Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/new layout

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage 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, according to the featured picture criteria.

Promoting an image

If you believe an image should be featured, create a subpage (use the "For Nominations" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets.

All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here.

The archive contains all opinions and comments collected for candidate nominations and their nomination results.

If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.

Delisting an image

A featured picture can be nominated for delisting if you feel it no longer lives up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Create a subpage (use the "For Delists" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

For delisting, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures, except that:If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance.

Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December.

  • Note that delisting an image does not mean deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).
Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations.
Step 2:
Create a subpage
For Nominations

To create a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for your nomination, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the field below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.


For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

To create a subpage for your delist, add a title for the image you want to delist/replace in the field below and click the "Create new delist nomination" button.


Step 3:
Transclude and link

Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (direct link).

How to comment for Candidate Images

  • Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional.
  • Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly.
  • You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
  • If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case.
Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.
Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version.

How to comment for Delist Images

  • Write Keep, followed by your reasons for keeping the picture.
  • Write Delist, followed by your reasons for delisting the picture.
  • Write Delist and Replace if you believe the image should be replaced by a better picture.
  • You can weak keep, weak delist or weak delist and replace instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.

You may find the glossary useful when you encounter acronyms or jargon in other voters' comments. You can also link to it by using {{FPCgloss}}.

Editing candidates

If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g., add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (e.g., Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied.

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.

Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting.

On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet (roughly 75–150 cm) away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that the image must be viewed in original size (263 × 68 pixels) - if enlarged or reduced, results are not accurate.

Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended.
To see recent changes, purge the page cache.

Current nominations[edit]


Nominations older than 9 days — to be closed[edit]

Nominations in this category are older than nine days and are soon to be closed. New votes will no longer be accepted.

HMS Avenger (D14) from above[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2010 at 14:32:25 (UTC)

Original - HMS Avenger underway in rough seas with six Sea Hurricanes on the flight deck
Alternate - Edited version: colour corrected, contrast adjusted, sharpened
Reason
I think it meets the FPC criteria as its an unique image of a type of ship no longer in production. The six aircraft parked on the flight deck shows just how small these ships were.
Articles in which this image appears
HMS Avenger (D14), Avenger class escort carrier, List of escort aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures#Vehicles
Creator
Tokyotown8
  • Support as nominator --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the picture needs some color correction or something (too much pink in the bakground). Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose for now. Concur with Nergaal's point, and it's not really eligible, size-wise. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Papa and Nergaal. Wackywace converse | contribs 07:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, just too small. This would be the perfect candidate for VPC (or what I wish VPC was). J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support: size is not a problem for me, but that hue is odd. I would support if the color is corrected. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I think that this picture has excellent encyclopedic value. It is a pity that the image size is so small. But I did what I could to correct the colour and adjust the black point and white point of the image in Alternate. I also sharpened the image slightly to bring out the details. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both... Sorry Purpy Pupple, but in your alt there is now a lot of what I think it called jpeg artifacting (lots of large pixels rather than a smooth image) but might be wrong in what it's called... The waves around the ship are now in lines of pixels... And the orig I oppose to for the colouring... gazhiley.co.uk 23:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I saved my version in the highest quality possible using Adobe Photoshop, the jpeg artifacts must have come from the original image then. Oh well. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 0.9 support for alt a picture from the profile of the ship would be ideal but this is quite ok. Nergaal (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative, this is a significant improvement. (air)Wolf (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the alt is a nicer image in technical terms, I'm concerned that it has much weaker EV - colour photos from the World War II era are fairly rare, and a colour photo of an escort carrier seems to have strong EV in its own right. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, on closer inspection I think that this was a black and white photo with a pink hue! As such I support the alternative Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose both. Nice historical photo, good EV, but small and tightly cropped below. --Avenue (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Great picture (valuable picture) but not FP on multiple gounds, as per above. BTW, I think the contrast and sharpening is a bit harsh on the alt - shadows under the wings look wrong. Doug (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular talk 23:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Michigan Ave Bridge[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2010 at 08:15:03 (UTC)

Original - Michigan Avenue Bridge (from the west) is a bascule bridge.
Reason
This bridge is a Chicago Landmark and this is a high quality image. Taken from the west it compliments the WP:VPICS that was just promoted from the east with the bridge raised
Articles in which this image appears
Michigan Avenue Bridge
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others
Creator
User:JeremyA
  • Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The image quality is degraded in darker areas, which sadly are the main subject of the picture. Looking around the truss structure one can see noise and even posterization. The composition is ok, but a bit mundane (mundane subjects are ok, but IMO there is a greater burden to be technically perfect). If the same picture could be taken with the bridge drawn up it would be pretty cool. Fletcher (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Fletcher. It looks like a tight, cropped, face-on composition rich in rectangles. I’m not seeing how this is fine photography. Oh, BTW, I’m here in Chicago for two more weeks. Maybe I’ll see Sir Tiger. I’m staying in a B&B in the Bridgeport area. E-mail me; I’ll buy you lunch. Maybe we can use your camera and try to take a better picture of Wolf Point at night that doesn’t make others feint dead away because of rich, stunning colors. Greg L (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: but mostly because the bridge is so dark. It's hard to make out the structure of it; I would be more forgiving of that if it weren't the subject of the composition. Better lighting needed. Maedin\talk 11:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Older nominations requiring additional input from users[edit]

These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.

