Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the nomination for delisting section.

For promotion, if an image is listed here for about seven days with four or more opinions in support (including the nominator), and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Note, however, 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.

The archive contains all opinions and comments collected on this page, and also 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.

To see recent changes, purge the page cache

Shortcuts: WP:FPC WP:FIC

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Featured picture criteria
Picture peer review
Featured picture candidates
- Nomination procedure
- On Wikimedia Commons
Featured pictures thumbs
Featured picture archive
Picture of the day
Picture of the day archive

[edit] How to nominate

[edit] Step 1 - Evaluate

The submissions will be evaluated using the criteria listed on Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? Please read the criteria before submitting a picture to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of making it. If you are unsure if your picture will fulfill the criteria, or would like advice on improving your nomination, please consider adding it to Wikipedia:Picture peer review for initial assessment. If you find this process too complicated, see below.

[edit] Step 2 - Create subpage

Create a page to place the image on; this page needs to be a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. To create your own subpage, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the form below (for example Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.

[edit] Step 2.5 - Transclude and link

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

[edit] Step 3 - Update image

On the nominated image's page use the 'Edit page' button to add the fpc template like so: {{FPC|title}}. This inserts the featured pictures candidate template, to let the original contributor and other interested parties know that the image is up for voting.

[edit] Too complicated?

If you are unable to follow the above procedure, add your image to Wikipedia:Picture peer review following the simpler instructions provided there. You can mention that you would like to submit it to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, but that you don't know how. If someone else deems it suitable, they will add it to FPC on your behalf. Alternatively you can request a regular FPC or PPR editor to submit an image on your behalf by contacting them on their talkpage.

[edit] How to comment

If you approve of a picture, write Support followed by your reasons.
If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image.
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.
- To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

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.

Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.

[edit] 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 (eg, Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied.

[edit] Is my monitor calibrated 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.

On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet 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 on a LCD display (laptop or flat screen) the viewing angle strongly affects these images. Click on the images for more technical info.

1 How to nominate
2 How to comment
3 Editing candidates
4 Is my monitor calibrated correctly?
5 Current nominations
6 Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!
7 Older nominations requiring additional input from users
8 Suspended nominations
- 8.1 Dublin Rail Network
- 8.2 Grover Cleveland
9 Closing procedure
10 Nominations for delisting
- 10.1 Corn cobs
11 Delist closing procedure

To see recent changes, purge the page cache

Your comments are also appreciated on images at Picture peer review.

[edit] Current nominations

[edit] Sirius A and B

Original - Sirius A, the brightest star in our night sky, along with it's tiny little "companion" Sirius B. Scientists had to overexpose Sirius A just so that Sirius B could be seen. In fact, the cross-shaped diffraction spikes and concentric rings around Sirius A and the small ring around Sirius B are observational artifacts produced within the telescope's imaging system. The two stars revolve around each other every 50 years. Sirius A, only 8.6 light-years from Earth, is the fifth closest star system known.

Reason: Middle resolution, sharp, and has enormous EV for the brightest star in the night sky, and its dull little brother and/or sister.
Articles this image appears in: = Sirius, Stellar classification, White dwarf, Binary star, Artifact (observational), List of nearest bright stars
Creator: HST (again! ;))

Support as nominator --—Ceran ♦ (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Conveys almost zero useful information. May as well be an overexposed car headlight. The overexposure and artifacts from the imaging totally ruin it, a single image is unable to capture the difference in brightness obviously, but overexposing one to this degree doesn't help either. It would be better for size comparison purposes as a composite of two correctly exposed images. Mfield (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Urgh - the entire reason I added that was because I knew people would make comments like yours - if not for the over-exposing, then you couldn't see Sirius B and then the EV would be fractured. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. A composite of two correctly exposed images would better display the relative sizes without all the artifacting from the massive overexposure. And an 8-bit output method is completely incapable of displaying the difference in brightness anyway, so any attempt to to this is flawed, we cannot deduce anything remotely exact about brightnesses of the two stars from this image except to say that one is a LOT brighter than the other. A bit of text with a large number factor on it would achieve the same, and be exact, hence I do not see this as having that high enc from the point of view of "illustrating the article content particularly well" criteria. Mfield (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as sizes when it comes to images of stars. They are all unresolved. Any perceived width is due to the point spread function of the optics and the atmosphere. Therefore a composite would be misleading. Your statement about an 8-bit method being "completely incapable" of conveying the difference is also incorrect. By using the PSF, you could infer the brightness of SiriusA based on the area of pixels that are of a particular within-photodetector-sensitivity value. de Bivort 22:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to deduce the relative brightnesses of these two stars from this image alone? If so, I stand corrected. As it is, I don't believe you can without additional information that the viewer does not possess, thus this image does not add a huge amount of information to a WP reader - the accompanying text would do a better job of quantifying that. That was my point. An 8 bit image cannot display the brightness difference in a way that is meaningful to the eye, it requires knowledge of the optical system, the sensor used to capture the photons, the post processing of the consequent image, all followed by some mathematics. That's not using an image to illustrate content, not without using it to illustrate the Point spread function article at any rate.. Mfield (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bergen, Norway

