Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/August-2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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


Amaryllis stamens

Beautiful photo of Amaryllis stamens; illustrates the article stamen. Photographer: Aka.


Hippopotamus skull
Hippopotamus skull with darkened background

A sharp and truely striking picture that does a great job of illustrating skull and hippopotamus

  • Nominate and support. - Circeus 21:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • (As the author of the picture) Support. →Raul654 21:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Mildly distracting background and shadows. Might benefit from a tighter crop on the top and left to center the skull. —Cryptic (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a vote, but I agree with Crptic about the background. I think that photoshopping this to make everything black except the wooden thing it's resting on would probably improve this image. Lupin 02:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I am not at home and thus do not have access to a good picture editing program. Circeus 14:05, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • I did my best to darken the background, but the results aren't exactly fantastic. Circeus 21:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Background is a problem. Enochlau 03:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Image is very good quality and when you view it full you can see every detail which in my opinion would make it a good candiate. • Thorpe • 11:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good quality, high-res pic. background is only a minor flaw -- Chris 73 Talk 16:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --ZeWrestlerTalk 21:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight support, but it does seem quite suitable for Halloween. :) — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Hard to decide. Its an interesting subject and an excellent addition to the article. I particularly like the wear on the tusks (I seem to recall that tooth wear is one of principle causes of death for wild hippos, but I can't find a reference and as they are herbivores it would probably be problems with the back molars that is the issue.) My only problem is the unflattering flash lighting (which was probably necessary) and to a lesser extent the background. -- Solipsist 08:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not particularly striking. Background issues. --ScottyBoy900Q 20:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support version with darkened background. Sango123 20:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Version with darkened background. I'd like the far end of the table to be more shadowed rather than just suddenly hit a black background with no gradient into it but the current one is striking. - Whitehorse1 02:13, 31 July 2005
  • Comment: I think the darkened background is a good idea. I've just uploaded a version with a slightly neater job of masking the background, and also applied Whitehorse1's idea of de-emphasising the bottom left corner of the table. -- Solipsist 07:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Hippo skull dark.jpg +8 / -3 / 2 Neutral - most objections relate to the background, so promoting version with darkend background. -- Solipsist 20:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Edited version

An impressively lit night-time shot of the Petronas Towers by Commons user Angel Riesgo.

This came up at a conference I was at, and I believe it can be an issue, but only if money is made off of it. This would be a strong candidate for 'fair use', in my non-professional opinion. --DNicholls 02:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Torres Petronas Mayo 2004.jpg +20 / -0 preference for the edited version, but I have now overloaded that on the Commons original since they are otherwise similar -- Solipsist 20:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Day O'Connor introducing Alberto Gonzales

Looking at the Alberto Gonzales article, I was stunned to find a picture of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor gesturing to Gonzales almost as if she passing her position to him. This is particularly stunning to me in light of the speculation about whether George W. Bush will nominate Gonzales to succeed the retiring O'Connor. This appears in the articles Sandra Day O'Connor and Alberto Gonzales. The picture is in the public domain, as it was taken by a White House staffer.

Not promoted +1 / -9 -- Solipsist 21:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forestfire4.jpg
A forest fire's charred remains

Illustrates Wildfire. Striking and informative.

Promoted Image:Forestfire4.jpg 17/4/1 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wall-mounted light with shadows (BW photo)

I have always really liked this picture and wanted to add it to the shadows page, but that article already has many pictures of shadows. Recently I went to the lighting page and thought it would be an eye-catching addition. This is a self-nomination, as this is a picture I shot and uploaded.

  • That was my fear. I believe this photo would be a great picture for the shadows page, but there are several photos of shadows on there already. If people think this is worthy as a featured picture, but feel that in order to meet the criteria for article relevence it should go somewhere else, I am open to suggestions. Semiconscious (talk · home) 08:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this might sound dumb, but look at the black box in the centre and then scroll up and down the image (you'll need full res), the light beams appear to be moving. Is that what it illustrates? --Fir0002 09:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted 2/6/0 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:26, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Albert Harris and his mother's coconut shy from 1936.

