WikiPedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Featured Picture Tools

On the Commons:

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. Pictures that are striking but do not illustrate an article can be submitted to Featured picture candidates on the Wikimedia commons.

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.

Images listed here should be either in the public domain or covered by the GNU Free Documentation License or a similar license. Since an image gallery is of limited educational value (a requirement for fair use) fair use images are not appropriate candidates for inclusion in the featured pictures gallery.

For listing, 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. If necessary, decisions about close votes will be made on a case-by-case basis.

The archive contains all votes and comments collected on this page and also vote tabulations.

Also, be sure to sign your nomination by using "~~~~" in the editor - this will add your log-on name with the date and time.

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

Purge page cache (http://wikipedia.cas.ilstu.edu/index.php?title=WikiPedia:Featured_picture_candidates&action=purge) if nominations haven't updated.
Contents
1 Procedure

1.1 How to add your nomination
1.2 Supporting and opposing
1.3 Community standards

2 Current nominations

2.1 Praying mantis
2.2 Washington C D.C. Tidal Basin cherry trees
2.3 House sparrow1
2.4 Grapes
2.5 White-throated_Kingfisher
2.6 Pincushion Hakea
2.7 Uscapitolindaylight
2.8 Sunrise at Stonehenge
2.9 Image:Img 0326.jpg
2.10 Sunset
2.11 Spirit of Ecstasy
2.12 Bentley badges
2.13 Wine Grapes
2.14 Daisy1web
2.15 Redwing_nest.jpg
2.16 Image:Fold-us-flag-animated.gif
2.17 Sunset in Bali
2.18 Chess revolution
2.19 University of California
2.20 Mont-Saint-Michel
2.21 Krilleyekils
2.22 Starlette
2.23 San Pardo Cathedral- Architectural detail closeup
2.24 Mouse Cutaway
2.25 SMAW.welding.af.ncs
2.26 Simmon-hall-mit-boston-usa.jpg
2.27 Hindu goddess
2.28 Caulfield Grammar School awards pocket

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

3.1 Image:OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg
3.2 Lions Gate Bridge Vancouver.jpg

4 Nomination for removal
[edit]

Procedure

[edit]

How to add your nomination

Nominations are now created as subpages.

  1. Create a new subpage named   Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name-Of-Image
  2. Edit the subpage to give your reasons for nomination using the following format
    ===[[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name-Of-Image|Name-Of-Image]]===
    [[Image:FILENAME.jpg|thumb|CAPTION]]
    Add your reasons for nominating it here,
    say what article it is used on and who created the image. - ~~~~
    * Nominate and '''support'''. First vote here - ~~~~
    *
    <!-- additional votes go above this line -->
    <br style="clear:both;" />
  3. Add  {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Name-Of-Image}}  to the top of the list in the Current nominations section of this page.
  4. Add  {{FPC}}  to the nominated image's page. This inserts the featured pictures candidate template, to let the original contributor and other interested parties know that the image is up for voting.

If you have problems formatting your nomination, someone else will fix it, don't worry! If you wish to simply add your nomination to this page without creating the subpage, that is OK as someone else will create the subpage. The important piece of information is the pointer to the image, and the reason for the nomination.

[edit]

Supporting and opposing

  • If you approve of a picture, write Support followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by the reasons for your objection. Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed.
    • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
[edit]

Community standards

Please adhere to applicable community standards and conventions of writing and layout as relevant for contributions to a dialogue.

[edit]

Current nominations

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

Purge page cache (http://wikipedia.cas.ilstu.edu/index.php?title=WikiPedia:Featured_picture_candidates&action=purge) if nominations haven't updated.
[edit]

Praying mantis

Missing image
Praying_mantis_india.JPG
Praying_mantis, India

Contributed to the article of the Praying_mantis.

Missing image
Praying_mantis_india_2.jpg
version 2

High resolution (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Praying_mantis_india.JPG) by Shivanayak 07:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

Washington C D.C. Tidal Basin cherry trees

Missing image
Washington_C_D.C._Tidal_Basin_cherry_trees.jpg
Cherry trees from Japan around the Tidal Basin in Washington, DC. The Washington Monument is visible in the distance.

