symmetry, good focus, excellent perspective.--Eloquence* 00:32, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Superb quality, I love it. -- Solitude 01:50, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Chris 73 Talk 02:38, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Looks even more tasty than the natto. -- Oska 03:03, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. A very interesting caterpillar, and a well taken shot --Fir0002 09:45, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent in the full view. -- Solipsist 10:23, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - Great DOF work - even has a "munched on" leaf in the shot - Gaz 14:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very nice. Autiger 00:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 00:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support Janderk 11:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Simon A. 14:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - but too bad the shot angle is of the animal's backside instead of its face. Davodd 01:26, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
 |
 |
 |
 |
An almost perfect photo of what happnens when a water droplet hits water.
- Comment, have added a series again, only Water_droplet.jpg is linked to a page. The favourite will take the place on the page. --Fir0002 02:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Self Nomination. --Fir0002 22:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I think it looks a bit wonky, and a bit grainy Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose all. 2 and 3 are fuzzy, 1 and 4 are tilted and also an odd angle between the surface and the frozen water column -- Chris 73 Talk 02:41, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose these shots - Go take some more (probably lots more) - I would like to see a level "horizon", clear water (like 2,3 & 4), a vertical water column which is centred and in perfect focus - THAT I would support - (don't ask much do I!) - Gaz 13:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Agree. And while you're at it, why not take some pictures of the ripples hitting some kind of barrier so that they can be used in boundary condition or wave equation at a later time. That would be handy. -- Tlotoxl 19:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is just one out of the collection of catalan solids created by Cyp. They exist both in animated and unanimated form (unanimated version of this one: Image:Pentakisdodecahedron.jpg). As far as I could see, none of these have been featured. They're excellent work and at least one of them deserves the honors, IMHO.--Eloquence*
- I like it but I think the animation is a bit fast. Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:31, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Fredrik | talk 21:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Brilliant --Fir0002 22:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Very illustrative. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 23:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Chris 73 Talk 02:42, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Nice nomination. -- Oska 02:57, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Support - Just slow it down to about half speed - Gaz 06:45, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment Have slowed it down, but this has caused it too be jerky. I dont know whether it is better --Fir0002 09:40, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support either, both render smoothly for me - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 00:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Especially the slower version. One of the less regular solids such as Truncated icosidodecahedron might be a little more interesting, but I would support either way. -- Solipsist 10:31, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support strongly. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:19, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. The slower one. And, BTW, the images on Archimedean solid are better examples than the one on Catalan solids. Simon A. 14:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. The faster version. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 21:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I didn't like the doggy photo below, but I did like this one, very personal. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Pet photographers everywhere are going "Ewwww." GET DOWN TO THE PET'S LEVEL!! Denni☯ 23:16, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)
- Oppose. Let's remember this is an encyclopedia and keep the anthropomorphic comments and cute photos to the many, I am sure, dog fan websites out there. Oska 03:23, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - I see nothing to feature here - Gaz 14:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 23:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This is not a pit bull. It is a boxer. Janderk 10:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Bad crop. Foreshortening skews proportions. Lighting is terrible. Davodd 01:30, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
I requested this one, shows nicely the range of dog sizes. I'd be interested to know how people see it for the first time. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Now I know why there is no Chihuahua and Great Dane cross-breed ;-) -- Chris 73 Talk 14:29, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose (too messy) (William M. Connolley 19:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
- Support. Excellent pic - Adrian Pingstone 21:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral -- I think a truly featured worthy picture of this kind would add a human being or something else in the picture to help establish a frame of reference. This picture only provides a relative range of dog sizes...someone not very familiar with the size of a Chihuahua, for example, might assume the Dane is 7 feet tall. A nice concept for a picture, I think, but I'm not sure if this execution of the concept is featurable. Jwrosenzweig 22:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. A great concept, but poor execution. I have always wondered, though, what a ChihuaXDane might look like. (You'd want the bitch to be a Great Dane, of course...) Denni☯ 23:20, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)