A couple of weeks ago, the funfair came to town and this my favourite portrait from the many pictures I took. In common with most other showmen, Albert Harris has spent all his life travelling with the fair and continues to run the sidestall established by his mother. Illustrates coconut shy. -- Solipsist 19:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Image:Albert Harris - Coconut shy B.jpg 10/1/1 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:26, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Red-whiskered Bulbul , India

Contributed to the article of the Red-whiskered_Bulbul. High resolution


Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/American Robin nest.jpg

#1: A B-2 Spirit at Night
#2: High resolution shot
#3: High resolution shot rotated

I think this image is striking; it appears in the B-2 Spirit article. Its an United States Air Force public domain photo loaded by Radical Bender.


File:Bouillon, Semoise River, Day-Break.jpg
The thick fog lays upon Semois River in Bouillon, Belgium. December 2004

I nominate this image that I took in the city of Bouillon, Belgium around mid December. It is along the Semois River as the sun was starting to rise; the fog was thick until two or three hours after this picture was taken. This photo illustrates the tranquility of a small village with the silent river, the empty streets, the timeless buildings and the majestic mountain range hardly visible.


Hurricane Emily regional imagery, 2005.07.14 at 1915Z. Centerpoint Latitude: 13:15:06N Longitude: 65:23:34W.

This is the most beautiful picture of a Hurricane I've ever seen. It appears in the Hurricane Emily article, and is from: http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/hurseas2005/Emily1915z-050714-1kg12.jpg I've never used a Wikipedia picture for my wallpaper -- but I had to make an exception for this one. It's striking.

If I remember correctly the land on most weather sat photos are computer compiled. PPGMD 02:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed the point. I'm saying that the clouds themselves are computer drawn. Have another look at the peripheral clouds on the 1920px version. I'm not talking about the green land surface - Adrian Pingstone 10:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The clouds are photographic from GOES-12's visible camera. The photographic clouds are textured on a 3d cloud height surface, generated by computer from other data. -- Cyrius| 03:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Example of perspective

The image exemplifies the concept of perspective, as objects become more distant, they begin to appear smaller. This image appears in article about Perspective (visual). This image was taken by Priit Kallas on June 4th 2004, Võsu, Estonia.


These images exemplify pure ideals of nature photography, still lives, sketches and diagrams, drawings and painting, and even animated gifs... please nominate them. WARNING: this is actually a reverse nomination and format anomaly. Please add nominations to the contest's Wikimedia Commons page and link to them from the contest page on meta. +sj + 19:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Rock, part of the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument with a beautiful double rainbow.

Image from the homepage of the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. The copyright is with the NPS, therefore this picture is in public domain. Great scenery and detail in the picture. The double rainbow mixed with the mountain background of the Oregon mountains makes this picture what it is. The fence in the foreground adds a nice touch of detail to the picture that complements the rainbow and mountains. The image quality is excellent and well deserving of Featured Picture status.


Mackerelsky

Burnt out highlights, and yet another image which is too small to be worthy of a FP status IMO

  • ( + ) Support Too small --Fir0002 09:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • For issues like size, we should try to get a larger version from the contributor before voting on delisting it. I can't see any attempt to tell the user in question user:Denni, so I'm going to oppose delisting until the contributor (who is still active) says they can't or won't provide a larger version. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • I will rescan this image at a higher resolution (and also fix the highlight issue) ASAP. Denni 00:50, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
  • Oppose if a bigger image is found, it's a nice picture. This link is Broken 22:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any success in getting a better copy? It's been a while since the delisting was nominated... Enochlau 11:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bigger, better, and more beautiful version has been created and uploaded. Before, I was a little dubious of its place in the Featured Picture archive. Now it deserves it. Denni 23:54, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
  • Oppose delisting - Bevo 02:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • After alternative image provided, Support delisting - 1 Oppose delisting - 4, Kept as a Featured Picture - Bevo 03:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Vincent van Gogh's painting, The Church at Auvers.
Version 2.

This is my favorite painting by Vincent van Gogh. For the eye, the painting has a high resolution, beautiful colors and superb detail. For the art lover, there is a great amount of symbolism in this painting. The Church at Auvers represents van Gogh’s feelings for the church after they refused to let him become a priest. One fact to point out about the painting is notice how there are no doors on the church. This shows his feelings of how there seems to be no way for him to get in.