This is another of the photos that I have used for the kigo article. It is almost too tourist postcardish, but it's grown on me. Currently the photo is only used in the Kigo, and List of kigo articles. USDA photo by Scott Bauer. Image Number K5876-11. The same photographer also took a very nice closeup of the cherry blossoms: Image:Cherry tree blossoms.jpg. BlankVerse ∅ 15:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. BlankVerse ∅ 15:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I like it. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Works for me. Denni☯ 01:41, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Support, I like the trees in the foreground especially. Phoenix2 03:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • support. I like it. - Shivanayak 06:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_oppose_vote.png


Oppose Sky an unnatural blue. --Fir0002 06:55, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - good photo -- Chris 73 Talk 09:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

House sparrow1

House sparrow (Passer domesticus) Male and female (male in front)
Enlarge
House sparrow (Passer domesticus) Male and female (male in front)

This is another one of the images that I ended up using for the Kigo article. It is also used in the House Sparrow article. The photo was taken by Dennis Mojado and downloaded from [1] (http://photography.mojado.com/archives/2004/09/29/parisian_birds.php). BlankVerse ∅ 15:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. BlankVerse ∅ 15:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the enlarged pic (even the 640px-wide pic) is in poor focus Adrian Pingstone 16:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    That actually part of what I liked about the photo. There is a nice tight focus on the sparrows, and everthing in the background has become almost abstract. BlankVerse ∅ 17:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I almost nominated this one myself yesterday, but was worried about the low res. I think it's good though, despite that. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, thought about this one, but the resolution is too low. Phoenix2 03:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_oppose_vote.png


Oppose Too low res + the face of the sparrow looking towards the camera is out of focus. --Fir0002 06:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose, per Fir. the front Sparrow is out of focus, I don't care about the background being out of focus (you can't have them both). - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

Grapes

Commercial vineyards have planted more than one million of the ARS-developed Crimson Seedless grapevines.
Enlarge
Commercial vineyards have planted more than one million of the ARS-developed Crimson Seedless grapevines.

In looking for photos to help support the article on kigo (season words used in the Japanese poetry form haiku) I've looked at tons of photos here, on the Commons, and on the internet. I really liked this photo of a bunch of grapes. Every time that I look at it the photo makes me hungry for grapes. It is also used on the Grape and Wine articles. USDA photo by Bob Nichols. Image Number K7721-3.. - BlankVerse ∅ 14:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. BlankVerse ∅ 14:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Just a comment: what's with the horizontal line about 1/3 down from the top?? Randyoo 15:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks like the original jpeg file was slightly corrupted. I've touched it up; clear your cache and it should be fixed. --Cryptic (talk) 16:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      Thank you. BlankVerse ∅ 17:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I know I'm being extremely fussy but the wire along the top spoils the pic for me (it would be easy to crop it out) - Adrian Pingstone 16:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Wires are an integral part of a vinyard. Check the winter picture on this page for example. [2] (http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~ericwan/WINE/wine_vineyard.html) I don't think it hurts the picture at all, whereas cropping it I think would ruin the composition and balance. BlankVerse ∅ 17:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm still seeing the line when I first open the image, but when I click to download the high res. version it goes. I like the wire. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Beautiful picture. TomStar81 22:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, yes that horizontal line disappears in the high resolution version. Phoenix2 03:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_support_vote.png


Support Good job on getting rid of the line. --Fir0002 06:51, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - I like it --Chris 73 Talk 09:17, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

White-throated_Kingfisher

Missing image
White-throated_Kingfisher.JPG
White throated Kingfisher

This is an image of a shy bird, afraid of humans. Crisp color and features of the bird. Article of the White-throated_Kingfisher with the link White-throated_Kingfisher.

  • Support. Self Nom. -- Shivanayak 12:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - focus poor - Adrian Pingstone 16:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just a touch too blurry. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - And the rope above its head is a bit distracting. Beautiful bird though. Sango123 22:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not enough focus -- Chris 73 Talk 09:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

Pincushion Hakea

Missing image
Pincushion_hakea03.jpg
Pincushion Hakea flower

Nice flower, and nice photo.

  • Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 11:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry Fir, but it makes me go a bit crosseyed. --Silversmith Hewwo 12:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. My eyes are fine. --brian0918™ 13:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's true that I don't have my glasses on...:p But there's more to my oppose than that. --Silversmith Hewwo 13:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - background too fussy - Adrian Pingstone 16:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC
  • Support, nice, and the background does tend to go fuzzy in pictures sometimes, but in this case I think it draws more toward the flower. Phoenix2 03:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I like it. This link is Broken 03:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, very good flower photo -- Chris 73 Talk 09:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

Uscapitolindaylight

The in daylight
Enlarge
The United States Capitol in daylight

Beautiful, clean picture, wonderful angle, and the sky works perfectly for it. Obviously used on United States Capitol and several others. Golbez 06:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. --Golbez 06:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because the patch of green above is really ugly in the large version. Also, there are a lot of distracting elements (foreground etc.). Zement 16:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's just a good pic of a building. Not outstanding enough for me. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

Sunrise at Stonehenge

Missing image
Summer_Solstice_Sunrise_over_Stonehenge_2005.jpg
#1) Sunrise at Stonehenge on the summer solstice.
Missing image
Summer_Solstice_2005_Sunrise_over_Stonehenge_01.jpg
#2) The first minute after sunrise

It has been a while since I've felt like trying a self-nom. Hot of the presses, this is what the sunrise looked like at Stonehenge this morning, as some 19,000 people gathered to help a handful of druids welcome the sun on the morning of the summer solstice. The section could use a bit more improvement, but I'm happy with the way this photo turned out. - Solipsist 19:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Self-nominate and support. -- Solipsist 19:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral That parachuter in the middle really bugs me for some reason. --CVaneg 20:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I can remove the parachuter without trace if it would be worth it. Or Solipsist can if he/she has the know-how. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, airbrushing out the paramotor would be a 'breeze', c.f. FPC/Fire breathing ;-). However I quite like him (I'm a sucker for aviation), although I would agree that he is a problem with the composition in that he distracts the eye from the real focus of the picture. However, this picture is illustrating a particular moment, rather than a concept, so I would be more concerned about editing history - the guy was there at the time. I've plenty of alternative images, but many have other minor problems or less defined colours etc. -- Solipsist 21:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would rather him gone, as good as your point is. I just keep looking at him and not at what should be the focus. --Silversmith Hewwo 22:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not totally opposed to airbrushing, but here is alternative (#2) which is taken a little earlier, in the first minute after sunrise. This pic might also be worth considering, although its actually about fifteen minutes after sunrise. By the way, here's my take on the picture that made the front page of the The Gruaniad (http://digital.guardian.co.uk/) this morning - shame I didn't get the jump... -- Solipsist 08:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Heh, I hadn't even realised in the first image that there were people there (parachuter aside)! I like first pic the best, but I'm still not sure. Knowing that there are people there gives weight to the parachuter. I do like the way in the second pic that you can see the people better and the mist. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I liked this. A curate's egg 06:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_support_vote.png


Support I like the parachuter. --Fir0002 08:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support though I'd rather the chap in the paraglider got a taste of the clone tool myself. adamsan 19:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the top one, with or without glider. Joe D (t) 22:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I like the colours, but what's the pointy thing on the top of the stone in the middle? Mark1 04:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think it's part of one of the mortise and tenon joints that held the lintel onto the stone, the lintel is now fallen. adamsan 07:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's just what I was going to say. I've added a longer explanation, along with details of the solar alignment to the image description page here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Summer_Solstice_Sunrise_over_Stonehenge_2005.jpg). You can also see the tenon spike on the right of this daylight photo of the central triliths. -- Solipsist 09:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, preferrable without the parachute. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

Image:Img 0326.jpg

Missing image
Img_0326.jpg
Picture I took of the lead singer of Disturbed, David Draiman, at their performance in Starland Ballroom on July 30, 2004.

I took this picture back in 2004. Since then, this has remained one of my favorite pictures that I have ever taken. The lead singer was just a few feet away from me singing the song Prayer, and the light shines off him just right to captivate anyone that happens to stumble across this image. This artical is used on both the Disturbed artical and the artical about the lead singer featured in the picture, David Draiman.

Missing image
Symbol_support_vote.png


Support. First vote here - ZeWrestler 16:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose, picture is too blurry. Phoenix2 16:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, really blurred. Ericd 16:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- You really like this guy eh? Sorry. - Longhair | Talk 17:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The geen lighting is what makes the picture in my opinion. --ZeWrestler 17:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Don't like that bright mess in the lower right corner. And a bit too blurry. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sorry, a pic this blurred could never be a Featured Pic - Adrian Pingstone 20:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_oppose_vote.png


Oppose - If any pic, this should not be a featured picture. Blurry, weird angle, does not help the article significantly, etc. pmam21talkarticles 10:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_oppose_vote.png


Oppose - For reasons stated above --Fir0002 11:16, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Sunset

Missing image
Sunset_with_funnel_clouds.jpg
Dramatic sunset

I know that I've nominated a lot of sunset photos in the past on FPC, but I think this one is really something special.

  • Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:57, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The white rays at the left, which I assume are sun rays, kinda distract from the awe feeling this great shot would otherwise give. I'm open to persuasion to change my vote to 'Support' if it's established I know nothing about sunsets and this is what one would expect to be seeing, but for now I find it distracting. -- Longhair | Talk 15:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, though I think we have a few sunset pics featured already. — Dan | Talk 15:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Love an Aussie sunset. We can always delist an old pic if something new and improved comes along. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, until someone explains what those white rays are. --Bernard Helmstetter 00:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Those 'white rays' as the description on the image says, are funnel shaped clouds (I don't know a more scientific name for them). I can upload a photo earlier (prior to sunset) in which only the strange clouds are visible. --Fir0002 05:58, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • The picture still looks strange to me. Neutral. --Bernard Helmstetter 17:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the white things are distracting. A curate's egg 06:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This cloud article may be of use - but it's hard to tell exactly what type of clouds the ones in this pic are. --Silversmith Hewwo 12:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

Spirit of Ecstasy

Missing image
Rolls-Royce_Spirit_of_Ecstasy.jpg
The Rolls-Royce badge and "Spirit of Ecstasy" on the front of a 1971 Silver Shadow

Self-nom. Sharp, eye-catching, and informative. — Dan | Talk 00:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Informative did you say? Enochlau 04:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't understand your objection. It's just as informative as any other pretty picture listed on this page, isn't it? — Dan | Talk 13:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_oppose_vote.png


Oppose Agree with Enochlau. Also cannot say that the full res image is sharp. It's also quite noisy. --Fir0002 08:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose, not featured material. Phoenix2 16:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • As an amateur photographer, I rather wish someone would tell me what is lacking in my photos, rather than giving vague assessments. I'd be glad to hear that it's poorly lit or too fuzzy or not well composed, but "featured picture material" is not an option on my camera. — Dan | Talk 03:20, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well. First your choice of composition is not obvious, we don't see the face, the RR logo isn't vertical and I don't see an element that is centered or match a third of the image. There are some focus issues that are difficult to avoid on a close-up photography. I think the focus in on the RR logo logically this should be most interresting part of the picture but the composition "say" someting else. I also think that's a bit "middle of the road" reguading focus some parts of the pic are out of focus but not so much. That looks unsharp instead of looking like Bokeh. One last point, color is uninterresting the pic would be better in B & W IMO. Ericd 11:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but I have a roll of exposed B & W film in the fridge with photos of the Spirit of Ectasy and I hope to get something better. Ericd 17:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, unless Ericd can produce something better before the voting time is up. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose quality concerns This link is Broken 02:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) (also see Template:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Rolls-Royce Spirit of Ecstasy.jpg)


[edit]

Bentley badges

Missing image
Bentley_badge_and_hood_ornament.jpg
Bentley's winged "B" badge and hood ornament
Missing image
Bentley_badge_and_hood_ornament-BW.jpg
B & W version proposal

Self-nom: very sharp, eye-catching, informative. — Dan | Talk 22:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral - I could be wrong, but I don't think the by-sa-cc license is compatible with the GFDL license (which is required to be a featured picture). Otherwise, I would support. Kaldari 23:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm, the instructions say "covered by the GNU Free Documentation License or a similar license", and only fair use is specifically ruled out, so presumably another free license such as cc-by-sa is quite acceptable. — Dan | Talk 23:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, very nice. And yes, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are both suitable licences for FP. James F. (talk) 23:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, for lack of reason to oppose. Phoenix2 16:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I find the reflections of the people too distracting and messy. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The reflections make this picture look too complicated. --Bernard Helmstetter 00:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - very nice. I much prefer the coloured one, it catches the look of chrome better (not surprisingly!!) - Adrian Pingstone 16:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I definitely prefer the color version. Kaldari 18:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

Wine Grapes

Missing image
Wine_grapes.jpg
Wine grapes from an Australian Winery
Missing image
Wine_grapes03.jpg
Wine grapes from an Australian Winery

Pretty good shots of wine grapes. Wine grapes are very different from table grapes in that for the particular wine these were going to produce the "wrinkling" of the grapes is desirable.