- Oppose. Oska 03:19, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I like it and its a good illustration. The problem for me is the tone of the background hill merges with the great dane's coat and the outline of the chihuahua is not so well defined (lost in the grass?). Looking at User:Elf's other dog pics, I notice they work a lot better when the dogs don't have leads and look towards the camera (that can't be easy though). Kudos for avoiding the photographer's shadow. -- Solipsist 11:54, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - Gaz 14:12, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The trees seem to grow from the Great Dane's back. -Hapsiainen 23:28, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Picture quality and pose are poor. (SHould be Chihuahua vs. Irish Wolfhound, anyway). Davodd 01:37, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- I have been entertained by the comments here. If you need more entertainment, here's the true story behind trying to get a good photo out of this situation. (Including why no people, why no Irish Wolfhound, what about the photographer's shadow, the ugly background, and so on.) Elf | Talk 01:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hillarious. Never work with children or animals. -- Solipsist 15:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nice composition, although possibly not quite pin-sharp. Somewhat unappetising to my eyes, however it illustrates the article wonderfully — I wouldn't guess what fermented soybeans would look like otherwise. - Solipsist 07:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - Solipsist 07:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. And yes, it tastes as bad as it looks -- Chris 73 Talk 08:05, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent photo of natto, really captures the gooey sliminess. Yum yum yum, I'm getting hungry. -- Tlotoxl 10:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Which criterion, beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant, is this picture intended to meet? I agree that it's a fine illustration for an article of the same name, But featured picture - man, you really have to stretch it. Denni☯ 23:24, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)
- Support. Nice photo. (disclaimer: natto fan) Oska 03:17, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - This scores about 800 on my 1000-words meter - Good, but not quite good enough (focus is off) to get my vote - Sorry - Gaz
- Somehow I feel the slightly off focus is appropriate for a photo of natto. Oska 02:54, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. The background and the setting with the sticks grabbing are perfect. The focus unfortunately isn't. Still better than many of the other featured images though. Janderk 11:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. This is, incidentally, the most disgusting food I have ever eaten, but the picture's good. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 22:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. I think someone got desperate and ate the natto. The large image is no longer there. --Fir0002 10:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You just have to say 'Wow!' Shows the Space Shuttle to good effect and the colours are rather nice too. This was on the 'Selected anniversaries' section of the main page last week, and it really caught my eye then. -- Solipsist 06:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Actually I think I am mistaken. It was probably Image:Ap11-KSC-69PC-442.jpg on the current WP:COTW at Space Race that caught my eye. Not that that matters much. -- Solipsist 11:42, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 06:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:02, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- [[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 08:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:26, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Autiger 00:00, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - A PD work has to be damn good to get my vote - Gaz 14:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Fredrik | talk 21:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I like the photo, and I saw Columbia land after this launch, but that brings me to my problem. This is the first launch, and the fuel tank is painted white. Most shuttle launches used tanks painted orange. If we feature a shuttle launch photo, I think it should be more represtative of the "normal" configuration. Gentgeen 22:48, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree with your point, Gentgeen. We have featured picture that were not "normal" before, haven't we? The London National Gallery photo comes to mind....unless I'm wrong and it wasn't featured. Personally, the fact that the picture isn't representative of a "normal" launch isn't a problem for me -- many photos of non-normal happenings are featurable because they're not normal, as I recall. Jwrosenzweig 23:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Makes me want to go into space... Support JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 23:18, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Makes me want to stay the hell home. Support GWO 11:08, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Another shameless self-nom. It's a beautiful structure. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 05:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Great photo. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 05:26, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Schutz 06:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, the colours are badly washed out and the sky is blank - Adrian Pingstone 07:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Himeji is impressive, but I agree with Adrian P that the colours are washed out and with a grey sky, the photo lacks contrast. -- Tlotoxl 17:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose (as AP) (William M. Connolley 19:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
- Oppose. I added an attempted colour-correction..However, I'm not quite satisfied with it, since the sky got even more plain. I bet a professional Photoshop user would do a better job. — David Remahl 00:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It certainly is a beautiful structure but unfortunately this photo does it little justice. Oska 03:12, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto all of the above - Gaz 14:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose original because of the grey sky; oppose the modified version because of the Disney/nuclear winter sky. There has to be a middle ground between dull and surreal. Markalexander100 07:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A self-nomination as an alternative to the above photograph of Himeji Castle - colours are less washed out, and the sky is blue. - MykReeve 13:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent picture. MykReeve got better weather than I did! Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 20:09, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning towards oppose. It's a pretty snapshot, but somehow I think a featured picture of this structure would either be from a better angle (to get more castle, less tree) or from farther out, to get a better sense of the environment in which the castle is placed. I haven't been there, though, so perhaps I am asking too much. Jwrosenzweig 23:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:31, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Trees obscure the subject and the focus could be much sharper. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 17:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Very good photo. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:37, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:37, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Not a vote yet: Is this available in a larger size, too? (Current: 300 x 450 Pixels) -- Chris 73 Talk 03:42, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support, it adds a lot to Water. ✏ Sverdrup 00:29, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'd like to make a comment about the tendency to post 'geek interest' type photos to this forum. I characterise these as photos that are impressive to certain people simply because of the idea of the photo rather than the visual impact of the photo itself. Examples include this photo - Look! Flowing water frozen by a camera! - and the hurricane Ivan photo - Look! That monster hurricane photographed from space!. Oska 03:09, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Needs to be bigger though. ed g2s • talk 15:28, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - Get a newer tap/faucet - Gaz 06:46, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. Quite graphic and helps illustrate the article, but agree with Gaz that the tap/faucet is a let down. -- Solipsist 11:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 00:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Another snapshot in an uninspiring environment. Janderk 12:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Since water supply has been deregulated in Germany, utility companies have made lots of printed ads showing these kind of pictures -- and my home city's (Munich's) public utilities have found quite good photographers, putting my bar to be awed quite high. Simon A. 14:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 |
 |
 |
 |
A very large and fast burning bonfire (unaided by petrol).
- Comment. Only Large_bonfire.jpg is used on a page. I would like to see which of these photos you like best - the best one I'll put on the fire page --Fir0002 03:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Self Nomination --Fir0002 12:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Fire.... Good! -- Solipsist 12:49, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: It is curious that this image is used in Fire but not yet in Bonfire - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 13:04, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I have a similar series of photos of the same bonfire on the Bonfire page. --Fir0002 02:50, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's a fine fire, but not a great picture of a fire. Denni☯ 19:20, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
- Support the pic called "Silhouette of persons Head", shows me the scale - Adrian Pingstone 21:35, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Have uploaded several versions with people silhouetted in them. Hope you like one of these better--Fir0002 03:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:16, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- I like the original best, the scale is given by the twigs. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support Large bonfire.jpg, the original image nominated - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 23:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I like 02 best, though. Fredrik | talk 21:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - the original Large_bonfire.jpg - Gaz 06:50, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Renomination, received a total of 2 votes, I think there's not better illustration for the instant-water-in-mouth effect of chocolate. -- Solitude 08:13, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solitude 08:13, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The different coloured lighting from opposite sides is uncomfortable. Also it just doesn't much look like chocolate. -- Solipsist 12:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The light on the chocolate tower is awkward. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 12:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Reflections in the window, too dark, and IMHO not very appetizing. -- Chris 73 Talk 14:34, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The background is too chaotic - Adrian Pingstone 16:06, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, ditto Adrian. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:16, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Solipsist. I think a photo like what they show on the Cadbury ads would be great to illustrate chocolate. Melted chocolate with more melted chocolate being poured into it. --Fir0002 03:08, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think this is a very, very ordinary photo. Sorry Solitude but I think you're wasting our time. Oska 03:01, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, if I knew beforehand what everyone was thinking, we wouldn't be needing this page now would we? -- Solitude 08:24, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - Gaz 06:51, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. To quote co-worker, "looks more like a butt plug than chocolate." Davodd 02:29, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Renomination, used in Dominoes, taken by Gaz. As I feel the attention the Featured Picture Candidates section receives seems to have grown extensively the last two months, I'd like to renominate some pictures from the early days. If you object, feel free to comment/oppose, but I feel some pictures that received little attention nor votes receive a second chance.
About the picture itself, I think it actually succeeds in making dull domino stones interesting and beautiful. -- Solitude 07:28, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
No Vote - This is my shot - To answer some of the comments below... The darkness, shallow depth of field and tile placement are all intentional. I wanted a close-up of one dominoe, and have it involved in a game trailing off into the distance. To take a photo of a real game in good lighting would, frankly, be dead boring. Gaz 08:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solitude 07:28, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Although I would prefer the whole of the first dominoe to be in focus, and its face on the right hand side is possibly a little too dark -- Solipsist 12:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The entire image is too dark (literally not brilliant) and also the dominoes are placed in a pattern that would be unnatural to an actual game; this picture does not contribute significantly to the article Dominoes. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 13:13, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, too dark, which I am not sure if I can change due to the odd license. May support if brighter, possibly also a higher resolution and a regular GFDL license. -- Chris 73 Talk 14:37, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Needs to be a lot lighter, and depth of field is also an issue. Denni☯ 19:22, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with the issues Denni raised. Also dislike the actual domino's black spots- they seem to be very ragged. --Fir0002 03:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Interesting perspective, poor shot. Oska 02:59, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
- I like this one. Ericd
- Support. A truly superb picture... ermm... OK, yes, I took it (William M. Connolley 22:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)). BTW it really is the Primotel S., not Hotel S..