  • Nominate and support. - ZeWrestler Talk 16:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image is cropped compared to the original painting. Consider for instance this photo of the painting: [1]. You can notice the colors are also different, but I don't know which photo is closest to the original. Actually, if we are to promote a painting by Van Gogh, I would prefer the photo of The Starry Night. I like the painting a lot, and the photo has even more superb detail. --Bernard Helmstetter 20:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per your suggestion I looked up the picture some more and came up with this picture. I do agree, stary night is a great painting, but besides that fact, another reason, i nominated this is that I wanted to get some more attention to a lesser known van Gogh painting. I do agree about the original version of the painting. I did not realize it was cropped, and i hope this new version that i uploaded is better for the qualifications of becoming a Featured Picture.--ZeWrestler Talk 12:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Picture of picture. Unless, possibly, there's something amazing about the reproduction, I don't like pictures of pictures being featured. I like discussions of which painting people prefer even less. Mark1 04:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just about everyone has seen Starry Night before but not as many have seen this painting, and as a featured picture hopefully more people would. Personally, I find this painting and the story behind it Van Gogh's most interesting, and both the images represent it well. Chuckos 15:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose paintings by notable artists on general principles. Featured pictures should first and foremost be the original work of Wikipedians, secondarily images which are noteworthy and have not had broad exposure (ie, most NASA stuff) may be featured. I would prefer that a featured image be one that the great majority of viewers have never seen before. Denni 03:37, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
  • You say great majority of viewers haven't seen before, that is part of the reason i picked this picture. Unlike Stary Night, this painting is one of his lesser known works of art. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I was going to support until I read and agreed with the comment left by Denni]. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Coffee 05:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A chinese fishing net being used in Kochi, India

I'm not a professional photographer. But, I feel that the setting sun right behind the net and a catamaran right below that all differing in their y and z co-ordinates but not in x looks good. I don't know if the darkness along the bottom right corner can be removed. This appears in Kochi, India. This type of fishing nets has been borrowed from ancient chinese and to this date they're called cheena valla (chinese net in Malayalam language).

  • Nominate and support. - Sundar \talk \contribs 08:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC) I am withdrawing the nomination until I find a larger picture. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's very small. Do you have a larger version? Dunc| 14:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately no. I took this in a non-digital camera and scanned it. Perhaps I should use the negative to print it larger and then scan it. Any other alternative? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:00, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Beautiful composition, but the small size makes it hard to determine any details. I like the darkness in the lower corners; I think it adds to setting sun. If you can upload a larger version of this, I would gladly support it. — EagleOne\Talk 17:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a lovely scene but its much too small and the horizon is clearly sloping. I could not support it without those two things being corrected - Adrian Pingstone 21:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since all comments point to its size, I'll withdraw the nomination until I get a larger picture. Thanks for your comments. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted Coffee 05:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Film reel and film.jpg
Film reel with 8mm film

This image I chosen to be a candidate is of high-quality and it is just of one thing. It must be a very good-quality image because if you go on the image page you'll see it is on few articles and on article's talk pages too. The reason for this is because it is on a template named FilmsWikiProject. It also listed on the Commons.

I think it would be too advanced for me to do. • Thorpe • 11:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the limited depth of focus adds to this picture. David D. 17:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Coffee 05:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gray wolf (Canis lupus)

Wonderful image of a gray wolf. Illustrates the wolf article. Taken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Not promoted Coffee 05:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ansellia africana orchid.

List of Orchidaceae genera is packed with excellent illustrations of orchids, such as this striking Ansellia africana. Many of them come from Larsen Twins Orchids. In this case, the picture could be larger, but isotherwise very good. It also illustrates Ansellia. -- Solipsist 05:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Coffee 05:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional hay stack from Romania
A cropped version
A less severe crop

In this day and age of modern machinery we rarely see pictures such as this. Not only does it illustrate the subject Hay well but it illustrates a way of life that is becoming forgotten by many. This picture was contributed by User:Paulnasca.