Missing image
Symbol_support_vote.png


Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_oppose_vote.png


Oppose -- I feel the grapes are too small in the first image, and badly framed in the second, though they look lovely :). - Longhair | Talk 13:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_oppose_vote.png


Oppose for same reasons as Longhair. - Mgm|(talk) 16:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_support_vote.png


Support. I like both. I think the colour of the grapes is very rich, it contrasts very will with the leaves and the background. I like the way we get to see how they bunch up on the vine in the first pic. I can't imagine better pictures, particularly as I get sick of seeing them not in a natural state i.e. on a plain white background or something. --Silversmith Hewwo 16:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: My bias might be showing. I've seen a lot of grapes on vines :) -- Longhair | Talk 03:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_support_vote.png


Support, I like both images, are both to become FPs or just one? Phoenix2 18:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I don't find them beautiful or striking. --Bernard Helmstetter 17:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • Support the picture on the left (Image:Wine grapes03.jpg, but it should be trimmed to remove the partial bunch on the left. No vote on the other picture.-gadfium 02:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Daisy1web

African Daisy.
Enlarge
African Daisy.

Very beautiful and striking. One of the best flower photographs I've ever seen. Used to illustrate the Daisy article. Uploaded by JoJan

  • Nominate and Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Wow! Sango123 00:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Groovy colors. TomStar81 00:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Bling bling. Josh Lee 03:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_support_vote.png


Support Nice --Fir0002 08:49, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, black background enhances the colors -- Chris 73 Talk 17:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Absolutely fantastic! - Adrian Pingstone 18:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, to some extent a flower is a flower, but this one is especially beautiful. Phoenix2 21:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent colors, high res. Very nice. -IanMcGreene 22:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- I didn't even have to click on the image to know I was liking it. - Longhair | Talk 09:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, very detailed, nice color. - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - amazing pic. Guettarda 13:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_support_vote.png


Support --brian0918™ 13:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_support_vote.png


Support Lovely flower and photo. - Darwinek 14:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Submit to commons instead. The image is certainly striking and beautiful. However, it doesn't really illustrate an article on Wikipedia, which is a requirement here. The Daisy article currently deals with three species of flowers, none of which is african daisy (Dimorphotheca aurantiaca) or even a member of the same genus. Until this is sorted out the picture is out of place. As a side-note I think the picture is more beautiful than illustrative. The black background means that we don't see the flower in its natural context. We don't even have any reference to estimate how large it is. - Haukurth 16:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Not a very good argument. Your reasoning is more in favor of creating an article on the flower than deleting the picture because there is no article. There are plenty of other plant/animal FPs that don't have articles on the exact species, but are illustrative of the type. As for the background color, that's pretty subjective. --brian0918™ 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Create an article on this flower species and I will support the nomination. Until then the picture doesn't illustrate an article on Wikipedia (keeping the photo in the Daisy article is misleading). My notes about the background are not subjective. Whether the black background makes the flower more beautiful is, on the other hand, subjective. - Haukurth 20:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • This picture is on commons, and is here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bellis_perennis). And the picture is fine for the WP article as it is a Bellis perennis which is what the article is about. The other images have just been misnamed in naming them "Dasies". --Silversmith Hewwo 20:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I freely admit that I'm not an expert on flowers. But I don't think the flower in question is a Bellis perennis unless it's been twisted and painted. I'm not sure what species it actually is or whether that species is properly called African daisy. I hope someone with more knowledge can clear this up. This page seems to be the source of the picture: [3] (http://pdphoto.org/PictureDetail.php?mat=pdef&pg=5478) The only info here is that this is an "African daisy with studio lighting". Hmm... Weird licensing info: "If you plan on using this picture commercially, that's not a problem but please use some due diligence. I've tried to make sure I have a valid copyright on something before releasing it to the Public Domain, but the standard for commercial use is much higher. Don't be a dumbass." I'm not sure if we should take this to imply that the person writing is not the actual author of the picture or perhaps that he/she doesn't quite understand the Public Domain concept. I hope it isn't unreasonable to want these issues to be cleared up before the image is promoted. - Haukurth 21:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Regarding the license, it is clearly Public Domain and usable by us. I think the author fully understands the concept of public domain. from the pd photo about page [4] (http://pdphoto.org/About.php): "However, there are some things to keep in mind: This doesn't mean that you can take the material as is and then copyright it yourself. It's in the public domain and that's where it must stay. And if you intend to use an image you find here for commercial use, please be aware that standards for such use are higher than for other uses. Specifically, if you see a picture here with people you should assume no model release was obtained. And pictures featuring products or property may open you to litigation if you use them commercially without permision." I hope this clears things up. Lorax 01:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
              • Thank you. Yes, that's surely good enough. Now I just want to know what species the flower is :) - Haukurth 02:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be a type of "Trailing African Daisy" (http://www.aecnetwork.com/img/gardening/img/resources/wallpaper/trailing_african_daisy_640.jpg) Genus: Osteospermum fruticosum. The "Daisy Family" is Asteraceae, to which the plant in this picture belongs. I will make a seperate article tomorrow for this Genus, as that seems to be the system, which we can see by looking at Chrysanthemum. --Silversmith Hewwo 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a cultivar Osteospermum 'Pink Whirls'. This cultivar has pinkish-purple flowers with 'spooned' petals; reverse is purple to lavender-blue; disk is blue. See this site [[5] (http://www.mediterraneangardensociety.org/plants/Osteospermum.cultivars.html)]. I happen to have this plant in my garden. I'll make a few photos and I'll upload them in the Commons. But I'm afraid the quality of my photos won't be on a par with this excellent picture. JoJan 15:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_support_vote.png