- Oppose - I'm jealous (just kidding) - BTW, we don't care if it belongs to the Primotel group for everyone in Nice this is the "Hôtel Suisse" do you want a photo to see what's written on ? Ericd 22:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Ah... fair enough. Hotel it is (William M. Connolley 11:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC))
- Oppose - I'm jealous (just kidding) - BTW, we don't care if it belongs to the Primotel group for everyone in Nice this is the "Hôtel Suisse" do you want a photo to see what's written on ? Ericd 22:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support Janderk 00:22, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry to seem negative but it's not sharp enough for me to enjoy - Adrian Pingstone 07:30, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support'. Sharp enough, nice colours for a night shot. ed g2s • talk 16:29, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - my only gripe is that the shutter speed could have been a bit faster, although I suppose that's no fault of the photographer (it being a nighttime landscape and all). Great shot! And yeah, I'm jealous... ugen64 02:38, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. As I recall, the shutter is deliberately slow to blur the car headlights (William M. Connolley 22:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC))
- Support. Schutz 06:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't like the way the road gets cut off. Fredrik | talk 21:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Any more road would be boring (William M. Connolley 22:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC))
- Support. I've been in two minds on this one, but the colours are good and its better than many of the curret FP photos of places. -- Solipsist 10:56, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. beautiful picture. -- Whosyourjudas (talk) 02:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support, nice photo Lorax 00:02, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Great photo. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:18, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's just a dog. There's also too much background, and its eyes are dead. Markalexander100 08:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: That's a fine dog! Can you try to get a better photo? My attention is drawn away by the clutter. - Bevo 16:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose -- choose a better one from Wikipedia:List_of_images/Nature/Animals/Dogs Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Please see note at [1] and let me know more about coordination regarding usage of images in Wikipedias in other languages. Gangleri 01:34, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC) (who provided this image)
![[1]](/wiki/Image:Icelandic_sheepdog_vif_vom_schloss_neubronn_01.jpg){kind=link}
I like the angle, which makes it seem to be taking off although it's actually landing. Photographed by myself and used on the Alitalia article - Adrian Pingstone 17:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. (Am I allowed to add a Support for my own pic?) - Adrian Pingstone 20:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The clouds give the impression that the aircraft is in some kind of distress (sort of like the old Windows logo which looked like it was going down in flames). Denni☯ 23:57, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
- Support. The clouds look fine to me -- Chris 73 Talk 00:08, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:20, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. A featured, thus brilliant as stated above, picture should have something special. I am afraid I do not see that in this one. This picture is one of the gazillions taken from the ground near the runway. Janderk 08:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, I was on the ground near the runway. I find that's a good way to get a pic of an aeroplane!! Also it's no bar to a pic being Featured if gazillions of other such pics exist. You are being asked to judge this one, not those! - Adrian Pingstone 20:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Some pictures in one gazillion are not that easy to make. BTW I think it's important to feature some picture in a gazillions as long as they are GPDL This week-end I saw a whole street forbidden to cars, one small truck, 3 other utilies vehicles and a 5 persons crowd just to take a photo of a building with a large format 4"x5 camera for advertising purpose... I prefer not to figure what it would be for a 8"x10" cam ;). We aren't boxing in the same category as an airline company... Ericd 21:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't see anything actually illustrated well in this photo. For example, I can't see clearly the name of the airline, and although it is an interesting angle that shows the underside of a landing aircraft with the wheels extended, that portion on the aircraft is in deep shadow, obscuring the detail. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 11:36, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Fredrik | talk 21:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto to Bevo - Gaz 13:47, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The fact that it looks like starting although it's landing is a weakness to me. A photo should show what is out there, not the opposite. Simon A. 14:18, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Suggest renomination at Perfectly adequate picture candidates. GWO 14:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This an offensive remark, please have more thought for my feelings - Adrian Pingstone 19:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Used in Henry Moore. Very striking picture, well composed. Could just poss do with the very top cropped. (William M. Connolley 19:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)). Note (William M. Connolley 17:57, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)) someone seems to have cropped the top. BTW, I can't see the jagged edges.