Original - A historic photograph taken from one of the mountains surrounding the city of Bergen in Norway. Visible are the Korskirken in the foreground, the historic harbour Bryggen with its boats and the Bergenhus Fortress in the background.

Edit 1, Current Candidate - It is sharper than the alternate and doesn't contain the scratches.

Alternate - This version has not had the original caption removed and has been cleaned and had the pink discoloration removed.

Reason: It is an historic picture possessing a great quality, a high EV and it can't be retaken. It is very illustrative in the article it's in. Please compare it to the original file, which is present on the picture's description page.
Articles this image appears in: Bergen
Creator: Massimo Catarinella

Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment Ah, I was going to walk up that hill when in Bergen this summer, but unfortunately I got struck down with Salmonella before I had the chance. I like this image, Poking around in the other versions, I found a restoration by CarolSpears which I am adding as an alternate as I prefer it for the restoration (assuming that the pink coloration was not original and or desired. Mfield (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone could tell me how to get rid of the pink coloration, I could remove it from the tif file, which I still have. My version is sharper and doesn't contain scratches and spots, so it is preferable above the one of Carol Spears I think. Sorry to hear about your infection. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the software you are using, and even then there are several ways to approach it. I would personally use a color balance layer adjustment in Photoshop. Either "Layer > New Adjustment Layer... > Color Balance..." or Just click on the little black and white circle at the bottom of the layers palette and select "Color Balance..." Then use the sliders to correct for it in shadows midtones and highlights. You may get OK results with some of the (auto) level adjustment tools, but exercise caution with them that they do not introduce any other problems. Mfield (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise, I've inserted another version. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - Good restoration... but one question, is it a painting? —Ceran ♦ (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New River Gorge Bridge

Original - The New River Gorge Bridge in Fayetteville, West Virginia is a steel arch bridge that carries US 19 over the New River. It opened in 1977 and hosts Bridge Day, an annual event in which the bridge is closed to vehicles and participants are allowed to BASE jump to the valley floor below.

Reason: High quality photo that represents a great example of structural and bridge engineering. Already a FP on Commons and at German Wiki. 2007 POTY candidate (104th place!). I feel it meets all requirements of FP status.
Articles this image appears in: New River Gorge Bridge, Timeline of three longest supported deck arch bridge spans
Creator: JaGa

Support as nominator --Wadester16 (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Wow. Lovely quality, great story to go with it (being closed for the base jumping) and lovely pic. Well framed IMO and the colours are fantastic on the surrounding landscape... Just wondering though, any idea what is behind the trees in the bottom right corner above a fork in a silver tree? Looks like rail lines but not quite - just curious as can't work out what it is... gazhiley Talk 09:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Support - Super image! Btw gazhiley they are railway lines --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Support, although maybe it should be rotated so that the bridge is horizontal. I went to Bridge Day last year and it was great with all the leaves changing colors. You should also add that besides base jumping, people also go rappelling down to the valley floor from underneath the bridge. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-11-21 14:01Z
Support Both the quality and composition are great. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Does not need straightening!! Lycaon (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evaporating ice water on the surface of Mars captured in 2008 by the Phoenix probe

Original - First direct proof of water ice on the surface of Mars. These color image captured in 2008 by the Phoenix probe. The lower left corner of the two images is enlarged in the top right corner of each image, showing ice sublimating.