Closing procedure[edit]

A script is available that automates the majority of these tasks: User:Jujutacular/closeFPC

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing {{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}} on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.

When promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~
    • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
    Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Add the image to:
  3. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.
    The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
  4. Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
  5. Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
  6. If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
  7. Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
  8. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.

Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:

  1. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} to the top of the section.
  2. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the April archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  3. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Nominations for delisting[edit]

Shortcut

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

For delisting, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis.

  • Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s.

Use the tool below to nominate for delisting.

  • Please use Keep, Delist, or Delist and Replace to summarise your opinion.

Delist closing procedure[edit]

Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s.

If consensus is to KEEP featured picture status, and the image is used in at least one article, perform the following:

  1. Check that the image has been in the article for at least one week. Otherwise, suspend the nomination to give it time to stabilize before continuing.
  2. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  3. Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.

If consensus is to DELIST, or the image is unused (and consensus is not for a replacement that is used), perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
  3. Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.

If consensus is to REPLACE (and at least one of the images is used in articles), perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
    • Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
  2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
  3. Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
  4. Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
  5. Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.

Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:

  1. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  2. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the appropriate section of the archive.
  3. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Recently closed nominations[edit]

Nominations in this category have already been closed and are here for the purposes of closure review by FPC contributors. Please do not add any further comments or votes regarding the original nomination. If you wish to discuss any of these closures, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Nominations will stay here for three days following closure and subsequently be removed.

Mostar[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2010 at 20:56:05 (UTC)

Original - The Stari Most spans the Neretva River in the city of Mostar in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mostar is the fifth-largest city in the country and a popular tourist destination.
Actual Original
Reason
Great view of the Stari Most, the Neretva River, and Mostar's geographic position.
Articles in which this image appears
Mostar, Balkans
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others
Creator
Ramirez
  • Support as nominator --Maedin\talk 20:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not quite the highest EV (the bridge is a little small) but a very nice picture indeed. Nergaal (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it is an excellent picture. Great composition. Although the bridge is small, it showcases the distinctive architecture of the neighbouring houses, which are also very important. Purpy Pupple (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Absolutely beautiful. Wackywace converse | contribs 14:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fabulous. Twilightchill t 21:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose fake sky. --Elekhh (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't notice the fake sky at first; but even so, a fake sky isn't really a good reason to oppose the picture. After all, lots of Featured Pictures have been retouched in some way. Indeed, the fake sky looks much better than the blown out actual original sky.Purpy Pupple (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether it looks better is not the main issue. The problem is that manipulated photos may be misleading, especially when the edits are not disclosed on the image description page. One of our FP criteria (#8) specifically addresses this issue. --Avenue (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, significant undocumented edits mean this image fails to meet FP criterion 8. --Avenue (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose original, I really don't think I can support the introduction of a fake sky. J Milburn (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see how the fake sky can be misleading. --Muhammad(talk) 16:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I disagree that it isn't misleading. The subject isn't misrepresented exactly, but it's a poor photo. The sky doesn't match the reflection in the river, for example. And I'm ideologically opposed to any photos being used on Wikipedia that are so obviously falsified. I'd rather remove the that version from the article really. We can do better. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red X I withdraw my nomination . I was not aware of the "actual" original when I nominated this (and it was added to the page last night by an IP). I clearly read way too much into the creator's comment on the Commons nomination, interpreting his "definitely not HDR" as "definitely genuine". Tweaked to enhance features, is what I assumed, but not faux. Make whatever editorial decisions you want, idgaf. Maedin\talk 18:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Sydney opera house side view[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2010 at 06:19:04 (UTC)