- Support (much better than rope :-) (William M. Connolley 19:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
- Support. Great pic - Adrian Pingstone 21:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:55, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Tarquin 21:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. The sculpture is very nice. The light is good the shadows are good, but the background is pretty poor for a featured picture.
- Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:09, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support new de-jagged and nicely cropped version. Oska 02:16, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Reluctantly oppose. Nice pic of a wonderful sculpture. But the JPEG encoding seems to have been done at too high a compression rate. On the full size pic the sculpture's edges appear quite jagged. This is a critical flaw given the smooth curves of the sculpture being such an important feature. Oska 01:09, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- You've got a good eye, its better without the jaggies. I've a new version which hopefully addresses this and crops the top too, but for some reason I can't upload it - on overwriting, I keep getting an error message saying 'The file you uploaded seems to be empty.' -- Solipsist 13:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- OK it looks like the cropped, retouched and de-jaggied version has managed to upload now, although something odd was/is going on with the upload page. -- Solipsist 16:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You've got a good eye, its better without the jaggies. I've a new version which hopefully addresses this and crops the top too, but for some reason I can't upload it - on overwriting, I keep getting an error message saying 'The file you uploaded seems to be empty.' -- Solipsist 13:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 03:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. William, maybe you can try contacting the original creator for the original version and re-encode it. -- Solitude 06:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
NeutralSupport - If someone will crop the jagged edge from the top I'll change to support (I'll do it later if I get time) - Gaz 10:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) - Gaz 08:07, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Support. James F. (talk) 17:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 11:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Forgetting I could. -- Solipsist 12:56, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Not a vote, but the copyright status on the pic is wrong. Taking a picture of a copyrighted work (in this case, the statue) causes the picture itself to be a derivative work -- IE, you do not own the copyright on it, thus you cannot release it under the CCL. →Raul654 19:56, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Interesting. I've asked on some other talk pages what the copyright status is for 2D images of 3D works, but never received a reply. Copyright on the photo when the 3D work is out of copyright seems clear. When the 3D work is in copyright its more confusing. A 3D copy of a 3D work is clearly a problem. I've seen some people claim that with 2D images of a 3D work, it matters whether the 3D work is in a public space. This page appears to give good advice and draws that distinction for photos of buildings but not sculptures. (buildings are copyright in the US ?*#$! )
- However, the situation may be different in the UK. This article suggests that sculptures are not covered by UK copyright law at all. AFIK the sculpture was made in the UK in 1951, the photograph was taken in the UK from a public street, but is effectively being published in Florida. So does UK or US law apply? -- Solipsist 23:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Oblig. IANAL)
- If the 3d work was copyrighted, pictures of it are derivative works, meaning that you cannot publish them without permission. However, pictures of public domain works are simply your copyright. If it was PD in the UK, and you took the picture there, then it's your copyright entirely. You can publish it here if you please. →Raul654 18:59, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- However, the situation may be different in the UK. This article suggests that sculptures are not covered by UK copyright law at all. AFIK the sculpture was made in the UK in 1951, the photograph was taken in the UK from a public street, but is effectively being published in Florida. So does UK or US law apply? -- Solipsist 23:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Oblig. IANAL)
- Interesting. I've asked on some other talk pages what the copyright status is for 2D images of 3D works, but never received a reply. Copyright on the photo when the 3D work is out of copyright seems clear. When the 3D work is in copyright its more confusing. A 3D copy of a 3D work is clearly a problem. I've seen some people claim that with 2D images of a 3D work, it matters whether the 3D work is in a public space. This page appears to give good advice and draws that distinction for photos of buildings but not sculptures. (buildings are copyright in the US ?*#$! )
- Oppose. Nothing spectacular here. Fredrik | talk 21:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Love the contrasting colours. Great sculpture, great photo. The bellman 08:09, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
From the NOAA, used in Rope. Graphic and does exactly what it says on the tin - Solipsist 16:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - Solipsist 16:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I can find litle interest in this photo and I don't find it striking, sorry! - Adrian Pingstone 21:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. A large part of this picture is blurry due to a bad depth of field making it again look like snapshot. A tripod and smaller aperture or just better light conditions would have made this picture much better. Maybe I am too critical. Janderk 23:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you say that. I rather suspect the photographer went to some effort to control the depth of field in order to blur the distance and create the impression that the coils go on for ever. If Fir0002 think this makes it look like seaweed, even better. Given the source, I would guess this rope is on the back of a trawler so an impression of seaweed is rather good. I also like the monochromatic quality. But I am clearly in the minority here. -- Solipsist 14:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Janderk on the blurry part of the photo - looks kinda like seaweed. --Fir0002 05:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I like the subject, but a better composition is required. -- Solitude 06:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - Composition is OK, but the final result is not good enough from a technical stance - Gaz 10:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:40, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. The DoF is obviously intentional, and the effect works quite well. Quite laughable that people could think it accidental, really. James F. (talk) 17:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. DoF is not adequate. And yes, it's quite possible it was accidental - not everyone uses a 35MM SLR. There are still plenty of point-and-clicks out there, which give you whatever DoF they want to give you. Denni☯ 00:03, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