  • Nominate and support. - David D. 22:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who took this photo? Where in Romania was it taken? -- Beland 03:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • support This picture was took by me and was taken in Lunca Bradului, a small village in Mures couty from Romania. I have many other pics of haystack :) Paul Nasca 17:17, 08 August, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice. I wonder if the top should be cropped slightly though? Whitehorse1 01:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support all but the most cropped version. I like the atmosphere and contrast the background brings to the image. - Mgm|(talk) 01:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not terribly eye catching. Enochlau 10:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While not "extremely" eye-catching, I find it nostalgic, and it happens to be a subject I've never seen in real life, besides having visited quite a number of farms in Quebec. Circeus 22:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Support -- colourful =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Boring. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is an intriguing picture of hay, that would prompt me to read the article. To me this hay stack looks a bit like a hut, and unlike the rounds, blocks, and mounds of hay I have seen elsewhere. A technical question, can the caption provide more detail on the stack, does it represent the rippling method, the cock method, or some other method used by Romanian farmers. And I am curious if those poles sticking from the haystack are part of some internal basket that supports the hay. Hebb l 21:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Romanian hay.jpg 5/2 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:28, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

This is a modified version of the old version uploaded on March 21st, 2005 with the improvements suggested by fellow Wikipedians. This version was uploaded on August 4th, 2005 by Alan Mak.

This picture gives a very good comparison for the visibilities on a normal day with clear sky and on a foggy day at the same place. Readers can see how the fog reduces the visibility. I took the two photographs and combined them into one picture by myself. This picture appears in the articles "fog" and "visibility", in which the picture plays important roles.

  • Nominate and support. - Alanmak 09:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight oppose. The locations of both images are not nearly, if not totally, identical. You would find out the differences if you overlap one image to another -- where's the tree (or bush?) in the fog at the bottom right-hand corner? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really took the two photographs at the same place. I think the difference was that the one taken on the sunny day was zoomed less closer. Other things, such as the road junction, and the little tree on the left hand side of each photograph and stuffs, are obviously the same. If somebody can still argue that the two photographs were not taken at the same place, he/she had better checked his/her eyes. :-P The purpose for the left photograph to zoom less closer is to show that the trees closer to the camera can be seen clearly, while the more distant ones are more fuzzy, due to the fog. - Alanmak 21:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Now the cropping makes the image perfect. It shows a very clear concept of how fog affects visibilty, with the objects in the picture like the bridge, the building, the car, the trees. But I do hope there's a picutre of a higer resolution. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had a talk with my optician, and he said my eyes were perky. >:-( Btw, where're the leaves on the top? Capped in the sunshine, huh? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 09:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ( − ) Oppose Good idea (i've been wanting to take something like this) but the difference in position/zoom is too much and spoils the effect IMO. --Fir0002 09:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I like the concept but I'm not sure this particular set of pictures is best for the purpose. For example, in the sunny picture there are flags, but not in the foggy picture. It would be useful to have a car and person in the foggy picture. Is the crane (is that a crane, top left?) in the sunny picture in the foggy picture or was that also missing?
I think the best way to take these picture would be to do it looking down a street. A perfect place to do this would be in the sunset district of San Francisco. The advantage of a street is that there are features at regular intervals. In this way the effect of the fog is much more apparent. I did crop your pictures so they are the same scale. Another issue is that the image is now smaller since I had to reduce the size of the sunny picture to match similar region I cropped from the foggy picture. Alanmak, do you have larger versions of these two pictures? David D. (Talk) 16:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your cropping skills are really amazing! Looking forward to a higher quality version... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the right software it is very easy. If Alanmak uploads the original photo's I'll be happy to crop them to help this picture get support. David D. (Talk) 16:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some folks suggested that we can crop the two photographs for a little bit so as to make them more like each other. I have made a new version. This time I use PNG file format. Also, the two photographs are now made to have the exact same size. Please give some comments so that I can improve the picture before we vote to decide whether the picture can become a featured one. - Alanmak 23:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I like the slightly heavier crop. i wonder what other people think. I tried two versions, one that keeps the building and has two cars with their lights driving up the road (seems appropriate for the visability argument). The other I cropped similarly to how you had it before. I like the car version since your attention gets drawn down the road emphasising the poor visability. On my monitor the top version seems to have more intense colour. I actually cropped the same picture so I'm not sure why that difference is so large. David D. (Talk) 02:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Up to August 12th, 2005, we got six "supports" and 3 "opposes" for this picture, and the picture has been improved based on the suggestions that came with the "opposes". So, as the general consent is supporting this picture, it can now b promoted as a featured picture. Thanks to David again for his improving the pictures. But since his cropped versions were modified from the original one that I made, the sizes were reduced, and they are a little bit blurred when enlarged. As seen from the comments above, the first picture seems to be more preferred. So, let us use the first picture at this moment. Later, I may ask our fellow Wikipedias whether they want some heavier cropping for the picture. If yes, then I would make a further cropped version with higher resolution. -Alanmak 04:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Promoted Image:Fog&Sunny.png[reply]