Reason: high quality, historical picture
Articles this image appears in: Phoenix (spacecraft)
Creator: ~~user:DragonFire1024~~ NASA/JPL

Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment - a very important image, but could we get a version with less JPG compression? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 10:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Support I think we can forgive some JPG compression due to the high encyclopedic value of the image. How likely is it NASA will give us a better pic? Fletcher (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose Horrid JPEG artifacts, ugly yellow text on gray background. I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to find the originals and arrange them properly. This really isn't FP material. Space images should be of highest quality, it's not like they're beamed to earth as tiny 75% quality JPEGs. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose Not fp quality, and if zoomed close, shadow detail has coloration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZooFari (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The objections above are valid, but I wonder what quality camera these landers are using. This may well be as good as it gets, and EV does seem high, and certainly not easily repeatable photos. I wonder if someone into this stuff can clarify (sorry, I'm too lazy to try to look it up myself atm). --jjron (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Why, why such a cumbersome size reference as 2/3"? either 1", or 10mm or 20 mm, but not 2/3"! --Janke | Talk 09:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Here are the raw files. I haven't a clue how to Photoshop them into a color image. http://www.met.tamu.edu/mars/020.html and http://www.met.tamu.edu/mars/024.html Chicago god (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Open the red, green and blue images as layers (in the Gimp, it's File -> Open as layer) so that the blue is on the bottom and red on top. Set each layer to 33% opacity and add a white background layer. Colorize each image layer (Filters -> Colors -> Colorify) with their respective colors. Then flatten the image and boost both the brightness and contrast. I'm not sure of the true color accuracy of this, but hey it works. MER-C 01:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Those images are no larger and are also jpegs so it's probably not going to help much. I would be very surprised if they were beamed to earth with any kind of lossy compression - it would make any kind of reasearch on the images difficult. They are far more likely sending RAW sensor data of some kind with lossless compression. It's odd that they don't make anything larger or any TIFF versions available though. Mfield (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dante's Inferno: Francesca da Rimini in the hurricane of souls

Original - Dante is overcome with emotion at Francesca da Rimini's tale, while the hurricane of souls that she and her lover are trapped in roar around the scene. From Gustave Doré's illustrations to the Divine Comedy (1857).

Reason: Sorry if this is a lot of Doré - I am trying to be highly selective, as I'm preparing a complete set of all hundred or so illustrations Doré did of the Divine Comedy, and, obviously, I don't expect them all to be featured. However, I think this is easily the best of Doré's images of the hurricane of souls in the second circle of Hell, and the dramatic layout and imagery really illustrates this part of the plot very well.

Doré's Divine Comedy is usually considered one of his masterworks - certainly, it generally features heavily in any compilation of Doré - and there are more than 75 illustrations in Inferno (and about a dozen each for Purgatorio and Paradiso, proving what generations have thought: They just aren't as interesting.) I thought I'd try for the best 5 to 15 percent of the illustrations (in my view, of course), getting us an excellent selection of Doré's work, without overwhelming FP with Doré.

Articles this image appears in: Francesca da Rimini, The Divine Comedy
Creator: Gustave Doré

Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Support. Excellent reproduction. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Support because of quality and awesome description on the image page. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Support. Keep the Dore coming.--ragesoss (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw I just discovered the edition I used just didn't care, and cropped the images. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
comment - these seem like a perfect group for a featured image set. de Bivort 07:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crested Tern breeding plumage

Original - A single Greatest Crested Tern

Reason: This image is of high resolution, is well composed and exposed, and accurately depicts the subject in the article. It is listed under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 license. The caption is cohesive, and the image is of high enough quality to fit under the FPC.
Articles this image appears in: Greater Crested Tern
Creator: Glen Fergus

Support as nominator --Dsw4 (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Good EV but I don't think technical quality is high enough. Is it blown in the white area below the beak? I know it's white but I still can't make out texture. Also is not very sharp and seems to have some jpeg artifacts (e.g., outlining the belly). Fletcher (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I noticed this on the front page the other day, frankly there are already two FPCs in the article of superior quality, but I don't think its even up to the general bird standard. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jasmine (Jasminum polyanthum) flower bud

Original - Jasmine (Jasminum polyanthum) flower bud

Reason: Stunning close up shot of Jasmine (Jasminum polyanthum) flower bud. This variety found in South India, is considered to be one of the largest Jasmine varieties. When in full bloom, it exceeds 5 cms in diameter.
Articles this image appears in: Jasmine
Creator: Aravindan Shanmugasundaram

Support as nominator --Aravindan Shanmugasundaram (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, It isn't very strong on technical grounds, The highlights are blown or close to it and its soft everywhere. Try stopping down your lens a bit. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

comment/undecided--the image has encylopedic value and is relevant to better the article and overall natural setting photographs, a closer zoom on the object with less vegetation would better the nominated image though kdm85 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdm85 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - boring picture, no wow factor. Kaldari (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A foggy Golden Gate Bridge

Original - Traffic crossing the Golden Gate Bridge on a foggy morning as seen from Vista Point