- The DoF you get from a point-and-click is never that pronounced. As this is clearly a professional photo taken for a government agency - it is highly likely that the photographer knew exactly what he was doing - and did it rather well. The DoF is more than adequate - having the entire rope in focus would be boring. Support. ed g2s • talk 00:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well I would love to agree with you Ed, although I have to admit that 98% of the pictures in the NOAA library are far from professional. I'd say most of them were by research students with a disposable they bought from the supermarket. This could easily just be a grad-student with an SLR and an interest in photography. In any case as Markalexander100 says, the intentionality is beside the point - the real question is whether people like the end result. -- Solipsist 15:21, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- I like this one. ✏ Sverdrup 10:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. The DoF looks great, and helps draw the viewer's eyes towards the detailed/closer-up parts. Prevents there from being all that distracting detail in the background. It also looks rather nice, IMHO. --Gregb 02:21, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support- what Gregb said. Obviously the intentions of the photographer are irrelevant: even if the picture had been a luck snapshot, it would still be just as good a picture. Markalexander100 02:35, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - ugen64 02:43, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't see how it contributes significantly to the article Rope - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 03:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Self-nomination. Added to Hansom cab, but could probably be used elsewhere too. -- Solipsist 13:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - Interesting circumstance to grap a photo for the 'pedia - worth about 1000 words - Gaz 14:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Striking pic - Adrian Pingstone 21:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: is there a larger version of that image available for use here? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 21:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Janderk 23:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:09, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:38, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Seems pretty bland to me. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 03:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Beautiful photo. Always wanted to see a 'hansom cab' and driver. You read about them in books and its good to see the old fashioned method of transportation. --Fir0002 05:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solitude 06:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support Lorax 00:30, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 03:12, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Self-nomination :) - Tarquin 13:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - Cos it makes my eyes go funny ;-) - Gaz 13:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- ...and I love the little green thingy - It gives the eye something to focus upon - Gaz 10:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - That green thing spoils the picture. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 14:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:09, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. The picture makes you want to know more. -- Solipsist 16:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps the green dot could be explained on the picture's page. -- Solipsist 00:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Same here. makes me click the article.Janderk 23:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support.Definitely -- Chris 73 Talk 23:09, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Fits in well with the life-cycle photos.--Fir0002 05:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Great stuff, although the green stuff distracts, it's not a problem. -- Solitude 06:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. The green thing reminds of the pond and its vegetation, so it is OK. -Hapsiainen 13:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 14:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - almost perfect.--Eloquence*
- Support. Truely well done. Simon A. 14:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Tremendous. Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Self-nomination :) - Tarquin 13:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - Is that a reflection or some sort of motion blur? - Gaz 13:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The only way I could get close enough to it was through a window, unfortunately :( -- Tarquin 13:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. As Gaz said, shame about the reflections - Adrian Pingstone 14:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I guess it may seem liking harping on, but that blur does something shocking to the photo. --Fir0002 05:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Good effort, too bad you could only shoot it through glass. -- Solitude 06:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Self-nomination :) - Tarquin 13:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - Depth of field has let you down - I would need to see all of the front gills in focus - Gaz 13:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Same reason as Gaz - Adrian Pingstone 14:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. -- Solitude 06:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - The DOF objection is OK but we don't care with front gills this just need some cropping. Ericd 22:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Shameless self-nom and first attempt at a featured picture. Shows the beauty and grandeur of the structure. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 18:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Beautiful. →Raul654 20:49, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. This pic is tilted, why are so many sloping pics put up for Featured Pic? A slope looks amateur (IMHO, others may not agree)) and won't impress WP's readers. It also has bad purple fringing around the windows - Adrian Pingstone 21:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Defnintely tilted. But then ... it's the navy, maybe its on a ship ;-) Also agree with Arpingstone on purple fringe -- Chris 73 Talk 00:14, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Wow! Nice. Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:16, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Severely unbalanced. Denni☯ 01:32, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