A glass of beer

Great picture. Makes me want to have a pint of beer!

  • Nominate and support. - Richard W.M. Jones 13:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The perfect reflection is a little disconcerting, otherwise great photo. -- Rmrfstar 15:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'head' is too large (the froth part). Seems to be over one third 'head'? The glass isn't typical of one used in a bar but if a beer were served like that to a typical customer it'd be referred back to the bartender. Subject as well as the picture quality matter as it is a picture of a glass of beer. Whitehorse1 01:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I've had beer served to me in this way in Amsterdam, where that is apparently quite normal (or I'm a foreigner abroad and didn't know any better). In the UK of course this would not be tolerated! Richard W.M. Jones 09:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On further inspection, looks like this photo was uploaded by a different commons user, commons:User:Milesteg, who is perhaps the same as meta:User:Milesteg. Richard W.M. Jones 15:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 10/9 -- No Consensus Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Shuttle Columbia launches on 1st of March 2002

A striking photo that just looks cool; Appears in Space Shuttle Columbia, and was taken from a NASA website.

Not promoted 13/6 -- Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 04:26, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Winter in Schauinsland

A beautiful picture I navigated across at commons. Currently illustrate WinterCirceus 19:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Windbuchencom.jpg 15/2 -- Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:51, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

#1. A cluster of ripening rowan berries.
#2. Cropped and removed patch of light.

This new image illustrates Rowan. It was taken by a friend of mine who agrees to license it under GFDL. A non-cropped high-resolution version is available on commons:Rowan. I think the image is excellent. The subject is by no means perfect (look at the rotten berry for example), but it is a better illustration than an image of a "perfect" cluster would have been. — David Remahl 23:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still oppose, even without the white spot the focus isn't great and the background distracts from the main subject of the image. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:16, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: I've uploaded the second version with the light patch Photoshopped away, and cropped to remove most of the blank green space that resulted. Sorry for doing this during voting time. Coffee 17:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is an excellent representation of ripening Rowan berries, and should appear in the Rowan entry, but I don't think this bunch of berries is compelling enough for featured status. Perhaps if there were a bird snatching one of the berries in flight, it would be appealing enough for featured status. Hebb l 21:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Its a good illustration, but I think I prefer the lead image on Rowan, although it is a little over saturated.
  • Oppose Slightly blurry and the colors don't combine to make a pleasing image. Sorry --Fir0002 03:30, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 2/1/4 -- Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:08, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Map of the City of Manila

I know some people are hesitant about promoting maps as featured pictures, but we don't have a city detail map yet, and I think this one is certainly worthy. This map of Manila was brilliantly created by Seav. It's beautiful! I love the colors, fonts, and style selections. This should be the benchmark for city maps. A picture is worth a thousand words, and this one speaks tons. Coffee 12:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image: Ph map manila large.png 8/1/1 -- Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

A high resolution image of cone flowers (echinacea purpurae grown as an ornamental and herb.