Reason: Dramatic photo of a famous historic landmark in San Francisco
Articles this image appears in: Golden Gate Bridge
Creator: Cabe6403

Support as nominator --Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 23:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose There are plenty of Golden Gate Bridge pictures, and this one doesn't illustrate anything particularly important. So I think that's a no on EV. Caption says this is during morning, but the article says "On weekday mornings, traffic flows mostly southbound into the city, so four of the six lanes run southbound." Looks to me like there are three lanes going both ways. And fog is more distracting than anything. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Weekend mornings do exist too you know :P Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 01:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - Makeemlighter brings up some good points, but this is the only picture in the article that shows 1) the people on the side and 2) the traffic (which is surprising, since there's always traffic!)... so I do think it does have EV. In addition, the fog is a must for the article: I don't know when most of the sunny and clear pics of the bridge were taken, since it's pretty much always cloudy there! It's useful and important to have a different view of the bridge. Intothewoods29 (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I do think it's fine to have FPs that are less artsy and more encyclopedic, but in this case, I don't really see a lot of EV in showing crowds and traffic. Decent addition to the article but not a FP. Fletcher (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see any reason not be picky with such a commonly photographed and available subject. The composition and image size are both less than perfect. --Leivick (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Loads of detail and info in the picture, like amount of traffic, effect of fog on sight, rail design, division of lanes. Pleasant composition. Narayanese (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco cable car cresting a hill with Alcatraz in the background

Original - San Francisco cable car cresting a hill with Alcatraz in the background

Another similar image for comparison

Reason: Images shows two historical landmarks in San Francisco, the cable cars and alcatraz
Articles this image appears in: San Francisco cable car system
National Register of Historic Places listings in San Francisco, California
List of National Historic Landmarks in California
Creator: Cabe6403

Support as nominator --Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 23:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Good technicals, and iconic of San Fransisco.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose distracting piece of a streetlight in upper left makes for only so so composition. Overall limited encyclopedic value as it illustrates neither cable cars nor Alcatraz particularly well and the combination of the two is in my opinion not particularly important. --Leivick (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Support - This is a great photo and screams San Fran. I say yes. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The photograph really needs to pick its subject better, there is lots of blank space and it could be better for such a common shot. I prefer the attached version but don't feel very strongly about it. IMO it should really be placed in a seperate nomination though as it isn't exactly an edit. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support - ahhh! I really like this picture and it really illustrates the area well... but I do agree somewhat with Daniel that it's not incredibly encyclopedic in its articles... but it does add some value... :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The comparison version is much better: it's bigger and shows more detail. I too like this picture, but the car and the track are just too far away to effectively illustrate San Francisco cable car system. Also, it doesn't show anything particularly unique about cable cars, other than that they crest hills. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rouken Glen Waterfall

Original - The waterfall at Rouken Glen park in East Renfrewshire, Scotland.

Reason: Beautiful picture of the waterfall at the historic Scottish park of Rouken Glen
Articles this image appears in: Rouken Glen
Creator: Cabe6403

Support as nominator --Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 23:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Great composition, but there's what looks like a lot of overblown highlights. Is that a requirement of waterfall photography? I mean, maybe it is, and this comment has no merit, but if it isn't... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Comment - Well, to get the smooth appearance of the water the shutter has to stay open for longer which allows more light in obviously giving these highlights. In bright sunlight, as it was when I took this picture, it's quite hard to get the balance right between highlights and smoothness of the water. I went through about 20 shots to get this one. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Exposure compensation is your friend. You're much better off shooting RAW (if possible) and using a tripod in this situation. Or you can simply shoot when there are clouds overhead or near sunrise/sunset. MER-C 02:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And if you still can't get a long enough shutter speed you need to invest in a neutral density filter. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, you can also afford to stop down your camera's aperture a bit, which will give you a longer shutter speed to play with. You will probably need a tripod though Noodle snacks (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose looks like some camera motion induced softness. Blown highlights certainly can be avoided in this sort of situation. --Leivick (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charon, part II

Original - Charon herds the sinners onto his boat, smacking the stragglers with his oar, in Gustave Doré's illustration of Canto III of Dante's Divine Comedy

Reason: Pretty much per below. Just thought one of Doré's big action scenes wouldn't go amiss. Typical of Doré's action scenes, it's quite complex and detailed - I believe he's here imitating the layout of Greek urns and the like - so it doesn't look as good in this small thumbnail.
Articles this image appears in: Charon (mythology), Gustave Doré.
Creator: Gustave Doré

Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Support - wow... intense... yet funny. I think it's amusing to imagine Charon smacking naked dead people with an oar and shouting a lot. ;) Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Support. A well-reproduced Dore. What's not to like?--ragesoss (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw I just discovered the edition I used just didn't care, and cropped the images. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charon

Original - Charon, from Dante's Divine Comedy, as depicted by Gustave Doré.