- I've rotated it half a degree counter-clockwise and cropped it slightly. Due to velvet ropes and a large bouquet of flowers it was impossible to take the picture from the exact center. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 02:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The rotation was not nearly enough, the original needs 1.2 degrees, not 0.5 degrees, (according to Photoshop) - Adrian Pingstone 08:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The lighting in the windows spoils a great picture for me. -- Solitude 07:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with Arpingstone, and add that a subject with such obvious symmetry MUST be taken from dead centre - Gaz 12:51, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Janderk 17:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fantastic, engaging image. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:40, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:40, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's just a bit dull. I don't know how to make a blackbird interesting, but not like this, anyway. Markalexander100 06:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. A good picture of a Blackbird but not special enough for a Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 10:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Well, yes, it's a blackbird, but it's a pretty pedestrian shot. Denni☯ 01:40, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
- Oppose - I see nothing to feature here - Gaz 12:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Doh, I like the bird, but the setting is just poor. -- Solitude 06:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I actually prefer this one myself. -- sannse (talk) 17:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just a simply wonderful NASA picture, and the best picture of a hurricane I've ever seen. Uploaded by me, used on Hurricane Ivan and tropical cyclone. Tom- 09:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Totally Awesome. The RHS solar panels look a bit overexposed. But the hurricane is superb. --Fir0002 10:22, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. ugen64 22:22, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I have been in doubt here. While being a good picture, this shot takes away the sheer magnitude and power of the hurricane. The lack of coastline references makes it seem like Ivan is 10 meters across. I prefer a hurricane picture that at least got a significant amount of coast line in it. Preferably where you can recognize parts of the earth. So it makes you think: wow this thing is huge. This picture just does not do that. Janderk 11:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think whoever took the pic should have opened the window of the space station first and moved those solar panels out of the way. Seriously they do detract significantly from the image. Also without local scale it's really hard to decide if this is anything important. We know it's important 'cos the caption tells us it's a pic of Ivan, but without the caption I wouldn't have been impressed. And it's the pic that's gotta do the talking.Oska 03:21, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm with Janderk and Oska - Gaz 13:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - similar reasons to above. The lack of scale makes it look like a plughole in the bottom of my washing up bowl. GWO 13:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, same as above -- Chris 73 Talk 23:12, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I do miss the scale reference in the picture, but I still love it. -- Solitude 06:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. The solar panels look like skyscrapers to a first glance, which makes it seem weird. Then perspective shifts and you're looking down, so it looks huge (William M. Connolley 17:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC))
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:40, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. We're only seeing the central part of Ivan, for a Featured Pic I'd want to see all of it (or at least more of it) - Adrian Pingstone 16:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)iva
- support. I like it! Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:08, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Fredrik | talk 21:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, neither a spectacular photo of ISS or Ivan and I see no synergy in the combination as exhibited in this photo - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 22:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Nice photo. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The photo may be composed well, but to me, the subject is unappetising. I dont think I've ever eaten Guacomole but I dont think I would enjoy it --Fir0002 10:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. It is just a snapshot that is descriptive, but not good enough as featured. I love Guacamole, but the messy environment, pieces of tomato on the table, out of focus objects in the corners, just doesn't make me say yummy. Janderk 11:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. The composition is OK and I don't care that the surrounds are messy (in fact they make it interesting, I think), but IMO the specular reflections caused by the camera flash preclude this from being a featured picture. -- Tlotoxl 11:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - I see nothing to feature here - Gaz 13:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - It's a nice enough snapshot, but the best we have to offer? Nah. GWO 13:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Or maybe I'm just too hungry? -- Solitude 06:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. Food photography is an art and a profession in itself, and considering the difficulty of the task, it is well done. But on an absolute scale, it can't rival with professional cookbook illustrators. Simon A. 14:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Painted by Georges-Pierre Seurat (December 2, 1859–March 29, 1891) in 1884-1886.