Original - Side-on view of the Sydney Opera House and the sea.
Reason
Best image of the Opera House. Full view of the Opera House from the side, high quality.
Articles in which this image appears
Sydney Opera House, Pritzker Prize, Peter Rice, List of official openings by Elizabeth II in Australia
FP category for this image
History
Creator
Mfield
  • Support as nominator --—Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:19pm • 06:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info Existing FP. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Can anyone explain why it suddenly loses focus on the left side? The whole picture is in focus and then it suddenly blurs... And it's a flat wall from what I remember so I can't think of why it would suddenly lose focus... gazhiley.co.uk 09:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not a fan of the composition, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as J Milburn. Wackywace converse | contribs 15:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Noise, sharpness problems, not really interesting composition. This has got to be one of the most photographed buildings in Australia so an FP needs to be something special. It's not in the same league as the existing FP. Fletcher (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per J Milburn and Fletcher. --Avenue (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Sydney Opera House is an iconic structure that is one of the most photographed buildings in the entire planet. This particular shot is distinctly inferior compared to most we’ve all seen. It’s hard to believe there aren’t much better ones on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Supreme Court[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 23:14:48 (UTC)

Original - The Iowa Supreme Court
Reason
Good picture, high EV
Articles in which this image appears
Iowa Supreme Court and Iowa
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Ctjf83
  • Support as nominator --CTJF83 chat 23:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Image is a bit noisy and not very sharp. Angle of photo could be better, closer to perpendicular or further away would be better. Also, the time of day could be chosen better (lighting issues). Jujutacular talk 23:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you be more specific for future pics. CTJF83 chat 23:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • About time of day? Depending on what direction the photo is taken from, you either want to take it closer to sunrise or sunset. Taking it near midday makes the lighting very harsh. Jujutacular talk 03:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...and what kind of "noise" are you talking about? CTJF83 chat 11:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • See image noise. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • My understanding (and I may be slightly wrong here) is in simple terms the level of detail... "Noise" is shown on this picture as almost a blurred effect on the bushes and the stones... They are not sharp enough to give full crisp detail and just come across as "fuzzy" as such... Not massively technical, but compare this picture at full zoom to plenty of the Building FP's and you will see a remarkably higher level of detail... gazhiley.co.uk 12:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per above noise issues... But framing is poor as well - building is not centre in the picture, and also is leaning... gazhiley.co.uk 12:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That can be cropped. CTJF83 chat 20:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • True... But until it is cropped, I still oppose... And I wouldn't bother because of all the other issues... gazhiley.co.uk 21:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would this meet Valued Picture criteria? CTJF83 chat 21:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ya it looks like it meets valued picture criteria. Spongie555 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Image quality is really too inferior. Lighting is very bad indeed; the building itself is underexposed due to the bright sky behind it, and details are difficult to discern. Image is not sharp. Composition is also quite bad. The angle is exceedingly awkward. Building is to the side -- and cropping would make the picture framed way too tightly. If possible, this picture should be taken with a more decent camera at a better time of day with a longer focal length at a better angle. Nice building, though. The architecture is not bad. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warren G. Harding[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 03:50:22 (UTC)

Original - Warren G. Harding is the 29th President of the United States
Reason
High Ev as its the lead image. Good image of him
Articles in which this image appears
Warren G. Harding, 1921 in the United States, Treaty of Bucareli
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator
Harris & Ewing
  • Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there are some compression artifacts (particularly visible in the darker parts). Is there an uncompressed or higher quality version available? --KFP (contact | edits) 17:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOC has two high-resolution .tif files here. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked at the image on that website but I still think this one is better.The one on the website looks like it needs alittle resortation Spongie555 (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The crop of this image looks quite cramped. The LOC ones have some more space (although they also have some white patch in the upper left corner). --KFP (contact | edits) 12:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ya that what i noticed about the LOC one. There are alot of White patches on the LOC one. This one looks liked someone did some restoration. Spongie555 (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Good picture and important to articles, but I agree with the comments about tight cropping and artifacts. In my mind these issues prevent the image from being FP, especially since there are so many other early century B&W portrait photographs without these problems. Scewing (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular talk 08:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Hafnium[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 02:04:15 (UTC)

Original - Hafnium crystal bar, made by van Arkel–de Boer process
Reason
Criteria meets
Articles in which this image appears
Hafnium
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
Creator
Alchemist-hp
  • Support as nominator --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 02:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Van Arkel-de Boer process" or "van Arkel-de Boer" or Van Arkel-De Boer" but not Van-Arkel-de-Boer" in English. Rmhermen (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (I've fixed the caption also). Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not the same standard as some of the others, but it's got a scale and high enough res, so definitely encyclopedic. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good quality and enc. SpencerT♦C 04:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular talk 08:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Rhodium[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 01:56:16 (UTC)