Support–Kaldari 22:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support -- Should obviously be featured --Oblivious 21:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Shivanayak 13:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

Redwing_nest.jpg

Missing image
Redwing_nest.jpg
Redwing nest with four hatchlings and one remaining egg.

My wife took this picture yesterday. I think it is vivid and crisp and illustrates redwing, nest and bird nicely. It does need to be viewed full-size to be fully enjoyed, though. I suppose it could be cropped closer around the hatchlings though I think it's nice that one can see that the nest is on the ground. - Haukurth 15:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We checked on the nest again today. They're all dead now. It was probably a fox - though he didn't even eat them all. We found two of them a meter or two from the nest, blue and lifeless but not torn apart. The scene was just too sad to photograph. - Haukurth 20:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Nominate and support. - Haukurth 15:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_oppose_vote.png


Oppose, good, but not quite good enough. --Fir0002 09:41, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose, although I do think they look like groovy rockers with their spiky hair-styles. --Silversmith Hewwo 12:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thank you for voting on the picture. Might I bother you for more specific reasons you think the picture lacks merit? Perhaps it can be improved or replaced (we have a couple more of the same nest) and if not then at least we could have a better idea as to what to look for in the future (try a flower next time, maybe?). - Haukurth 13:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To be more specific, I find the birds a bit hard to see, as their colour is very close to the nest's colour, and the shadows don't help. I almost supported, but I don't think it is striking enough to be featured, it's just a nice, fairly interesting picture. Maybe the others you have are better? --Silversmith Hewwo 18:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, that's helpful :) We looked at the other pictures again but still feel this one is the best. We tried cropping it differently and fiddling with color levels and contrast but still feel it looks best unprocessed. The shadow is there because the lighting is natural. You can see that the nest is placed in a small depression in the ground. The hatchlings are similar in colour to the nest, that's probably how Nature/Darwin/God intended it. The nest is hard to find unless you know exactly where to look. Again, thank you for your comments. - Haukurth 20:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I happen to like it. If anything, 1/3rd of the nest is a bit in the shadow, but that is not a big flaw I think -- Chris 73 Talk 17:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I like it, but I don't think it's quite up to featured standard. Phoenix2 21:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_oppose_vote.png


Oppose - not especially striking. Kaldari 22:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

Image:Fold-us-flag-animated.gif

How to properly fold the
How to properly fold the US flag

This informative diagram by Jacobolus illustrates beautifully how to fold the US flag. - Josh Lee 03:25, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Josh Lee 03:25, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The animation is much more effective at conveying the information than the accompanying prose description. - Burn the asylum 11:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC).
  • Comment: Any chance we can get this in 3D? This is quite boring, sorry. Mgm|(talk) 12:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- I like the animation, but it doesn't show which way the flag gets folded (ie: over under, etc). In all honesty it looks like someone's taking siccors to the flag and cutting along the dotted lines, although I'm quite sure that is not what Jacobolus was aiming for. TomStar81 00:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It goes a bit too fast for me and I'm not sure I quite understand it. There seems to be a large step near the end. What does that indicate? I think a clearer, slower and maybe 3D version of this would have great FP potential. - Haukurth 01:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_oppose_vote.png


