Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/February-2010

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.

Robbie McEwen[edit]

Reason: High quality and natural portrait of one of the world's top cyclists ready to do what he does, at the start of the 2010 Jayco Bay Cycling Classic in Geelong, Victoria. Also shows excellent detail for the team riding kit.
Articles in which this image appears: Robbie McEwen, Team Katusha
Creator: jjron

Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per nom, great quality. You got a new camera? --Muhammad(talk) 18:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Yep. This was it's first outing. :-) --jjron (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Ooh... lucky you. When do we see some videos? --Muhammad(talk) 09:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Not for a long, long time is my guess :-). The video looks nice, but mainly bought it for the stills capability, so that's priority one. --jjron (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment generally nice image, but could you make the complex background blurred? A lot of things going on in the main subject himself. The skin tone looks little dark, so a bit of adjusting the level would be nicer.--Caspian blue 19:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I feel the nature of a sportsperson at an event is there will often be a busy background, as we saw in many of the batch of recently promoted baseball images, which I'd tend to prefer rather than artificially blurring it all out (they're quite naturally fairly blurred at full size). Re skin tones, I think this is pretty accurate (could have been some cloud cover, it was coming and going), but he is quite tanned; however will see what others think. --jjron (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Very nice portrait, and the quality is great too. Resolution is a little disappointing though, and I think you got the date wrong in the image info (says 2009). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Oops, copy paste error. Now fixed. --jjron (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: Good portrait and perfect setting. Maedin\^talk 14:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It is a very good portrait and very eye catching. It looks like one of the best cycling pictures I have seen. --Guerillero (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. A great candid image of a Pro-Tour rider. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Solid portrait of him in the kind of environment he should be in. J Milburn (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per above. Wouldn't have minded seeing more of the bike, but not a reason to oppose. The background is ok; it's not as though it's a formal portrait where that kind of thing would be controlled. Fletcher (talk)

Promoted File:Robbie McEwen, Cyclist, jjron, 2.01.10.jpg --Elekhh (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Golden Gate Bridge seen from Baker Beach[edit]

Reason: Very nice composition, showing the bridge in the landscape. While it has a strong perspective distortion, it has the advantage that it fits in a standard landscape format, and thus it is used in multiple articles.
Articles in which this image appears: Golden Gate Bridge, List of landmarks, Transport
Creator: Chmehl

Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Gorgeous location, well photographed. Durova⁴⁰³ 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Beautiful photo, used well in the articles. Jujutacular ^T · C 11:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Great photo with high encyclopedic value. - Darwinek (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support – well done. Aitias (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Told you this was FP-worthy. upstate NYer 06:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- comment what is so special about this picture of a well known bridge ? what is its encyclopaedic value and what makes you think it is FP worthy ? GerardM (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Support & Comment - Well, it´s FP worthy because:
    1. It illustrates the subject in a compelling way
    2. It has no compression artifacts
    3. It has a very good resolution and clarity
    4. It has a good quality (good use of lighting, interesting angle), etc... - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 01:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Gerard, I'll answer your questions in the order you present them:
    - Why this image is special: Its smallest dimension is twice the size required by FPC, therefore its resolution is high. The composition is exceptional, in that it shows the bridge but also gives a great idea of the length of the span, especially due to the difference in size between the closest and further tower. The lighting is beautiful because of the timing of the photograph: it offers a golden aura that offers that much more interest to the viewer (and ironically exemplifies the "Golden" in the title).
    - What is its encyclopedic value: Well, to begin with, the entire bridge is shown in the image, which is encyclopedic in its own right. Second, it also shows the massive arid mountains on either end, along with the rocky shores of San Francisco Bay. As a trained structural engineer, this bridge - in general - is fascinating to me, but also the fact that it uses an arched length before the suspension bridge is also a notable feature. EV is also high because this is such a well-known bridge: i.e. one would expect to see an FP of this bridge.
    - That is what makes it FP worthy. Do you think that it is not FP worthy? If so, do leave your comments; something more than "there is nothing new to it" would be appreciated since that offers no substantive opinion to the discussion. However, it seems many other users believe it is worthy of being an FP, which I think is an obvious assessment. Once again, beauty is something that is important. Not only is this image informative, it is beautiful also. The best of both worlds, of course. Is it that you believe that a well-known and oft-photographed object shouldn't be featured? Because that is the impression you are giving; as if we should never have an FP of the Golden Gate, or the White House, or the Taj Mahal, or the Vatican, etc. Do you sincerely believe that photos of well-know places shouldn't be featured? upstate NYer 07:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Splendid view and nice quality. fetchcomms☛ 06:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose not convinced why this photo of a well known, often photographed bridge should be featured .. there is nothing new to it. GerardM (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Gerard M. The encyclopedic value in illustrating either the bridge or the surrounding landscape is low/average compared to most images in the article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Weak~~ Oppose. I question the enc. this one. Low enc. in Transport, and simply represents the golden gate bridge in List of landmarks. In golden gate bridge, the camera position makes the photo loose enc...the length and size aren't shown as well as this image shows, for example. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:GoldenGateBridge BakerBeach MC.jpg —Maedin\^talk 23:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gypsy girl mosaic of Zeugma[edit]