Reason: Gustave Doré was a major engraver - usually considered amongst the masters of the craft - and this particular engraving is dramatic and very nicely composed. Even at this tiny 250px size, it's dramatic and interesting, at full size, it is spectacular.
Articles this image appears in: Charon (mythology), Gustave Doré.
Creator: Gustave Doré

Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Excellent quality capture of excellent image. --Leivick (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Support - great job Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Stunning! You're right: at full size it is incredible. You should consider adding this, or one of the other Doré's, to Engraving. Two questions: What material was this engraved on? Did you scan it from a book? Sorry if I missed the answers elsewhere. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and what does that say in the bottom right corner? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  - IT's from an on-the-whole quite good edition of the Divine Comedy, though there's a couple engravings in the second circle that suffered severe printing errors - particularly the engraving of Francesca da Rimini being kissed by her brother in law, which has become a sea of undifferentiated black ink on the entire left hand side, obscuring both men. Oops! Luckily, I know engravings pretty well, so it's not hard for me to spot such errors, and they certainly don't appear in, say, this one. The text reads "Pannemaker", presumably Adolphe François Pannemaker (1822-1900) one of Doré's assistants in turning his art into a full-fledged engraving, and not a bad artist in his own right. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw I just discovered the edition I used just didn't care, and cropped Doré's work willy-nilly. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent retrograde motion of Mars in 2003

Original - Animation of the apparent retrograde motion of Mars in 2003 as seen from Earth

Perhaps a better way to illustrate the motion if animated

Reason: Great illustration of a concept that is difficult to convey in text. Very high EV for Retrograde and direct motion and good EV for Viewing section of Mars article which discusses retrograde motion. Size (400x400) is above average for a featured animation.
Articles this image appears in: Retrograde and direct motion, Mars
Creator: Seav

Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Support - I'm AGF that this has EV since I know very little about retrograde motion... ;) Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This image only shows what the apparent motion of mars is from earth. I think to make it clear from an apparent retrograde motion perspective the two planets should be shown simultaneously from a viewpoint roughly orthogonal to the two planes of motion (ie a "birds eye" view). The attached image shows what I'd be after, adding animation and ditching the side on view. Such an image might also find relevance in orbit. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really understand your objection. The whole point of the illustration is to show what retrograde motion looks like from earth, as this is typically where people observe planets from. This illustration is not to explain how apparent retrograde motion is created, but to show what it actually looks like. I think the animation you describe would be complementary to this one, not a replacement. Kaldari (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  - It shows what retrograde motion looks like from earth yes, but it would probably leave someone confused about why the motion looks like that. It could so easily show why the motion appears in such a fashion, and it doesn't. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aphids feeding on a fennel stalk

Original - Aphids in various life stages feeding on a fennel plant

Reason: Striking image of an aphid population feeding on a fennel plant
Articles this image appears in: Aphid
Creator: Fir0002

Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not to your usual standard. Low DOF, not crisp and not identified. Lycaon (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, decent image but the out of focus insects at the edges are quite distracting and I think it would be liable to be deposed from its position in the article by a high quality image of an individual specimen. Guest9999 (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Juvenile Sulawesi Crested Macaque at the Buffalo Zoo.

Original - A juvenile Sulawesi Crested Macaque in its habitat at the Buffalo Zoo.

Reason: Encyclopedic and beautiful image. (Featured on Commons.)
Articles this image appears in: Celebes Crested Macaque, Buffalo Zoo
Creator: Davepape

Support as nominator --Dweeebis (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Soft - no fur detail - and lighting issues - subject in shadow with distracting bright background. Zoo shot so should be could and should be better for FP. Mfield (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sadly disappointing at fullsize. It's hard to tell what the original was like as this has been overcompressed. A better quality version could be requested, but I somehow doubt that it would reach the mark even then for some of the reasons Mfield gives. --jjron (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Monorail

Original - Metro Monorail at Liverpool and Pitt Street, Sydney, Australia.