Oppose I think this would only be of interest to Americans.--Fir0002 09:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I still have no idea how to fold the flag no matter how often I watch it! - Adrian Pingstone 18:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Phoenix2 21:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it's not an effective demostration, while noting that Fir0002's objection is quite irrelevant. — Dan | Talk 00:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The animation doesn't really show "folding" in progress, and it's missing about a dozen steps between frames 10 and 11. --Carnildo 03:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

Sunset in Bali

Missing image
Jimbaransunset.jpg
Sunset at Jimbaran Beach, Bali

Bali, an island recovering from the recent bombing incident, is indeed, recovering, however, remains the human paradise, and always be, not any amount of force shall alter that stance. Reflected here is the very indulgence human could ever have, the sunset in Jimbaran Beach is the very need to embrace this lovely island. Photography will help to publicise this message. Used in the Bali article and Slivester Nuenenorl was the photographer. - Slivester 11:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Slivester 11:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Way too small. Enochlau 12:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Replaced with a larger resolution version. Slivester 12:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Still oppose, ordinary. as per comments below. Enochlau 01:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Its not as ordinary as it seemed, the process was tough. There are some elements blind to the human eye. Slivester 02:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by elements blind to the human eye? If I can't see it, what good is it in a featured picture? Enochlau 04:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we unfeature all the Hubble pictures? --brian0918™ 13:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Something profound that it should be featured. Slivester 14:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, good picture, but not featured material. Phoenix2 19:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, Nice shot, with great color and composition. Alight 19:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I would love to visit Bali, this is just another sunset photo. We have much better already in the FP archives. Denni☯ 22:57, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Just not striking enough. - Longhair | Talk 01:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For all the opposition reasons given. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Caught my eye at the Bali page, and I think it's beautiful. Dzof 11:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

Chess revolution

Missing image
Chess.jpg
"Chess revolution" Painting of N. Gabrichidze

I nominate this image because this artwork is a best illustration of how so called geopolitics goes now days. I feel that image was meant to represent the common mans reaction to the “game theory” which is saying that top ranking politicians are a players who use rest of humanity, and even whole countries as a pieces in the endless chess game. Image shows what might happen if this "game" goes too far. Artists had put himself at the rioting pieces side, but I also know people who associate themselves with a players and are pretty scared by the painting .. Image was painted by Dutch/Georgian artist (and my friend) Nick Gabrichidze at 2003-2004 and will be on display at his upcoming public art project in Holland Casino Amsterdam (opens July 27-28).. Image is used in the articles about Surrealism and Nick Gabrichidze as far as I know.. Was uploaded by Gabrichidze . - Knutson 21:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. First vote here - Knutson 21:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Its a rather nice illustration, but I'm afraid "Fair use" images are inelligible for Featured Picture Candidates, as described at the head of the page. However, with the permission of the artist, it is possible to release a particular photograph of a painting under GFDL, whilst the artist retains the copyright on the original painting. See for example Greencastle Harbour. -- Solipsist 22:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note Copyright status changed 17 Jun - (comment by User:80.126.57.218 16:08, 17 Jun 2005 -- Solipsist 15:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC))
The license has now improved, but the restriction 'for use at wikipedia.org only' effectively still prevents it from being GFDL. -- Solipsist 15:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This does not add significantly to the Surrealism, where the image should be removed IMHO, because Nick Gabrichidze is not a very well known artist (such an article should have images of the most famous and exemplary surrealist paintings). Note also that there's currently a vote for deletion on Nick Gabrichidze (I'm ambivalent on that one). Junes 09:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • oppose - "Unauthorised reproducion is prohibited." Not GFDL compatible. Kaldari 22:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose likely copyvio. Also, WP:VAIN, and user is presently edit warring to get this and similar art included in a number of inappropriate places. Radiant_>|< 10:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

University of California

University of California
Enlarge
University of California

I am choosing to nominate this image because it shows what Los Angeles really is. I know that some parts of Los Angeles aren't perfect but when you look at this beautiful building you see why it can be a great place.