Reason: A Roman mosaic fragment that was rediscovered in excavations during the winter of 1998-1999 in the Turkish city Zeugma.
Articles in which this image appears: Zeugma (city), Gaziantep Museum of Archeology
Creator: Commons:User:Nevit (original photograph) File:Antep 1250575 cr.jpg. Editing by Durova and Xavexgoem.

Support as nominator --Durova⁴⁰³ 20:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Photo could be better but it's a great subject. Could this be put in any other articles? Seems like it's not meeting its potential. upstate NYer 21:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Tough call. We don't seem to have an article for the ancient Roman city that modern Zeguma was built over, and the museum doesn't have an article (yet). Am up to my ears this week with Tropenmuseum work; also a Stateside institution donated something--it's a proof of concept situation and I want to turn that around quickly. So good ol' article writing is taking a backseat for the present. Durova⁴⁰³ 21:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment corrected spelling of city name in rationale and caption. We'd have a better sense of articles in which the image could go, if we had an era for the mosaic; the oldest artifacts at the site are described as "early bronze age," but I couldn't find anything on the web that said whether the mosaic is likely to be that old. Chick Bowen 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- This one from the same site is given a date of 2nd century A.D., which sounds about right. Too bad we don't have an article on Roman mosaic. . . Chick Bowen 02:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think some tilting is needed to straight the image. Brand[t] 08:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I created an article for the museum. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The museum is in Gaziantep, not Zeuguma! Meowy 21:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed it. Meowy 22:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks - 's what I get for multitasking. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - The photograph is unusual in that it is detailed enough and sharp enough to show all of the tesserae (unlike many of the images on the mosaic article, so maybe it should be on that article too). However, one problem with it might be the colour balance, it seems a bit greenish. Meowy 21:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose unless these issues and the possible colour cast issue are solved. Taking a look at the original, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Antep_1250575_cr.jpg, reveals flaws in the altered image: the extreme right andextreme left has been cropped, there is some blurring along the bottom edges that is not on the original and does not occur at the top edges, not all of the surrounding material has been removed. The needless cropping of the original kills it for me as a featured picture candidate. Meowy 22:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- In order to correct for the perspective distortion from the photographic angle it was necessary to do a perspective crop. Durova⁴⁰³ 00:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - The original looks almost free from distortion - I'd keep that small distortion if removing it means some blurring and a loss of part of the original. Meowy 01:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I wonder if white is the best background. Being lighter than the standard wiki background I find it slightly distracting, even more so viewed on a monitor. Have you tried other options, which might make the background more neutral? Elekhh (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Different WMF projects have different background tones. Durova⁴⁰³ 01:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I'm aware of that. I meant something neutral to the image, like a light-grey tone picked out from the mosaic, something like this, so that the random edges are not so distracting. Elekhh (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Not that it affects my vote, but why remove the background at all? upstate NYer 01:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian cruiser Moskva[edit]

Reason: Best photo of this warship IMO, awarded as "Valued Image" on Commons. This warship was used in the 2008 Russia-Georgia War.
Articles in which this image appears: Russian cruiser Moskva
Creator: George Chernilevsky

Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good image with high EV. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 01:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - The colour in the image is noticeably cool and undersaturated. I've tried playing around with both and whilst this does improve things, the JPEG compression is clearly evident at 100%. It's certainly a valuable image to have, but since it's a ship still in service the EV doesn't make up for its technical shortcomings. bad_germ 10:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose per bad germ --Muhammad(talk) 18:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per nomination. Normal color and saturation for the subject. Durova⁴⁰³ 04:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is a handsome photo of an important warship. While I'm not a technical expert, the colours look fine to me. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - It has compression artifacts (when look it at full zoom they can be seen in dark areas, and other areas are blurry). Can this be fixed so I can change my vote for this great picture? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- In is no artifacts in dark area IMO, rather reflections from water waves. I can quickly correct quality with reduce the size of this image, however it is bad idea IMO. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've commented on this outcome at the FPC talk page, Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Russian cruiser Moskva. Maedin\^talk 21:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eastern Grey Kangaroo[edit]