Reason: the picture has a very high resolution, good color ballance and the subject is perfectly in focus. It Makes an excelent wallpaper for one who's in monorails or trains
Articles this image appears in: Monorail and others
Creator: Gobeirne

Support as nominator --BaratDavid (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Just a snapshot, messy background, some chromatic aberration, low enc. --Janke | Talk 14:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Janke. This picture is used in the switching section of Monorail but doesn't really illustrate switching or the loop used in Sydney. Seems to me that this is just a tourist picture, not featured picture quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Having lived in Sydney for 6 months I can guarentee that a better pic can be taken of this - for a start the Monorail in Sydney crosses the harbour area at one point near a fantastic old warship - I would much rather that as a background with the sparkling blue sea than random office buildings and cars... Even the Sydney Tower or Sydney Bridge would make better backgrounds... Not FP quality... gazhiley Talk 09:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein 1921

Original - Albert Einstein during a lecture in Vienna in 1921

Edit 1 - Removed scratches

Alternative 1 - Desaturated and scratches removed

Reason: This is a picture that depicts Albert Einstein as a nice, intelligant man and I think it should be nominated as a picture of the day.
Articles this image appears in: Albert Einstein, Introduction to special relativity, History of special relativity, List of Nobel Laureates in Physics
Creator: Ferdinand Schmutzer (1870-1928)

Support as nominator --Luke Farrelly-Spain (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I have added two more versions. I can't really make my mind about which one I should vote for, but I think I like the one without any desaturation applied (aka. edit 1). I'd support the alternative too though. Diego_pmc ^Talk 20:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Support alternative 1 actually scratch that, I'll support the alternative. Diego_pmc ^Talk 20:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Low quality scan. (Halftoning? I don't even know what I'm seeing.) Also, why is this cropped version being nominated instead of the full version? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment Actually, those lines are not from the scan. A lot of mid 1900s photos were printed on non-smooth photo paper. Diego_pmc ^Talk 22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palace of Luxembourg

Original - The palace of Luxembourg, in the Luxembourg garden, Paris, at sunset.

Reason: Encyclopedic and beautiful image. (Featured on Commons.)
Articles this image appears in: Paris, Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon-Penthièvre, Louis XIII style
Creator: Blieusong

Support as nominator --Diego_pmc ^Talk 14:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Weak support. Good shot, would full support if there was an article on this actual building. Having said which, isn't Luxembourg Palace this place, and if so why isn't this pic in that article? BTW, being featured on Commons or elsewhere is irrelevant. --jjron (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose - it's a nice photo, but the composition is awkward. It looks like there is some event (lots of people sitting on chairs facing *something*), yet we can't see what it is. Unclear subject - is it a photo of the chateau, of the people, or of the gardens? Not a fantastic angle for any of those. Stevage 10:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voyager 1's approach to Jupiter

Original - Jupiter as seen from the Voyager 1 probe with blue filter, at a rate of one picture for every 10 hours. The small, round, dark spots appearing in some frames are the shadows cast by the moons passing between Jupiter and the Sun, while the small, white flashes around the planet, are the moons themselves.

Alternative - 600x600

Reason: This is one of the coolest animations in astronomy. It is historically important and quite informative.
Articles this image appears in: Voyager 1, Jupiter, Atmosphere of Jupiter
Creator: NASA/JPL

Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Diego_pmc ^Talk 08:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Is the color version available? This blue-channel version does show the bands and spots more clearly, though. --Janke | Talk 10:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Wow...but there seem to be a few specks that pop up, seemingly for only one frame. Are they moons (in which case leave them in) or transmissions errors/noise (in which case, can we clone them out)?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

They're moons and shadows of moons... --Janke | Talk 16:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah...can we add that to the caption?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

How is it now? It might need some polishing. Nergaal (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. Classic astronomy 'video' still gives me goosebumps, but as I commented at PPR I'd prefer the colour version that I seem to remember having seen (and Janke also mentions above). --jjron (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Support. Per Jjron. Would support this and color version as two versions of the same picture (with preference to this). Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment. What are the flickering white horizontal and vertical lines? Spikebrennan (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure but the NASA's release has them too - I would guess instrument artifacts? Nergaal (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Support I mean, wow. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Support - I saw the nom on Commons, and was going to ask Nergaal if he would nom. it here instead. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment A bit of digging reveals that there's a significantly higher resolution on NASA's website, which I've uploaded. It does have some partly blank frames though, which look like they've been removed from the smaller version. Time3000 (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Removed images from display, as GIF thumbnailing has been turned off (you have to download the whole thing, then the browser resizes it). It's not a good thing if you have 10 MB of GIFs on one page. :) MER-C 11:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)