The image is used on the Los Angeles and University of California which was uploaded by Satyriconi. - • Thorpe • 16:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - • Thorpe • 16:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Okay but not really striking. Junes 16:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice photo, but nothing special. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not sure that is really is illustrative of either Los Angeles or University of California. Also, no licensing information. --CVaneg 18:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Represents neither the best of LA nor UC. Chicago god 18:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose no licensing information and picture isn't that informative or striking anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 20:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although the color and sharpness are good, this is a poor architecture shot, as it suffers from severe "keystoning" (e.g. the building looks like it's leaning backwards) Alight 20:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not that great. Enochlau 01:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- building looks like it is leaning backwards. - Longhair | Talk 01:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_oppose_vote.png


Oppose --Fir0002 09:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Cool picutre, nothing amazing, also no licensing. -- IanMcGreene 22:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_oppose_vote.png


Oppose--ZeWrestler 16:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Mont-Saint-Michel

A striking image, suitable in articles in "middle age" category, it was taken by user "Ncihtich". Roscoe x 16:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. Could be categorized as a kingdom of heaven - Roscoe x 16:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Looks really odd, almost photoshopped (not suggesting that it is). Light spot with off colors in the middle. Junes 16:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not high enough quality, and I prefer pictures of le Mont Saint Michel with the water surrounding it. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Noticeably off color. Chicago god 18:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I like the composition quite a lot. But as others have mentioned, problems with the scanning (colour banding, colour casts, dust spots etc.) falls some way short of a Feature Picture. -- Solipsist 19:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nice composition, but far too many technical problems. Denni☯ 02:42, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Oppose has an annoying pink blob in the middle. - Mgm|(talk) 10:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose MontStMichel is great image but better photo can be found Knutson 11:10 pm, 16 Jun 20
  • Oppose -- Not natural colour. - Longhair | Talk 03:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - very poor quality - Adrian Pingstone 18:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

Krilleyekils

Missing image
Krilleyekils.jpg
Compound eye of Antarctic krill Euphausia superba

Gorgeous, scientific, and enhances a string of pages. By Uwe Kils, used on Antarctic krill, Compound eye, Eye and others. - Mark1 03:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. Mark1 03:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • neutral - looks really good if you click twice in the image Uwe Kils 03:30, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Dr. kils' pictures are, as always, a feast for the eye. El_C 12:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--very informative. Meelar (talk) 13:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Something to make some wonder. Image is wonderful. • Thorpe • 16:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Wow! Sango123 17:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Very cool. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just another macro photograph in a long line of macro photographs. Chicago god 18:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The wider view and closer view are impressive too. And there's even a diagram, so you can build one yourself ;-) Very illustrative. -- Solipsist 19:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support. Copyright-Fair Use images aren't appropriate for Featured pic. (too bad, it is a nice picture) The larger version says GFDL, so if the copyright is clarified, I will change my vote. Lorax 23:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
changed it to gfdl - did not know it - I would like that many people can see this amazing structure of this mystic animal of the Southern Seas - Uwe Kils 23:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Great, I changed my vote. You know if you put the GFDL in double braces '{' it will put in the licensing box and catagorize it correctly. For an example, look at the picture directly above this one. Lorax 00:20, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Stunning image, hypnotic in effect, and informative too. Tannin 06:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 14:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support.I nominated another image so I oppose his one.. But generaly I have nothing against it.
Actually I am sorry, I didn't knew it is possible to vote for multiple imagesKnutson 23 : 37, Jun16, 2005 (UTC)
  • support. Actually, it may be a good illustration to the article Tessellations of the sphere. In the image you see that the small bubbles squeezed into hexagons. It can be mathematically proven that it is impossible to regularly tessellate a sphere into hexagons only. The Nature (or God) surely knows this. Exercise: find pentagonal bubbles in the picture. mikka (t) 23:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nice — I think I can see one pentagon. See also Geodesic domes of Buckminster Fuller. So not only does this echo Pollinator's Dragonfly eye, but US Navy Radomes too. -- Solipsist 23:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now that you liked it, I have to confess I was a bit imprecise: I was speaking about the regular tessellation, where every edge is shared by exactly 3 faces and every vertex is shared by exactly 3 edges. Also, the whole sphere (or egg, or balloon of any shape (topologically equivalent to sphere)) must be covered. Other examples you've shown do not "use" the whole sphere. Nice they are, anyway. mikka (t) 00:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The detail is astounding. Enochlau 07:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing image
Symbol_support_vote.png


Support --brian0918&#