My first attempt at picture features, so I'm not at all sure that I'm crossing the t's and dotting the i's, but the Echinacea article had only one photo (in its taxobox). That photo was of cone flowers growing wild in the Rocky Mountains, and therefore it is the best for that position, but I had a nice photo of the flowers grown as ornamentals in 2000, so I did a 300 dpi scan of the photo. It's part of Echinacea, and the photo was taken and uploaded by Geogre 03:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  • Nominate and support. - Geogre 03:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like it been through a very lossy save. The dithering suggests that it was saved as an 8-bit PNG. — David Remahl 11:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeh I agree - image quality is a problem. Enochlau 12:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have a problem with the quality. David D. (Talk) 13:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok: I keep it in Photoshop on my desktop, so I'll to a low-lossy format. 24-bit .png coming up in a moment. Look again in an hour or so. Geogre 16:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: From this point on, the image is a much higher fidelity file save. I use dial-up, so uploading the 1.5 MB files always gets me down. However, other than going with .TIFF, this is about the least loss we're going to get on an open-source format. Geogre 16:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure of the prefered formats in wikipedia? I would have thought the maximum information possible? TIFF is obviously over the top but a jpg compression can be pretty small. Does wikipedia prefer us to use color palettes, say 256 colours only etc? This is good for web sites but I do not see the advantage for wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 17:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not think TIFF is over the top, however it is not recommended at this point. Commons says it may be in the near future. TIFF's can be saved to PNG's losslessly in most cases. For photographs that are included in articles, JPEGs are preferred. I recommend that both a PNG and a JPEG are uploaded, and that all colorspace information (ColorSync profiles e.g.) is maintained. Wikipedia must be careful to retain as much informaton as possible, so that images can be edited and used by future editors, when we are gone. A 3000x2000 picture may be overkill for today's displays, but may be considered small in a couple of years, or not fit for printing. — 22:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a beautiful picture; I'll put it on my desktop. However, the details of the flower itself are a bit blurry... Maybe sharpening a tad, if you haven't already done so. There are also some white specks and traces from the original photo. They can very easily be retouched in Photoshop. I'd be glad to help you if you want. Maybe I'd also crop a few pixels of the green/black from the top to make it more centered. — David Remahl 22:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the composition is something I disagree with you on. The shot is balanced the way that, I at least, wished to balance it (although the scan is PD, so folks can do as they like). The difficulty with sharpening is that I can use an unsharp mask and selectively sharpen, but the blur that you're seeing is the effect of a telephoto. I.e. the focus is somewhat intended to be narrow. On the othe rhand, the specks...yeah, they drive me crazy. Since my first thought was to save this in a more lossy format to enable it to be displayed a about 800 x 1200 px, I didn't climb down to the really tight views. Then I did the high high-res save and didn't think of how much more detailed the display was going to be and therefore didn't do the manual cleaning. I'll certainly get in there and upload the thing again. Anyway, the composition and focus is a thing I'd rather leave alone and let the photo pass or fail as is, but the cleaning is something I'll get in there to do. I'll note when it's done; meanwhile, we can leave it as still in its first 2 days, I suppose. Geogre 12:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cool, never mind about the composition then :). I like it fine as it is. The problem with the focus, I think, is that no part of the center of the flower is in focus. It seems the focus is on the petals closest to the lens. Or something. It might not be possible to do anything about that after-the-fact. — David Remahl 12:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Scanner dust, grainy background, colors a bit too dull. I do like the composition and the wide format though. Ivan 03:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per above, unless can be corrected. Phoenix2 16:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, the white spot (dust ?) at the top should be removed.... Ericd 00:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dust? Perhaps...Phoenix2 05:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with other oppositions. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted 1/3 -- Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Hubble Space Telescope

Interestingly enough, there are very few featured articles using featured pictures. This one unsurprisingly illustrate Hubble Space Telescope. Over the next few weeks, I will be looking at Featured articles to find other suitable Ffeatured pictures.

Not promoted 2/1/6 -- Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

A warped spiral galaxy--warped as a result of colliding with another galaxy. After the other galaxy is completely absorbed, the distortion will disappear. The process typically takes millions of years.

This is a rare picture of a warped galaxy. It would provide an excellent illustration of the distortion caused by colliding galaxies, discussed in the entry Galaxy formation and evolution under the spiral galaxy heading. The image was taken by the Hubble telescope.

7, 8, 9, 10, take your pick) --Fir0002 03:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted 5/3 -- Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Red fox standing over its prey.
Sharpened version
Levels & sharpened

A beautiful red fox standing over its pray. Detail is excellent on this picture. The hair in his fur coat can easily be seen and the focus is great.