Excellent effort by wikipidian The lorax to find this quality of image for this signature work of the artist for inclusion in the Wikipedia.
- Nominated by [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 00:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Lovely art example. Janderk 11:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Its just a scan of a piccy. There is nothing of wikipedia in it. The only reason to feature it would be to thumb our noses at the galleries copyright page (William M. Connolley 21:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
- Support. Particularly striking and clear reproduction. Properly credited (not just "pd image from internet" as sadly many images are credited here on wikipedia) and public domain according to Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 22:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Great quality - Adrian Pingstone 08:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - The original work of art is great, but this copy is just a copy. Get me a photo of the artist applying the final brush stroke and I'll reconsider - Gaz 13:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not too pretty if you ask me. -- Solitude 06:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I look at this from the perspective of how an image contributes to the wikipedia. For notable artworks, the wikipedia can serve as the best conservator of images of those artworks in the world. As to whether any particular image of a work of art is especially worthy of featured picture status, we have to decide on a case by case basis on the quality of the image, and to a lessor degree on the quality of the original work of art. The more "famous" a particular work of art is, the less I am concerned about the art itself, and more concerned about the quality of the image for purposes of suitability for Wikipedia:Featured pictures. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 18:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Exactly my thoughts. You may or may not like the painting, but it is world famous and one of the best examples of Pointillism, adding a great amount of value to that article. The picture is perfect too, with perfect lighting, no weird reflections or distracting borders or objects. The image does 100% what it should: Show the painting in it's full greatness. I agree with Gaz that a picture taken of Van Gogh while he's painting his sunflowers in the fields of Arles might be even more interesting, but something tells me that such a picture will not be posted soon on Wikipedia. Janderk 13:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that the picture is a very worthwile addition to the article, by all means keep it on top of that article, but that is not enough for a featured picture, the photo itself is not brilliant. -- Solitude 07:34, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Exactly my thoughts. You may or may not like the painting, but it is world famous and one of the best examples of Pointillism, adding a great amount of value to that article. The picture is perfect too, with perfect lighting, no weird reflections or distracting borders or objects. The image does 100% what it should: Show the painting in it's full greatness. I agree with Gaz that a picture taken of Van Gogh while he's painting his sunflowers in the fields of Arles might be even more interesting, but something tells me that such a picture will not be posted soon on Wikipedia. Janderk 13:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I look at this from the perspective of how an image contributes to the wikipedia. For notable artworks, the wikipedia can serve as the best conservator of images of those artworks in the world. As to whether any particular image of a work of art is especially worthy of featured picture status, we have to decide on a case by case basis on the quality of the image, and to a lessor degree on the quality of the original work of art. The more "famous" a particular work of art is, the less I am concerned about the art itself, and more concerned about the quality of the image for purposes of suitability for Wikipedia:Featured pictures. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 18:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Composition OK, although the heavily shadowed foreground shadow is too dark. But the main problem is that it is just too grainy for a Featured Picture.Oh wait... Pointilism... Seurat... a dramatically different picture for the image of the day. Support. -- Solipsist 07:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Perhaps we can get someone to photoshop out the graininess, and perhaps clone-brush out a few of the figures that are obscuring the river... :) Support -- DrBob 17:23, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:24, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Bottom of the painting is cropped off -- inadvertantly defacing this masterpiece. See: [2] Davodd 01:49, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Compare that to how it is seen in the Art Institute of Chicago.: [3] --The lorax 05:57, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Wow, it is interesting that the Art Institute of Chicago currently hides a significant portion of this painting behind that white frame. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 16:49, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Compare that to how it is seen in the Art Institute of Chicago.: [3] --The lorax 05:57, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, because of the chopping and because it's just a scan of a picture. Markalexander100 01:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.worldartsales.net/sample/seurat/seu02.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www-net.cs.umass.edu/~yifeng/photos/Chicago/640x480/DSCF0014.jpg){kind=link}
Nominations older than 14 days, the minimum voting period, decision time!
Old nominations should be archived when they are removed from this page: October archive.
When the time comes to move an image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures make sure you also add it to Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible.
Nomination for removal