Original - Three faces (1g each) of rhodium. (Saved over edit2)
Alternate - Reflection on sphere removed.
Reason
Criteria meets
Articles in which this image appears
Rhodium
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
Creator
Alchemist-hp
  • Support as nominator --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I believe that the main reason Alchemist has not nominated this yet is the reflection on the right sphere. Nergaal (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 2 Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a reflective sphere will always have a reflection of the camera. It doesn't detract that much. —Pengo 00:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The least, the reflection should be cropped out somehow. Anyways, I am curious if Alchemist has anything to say about possibly getting a better picture. Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:-) ... perhaps in the future ... My next images: manganum and cadmium. And then ... all the other stable elements. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like this picture, it nicely shows what the material looks like. To address the above concerns about the reflection, I have created a new edit with the reflection removed. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks much better. Could I ask you a small favor though? Could you also remove the yellow reflection from the background glass (leave the shadow though)? That reflection is also a bit distracting and is not really related to the material pictured. Nergaal (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. I also mitigated chromatic aberrations since I noticed some cyan-red fringing. Purpy Pupple (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for "alternate 2". Good work. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC) P.S: If OK, then I'd like to upload the "alternate 2" over my original.[reply]
Of course it's OK, go ahead and upload it over your original. Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info: the "edit2" version is now uploaded over my original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchemist-hp (talk • contribs) 18:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rhodium powder pressed melted.jpg —Maedin\talk 06:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 01:42:08 (UTC)

Original - Sydney Harbour from the air, showing the Opera House, the CBD, Darling Harbour, the Bridge, the Parramatta River, North Sydney and Kirribilli in the foreground
Reason
High resolution image, is accurate, adds to the article, good caption on article. No digital manipulation.
Articles in which this image appears
Sydney Harbour Bridge, Port Jackson, Kirribilli House, Cockatoo Island (New South Wales), Kirribilli, New South Wales, Garden Island, New South Wales, Bennelong Point, New South Wales, Goat Island (Port Jackson), Fort Denison, Shark Island (Port Jackson), Rodd Island, Spectacle Island (Port Jackson), Snapper Island (New South Wales), Clark Island (New South Wales), Going to Australia, Berry Island, New South Wales, Glebe Island, Congestion pricing
FP category for this image
History
Creator
Grillo
  • Support as nominator --—Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:42pm • 01:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Way out of focus. — raekyt 08:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Image quality not up to scratch. Good composition though, I'd love to get a similar shot. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunate oppose A very nice angle on Sydney Harbour Bridge and the surrounding area, but as mentioned above, the image is awfully out of focus. Wackywace converse | contribs 13:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, though it's a shame it's not up to modern standards as it's a great angle... gazhiley.co.uk 21:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted —Maedin\talk 06:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Juvenile Sambar deer[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 12:24:40 (UTC)

Original - Young male Sambar in Bannerghatta National Park
Reason
Good quality, EV and resolution. Previously nominated here where it was closed without any consensus. It has been stable in the articles for over 5 months now and since this is a young one, there is room in the article for the adult and the young. Picture was taken in the wild.
Articles in which this image appears
Sambar (deer), Rusa (genus), Deer
FP category for this image
Creator
Muhammad Mahdi Karim
  • Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 12:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think they're both adult. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I supported last time. It wasn't mentioned in the last nomination that this is a juvenile, though; what's the basis for saying it is? Maedin\talk 11:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was one user who opposed the image and changed it in the article to read juvenile. I assumed he had better knowledge than me so I borrowed that from the article --Muhammad(talk) 12:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry, this really isn't screaming FP at me. J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular talk 20:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Emperors butterflies eat moisture on the body died frog[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 10:17:11 (UTC)

Original - Emperors butterflies eat moisture on the body died frog
Reason
Feaured on Commons, has good quality and EV
Articles in which this image appears
Apatura
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
George Chernilevsky
  • Comment The Emperors Butterflies (Apatura genus) often eat a moisture from unusual sources: rotten fruit, wet clay and even a dead frog. It is feature of emperors butterflies. This photo show Purple Emperors (Apatura iris) (has wing with a white triangle strip) and Lesser Purple Emperors (Apatura ilia) (has beige wing).
  • Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky talk 10:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an amazing picture but I feel it is not used to its full potential in the current article. Does the taking of moisture have some scientific term/article? --Muhammad(talk) 11:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is anybody else actually seeing the frog? I see something dark, but at no point does it look like a frog. (I'm not asking if there is a frog, I'm asking if you can see in the photograph that it is a frog.) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a frog, no. And even though I can see those yellow straws?/tongues?/whatevers, if I didn't already know that they were feeding I wouldn't realise that's what they're doing, here. Nor is it clear that they're eating "moisture", although I suppose this can be assumed because of the species. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good EV and quality.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, sorry. A very, very interesting picture, and I can see it having great EV, but it just doesn't seem to right now. J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular talk 20:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Suspended nominations[edit]

This section is for Featured Picture (or delisting) candidacies whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/new_layout&oldid=1164035203"