Added another version with levels adjustment - not sure if it's going too far though --Fir0002 09:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Vulpes_vulpes_with_prey.jpg 7/1, 6 for original, 1 for sharpened version, 1 oppose -- Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Prayer flags in the Zanskar region of northern India.

One of several rather good pictures that User:Moumine has contributed to the Zanskar article - it seems to capture a little of both the scenery and culture of the region. I'm surprised we don't already have an article on Buddhist prayer flags, but that would just be a bonus. -- Solipsist 13:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Prayer flag above Tanze Gompa.jpg 18/1/0 -- Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 08:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Grand Prismatic Spring, Yellowstone National Park
Edit by Fir0002

The Grand Prismatic Spring of Yellowstone National Park showing steam rising from hot and sterile deep azure blue water (owing to the light absorbing overtone of an OH stretch which is shifted to 698 nm by hydrogen bonding [2]) in the center surrounded by huge mats of brilliant orange algae and bacteria. The color of which is due to the ratio of chlorophyll to carotenoid molecules produced by the organisms. During summertime the chlorophyll content of the organisms is low and thus the mats appear orange, red, or yellow. However during the winter, the mats are usually dark green, because sunlight is more scarce and the microbes produce more chlorophyll to compensate, thereby masking the carotenoid colors. The effect is thus somewhat simillar to, but oppositely timed, to what is seen in deciduous plants. A jaw droppingly beautiful image IMHO, with lots of sciencey goodness to boot! Image is probably a scan and is a bit blurry at full size but its so large that I think it's easily overlooked, though perhaps an unsharp mask is in order.

Promoted Image:Grand prismatic spring.jpg 15/2, 13 votes for orginal version, 1 vote for edited version, 1 vote for either version, 2 votes opposed -- Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:44, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yellow-winged Darter

This is a self-nomination of this Yellow-winged Darter image.

Promoted Image:Sympetrum flaveolum - side (aka).jpg 13/1 -- Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:45, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a place of deep personal reflection

This was a chance shot. I wanted to capture the spirit of the place, the extraordinary feeling that you are being watched by the shades of those whose names are listed here, and I took a photograph of the geometry of the situation, the young man in the foreground just looking up at the Wall. I thought my hand might have shaken a little and blurred the photograph in the fading January twilight, so I took another, and as I did so he reached up to touch a name. And my heart. I have placed this in the Vietnam Veterans Memorial article.

Not promoted 11/5 -- Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 08:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


place all votes during extension below this line

  • Neutral it would be a conflict of interest for me to vote one way or another at this point thus the neutral vote. Even though this is a very moving picture it is somewhat blurry and the focus of the photo is unclear as to whether it's the Vietnam wall, the person, or the Washington monument. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 20:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this Support/Oppose count wrong? I make it 11 Supports and 5 Opposes - Adrian Pingstone 15:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put this page back on FPC for a short time to see if a more clear concensus could be reached. This link is Broken 14:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By which you mean you put it back on FPC until you can justify promoting it. You don't have to like the fact that I didn't promote the image but I find this underhanded that you are relisting this because it didn't end the way you hoped. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 19:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
To clarify why I closed it as such, I closed it as not promoted because there was no clear consensus to promote
I did not mean "put it back until it was promoted" and I feared it would look as such. I recieved an email saying that this vote was particularly close and that perhaps I should review it, I also saw a comment elsewhere suggesting that the result was unclear. I also felt that it was close and some votes were based on incorrect information. In order to allay any fears over vote rigging I think the vote should stay open for no more than 36 hours after it was put back. If nothing changes then, don't promote it. It had quite strong support up until the very end. Sorry for making this look like some sort of insult or unfair tactic. This link is Broken 03:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(68.75% to promote) and I felt that there were some real concerns with the image as noted in the oppose votes, thus not promoting it. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 19:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted , no new votes came in during the alotted extension, so it fails. This link is Broken 13:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pity... but ok. Gwyndon 21:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Double-crested Cormorant
Edit by Fir0002

A very good picture by Mdf of a Double-crested cormorant in a typical pose, drying its wings. Used in Double-crested Cormorant and List of Oklahoma birds (a featured list).

Promoted Image:Phalacrocorax-auritus-007.jpg 12/1 -- 9 votes for orginal version, 2 votes for edited version, 1 vote for either version, 1 vote opposed -- Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)