Reason: Minimal obscuration is a selling point.
Articles in which this image appears: Eastern Grey Kangaroo
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support Feet cut off, but other than that fine... Gazhiley (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The rubbish(?) in the background detracts a bit and it would be the work of a moment to remove. Benjamint 09:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Mortar from an old convict building on Maria Island. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Is it removable though? Gazhiley (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - I'm sure someone could clone it out. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Best get in touch with the Clone Army for that task... Gazhiley (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Oppose. The head actually looks slightly motion blurred to me. It's a good shot, but very reproducible and given we already have a couple of featured pictures of Kangaroos, I think the bar is necessarily high. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I'm aware of fir's, for which a lot is missing. Are there others? Noodle snacks (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I actually thought Fir had two, but one of the ones he nominated apparently didn't pass, so I guess we have just one. It's still just not quite there for me though. You may have more opportunities to perfect the kangaroo portrait on the mainland soon. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support per the relatively good composition, interesting facial expression and very poetic background, but not convinced with its educational value--Caspian blue 15:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question: Why are there vertical streaks in the background? Was it raining? --Zoo Fari 20:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Indeed it was. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
weak oppose Conditional Oppose Although all oppose votes are supposed to be conditional this one is conditioned to the success of the delist nomination Sparrow (female in Australia) (and the closer can dismiss the oppose if that nomination is not successful). The reasons given there applies here too. The subject is not clearly distinguished from the background. franklin 21:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I'm not sure that is a valid reason to make it conditional. You should be judging this image on its own merits, not based on the success or failure of any other unrelated nomination. An exception to that rule might be a delist and replace nomination, but this is not one of those. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Plus, it might be in my best interests to sway that nomination in my favour. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. It makes sense. franklin 22:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Not sure I like the composition and the branch in the foreground is distracting to me. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Good enough for me. --Zoo Fari 17:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose per Diliff. Very good pose, but lacking a bit of contrast. Local "heritage" in the background distracting Elekhh (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose due to lack of contrast.-- mcshadypl ^T ^C 01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lack of contrast? Do you propose the background or foreground to be brighter? --Zoo Fari 01:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Unfortunately some blurred branches obscure its feet and lower legs. Snowman (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: Our existing FP of the subject obscures even more of the feet, gives the impression that there is no tail, has some distracting twigs in front of the forepaws, is very dark on the left side of the head, and has less resolution than this one. If this were a delist and replace, this one would be a winner. Maedin\^talk 22:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Night view of the Clinton Presidential Library[edit]

Reason: Quality image with a lot of color and detail.
Articles in which this image appears: Clinton Presidential Center
Creator: Archipreneur

Support as nominator -- fetchcomms☛ 04:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Oppose Lovely picture but seems out of focus to me - Very low resolution as well as cannot zoom in to check in close up - even at full resolution view you cannot see much detail. Shame, as its an intruiging building and I'm now going to read the article, which is always a good thing with an FP... Gazhiley (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Nice subject and view of it, but poor HDR (haloes) and needs perspective correction. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Ðiliff. Kaldari (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose- I'm not wild about the colours and lighting on this one. J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It's quite an attractive image, and has very good composition. It provides information about the context of the building, not only the building itself. I think it has very good EV in the article it mainly illustrates. I added it to Polshek Partnership as well. Unfortunate is technically not perfect, as per Diliff. As always, the panoramic format makes it somewhat hard to optimally fit in articles. Elekhh (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks all for your comments, it seems rather unlikely that this will pass, but I think that I have a good idea of what work needs to be done now. As I'm not really that good with technical things in images, I'd appreciate any more comments before this is closed. fetchcomms☛ 03:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My main complaint is the overdone HDR. If you're going to create HDR images, you should be careful that they do not exhibit "haloing" or other obvious artifacts. In this case you can see strong haloing around the trees. Kaldari (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose. Per above. But otherwise good photo. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There is at least one stitching error going down the center. It's most obvious at the roof railing level. upstate NYer 01:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinnacles National Monument[edit]

Reason: EV
Articles this image appears in: Pinnacles National Monument
Creator: mbz1

Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: good EV, good technical quality, nice composition, interesting subject. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support definitely - good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per nom. Durova³⁸⁶ 01:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak oppose the sky is not optimal. I don't know the place but the composition doesn't seems to be optimal either. Why to take so much of the hill on the left (applies to original and alternative 1) and not more of the pinnacles showing more of the dark volcanic rock? Maybe even a different direction or altitude can help. franklin 02:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Oppose~~ due to the awkward composition, especially the sky along with a bit unnecessary strong contrast in level. If you adjust the level, and then manipulate to increase the upper space (the blue sky) by clone-stamping, I'm willing to change my vote.--Caspian blue 19:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added edit. Is it what you meant?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak support edit 1 Some FPC regular said that I'm too sensitive to colors in reviewing photos, and I think I am. I think the increase of the sky makes the composition much stable, and look better. The decreasing of the level makes the scenery much natural, but the de-satuaration of the sky makes me hesitant to change my vote to full support.--Caspian blue 05:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem I saw with the sky is that there is almost no detail there. The rocks are a part of the picture that has a lot of contrast and texture, then having the sky looking flat is not nice. My feeling looking at this picture is similar to those old movies with a guy riding a horse on top of a flat background that is moving. I was trying to do a curve adjustment on the sky but it happens that both; I have not much experience at that and the detail on the sky is only given by very few narrow bands on the sky who's color is too similar to the rest to make them noticeable without without giving weird colors to the sky. franklin 07:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Oppose The lighting could be better - the shadows are pretty deep. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It's really not that striking. Not an interesting enough subject Nelro2 (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments on the edit, please. Which do we prefer? Makeemlighter (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or, for that matter, the alt. Could supporters please clarify? --jjron (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me the alt is the best among them. Still not sure about the need of ending the picture at that point from the right. (personally I would also remove the light colored ground in the foreground) franklin 13:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For some reason I thought I'd voted on this, but haven't - anyway, for me compositionally the alt is the best also, so if one's to be promoted I would go with that. --jjron (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose both per Franklin. -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 05:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose I have to agree that the shadows are too dark in this one. It's dark rock and darker shadows. The alternate has slightly better composition but it's still suffering from being too dark. Victorrocha (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Oppose It's missing a "wow" for me, I think due to the composition and lighting. Despite the good caption, the rock outcropping just doesn't stand out to me. Fletcher (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Koala[edit]

Reason: Based on a comment below I thought I might give it a go. I think it is a female but would like a second opinion before adding that detail to the caption.
Articles in which this image appears: Koala
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support lovely creature although the diagonal tree blocks parts of the animal.--Caspian blue 06:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support For me the tree adds to the EV as it shows the animal in a natural setting... Gazhiley (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Existing Koala FPs , (I think only one is in the article currently, and the article itself is a bit of a gallery, too image heavy). The one below with the joey shows something different from these; what does this add, or should it be a D&R? --jjron (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I've seen Diliff's before (which isn't in the article atm) and I didn't notice the other. D&R could be in order. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Yeah, I'd probably support it as a D&R if anything. But I'm not really convinced that this shows the koala in a natural setting. I've never seen them in (what appears to be) a dead tree before except in wildlife sanctuaries where they use it purely for safety above ground (and get fed leaves by the keepers). In the wild, they're pretty particular about what trees they live in/eat from AFAIK. My koala FP is admittedly not as strong as a candidate as it was when originally nominated, but it's completely wild. I was lucky enough to catch it moving from one tree to another, and so got a fairly complete view of it at eye-level. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - I've just been through the otway national park including cape otway, and lots of waterfalls. I can't say I've seen a single koala though. I wonder if the chlamydia outbreak has had it's toll or if i was looking in the wrong places. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Check the geolocation on my Koala image - it should be pretty exact. In that exact location there were about 10-15 koalas within 50 metres (it's the Aire River camp site). I can't speak for the entire Otway NP as I walked mainly along the coast and not inland. Could have just been a particularly lucky day, or they might have been decimated. I'm not sure, it was 5 years ago now. Spose it's a bit late to go back for koala spotting though. :-) And most of them were in pretty tall trees so not great for photography. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I did actually drive on that road, but ended up camping near beauchamp falls. I've since seen a few Koalas in the grampians, but not really many, and usually high up as you say. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        The best place to take photos of wild koalas is Raymond Island. You are practically guaranteed to see some of them at near eye-level. --Quartl (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Support Not sure this image offers any additional improvement over the two existing FP's. Part of the animal is obstructed by the branch, and I presume it was taken in a captivity setting as opposed to being wild? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Image page answers that. --jjron (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Bonorong Wildlife Park isn't a very clear, since in many places a "wildlife park" isn't a "zoo" where animals are captive. Thus I asked. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - It is probably closer to zoo, but all of the animals there have either been rescued, injured or are the offspring of injured wild animals (excluding the Tasmanian Devil, for which a reserve, quarantined population is needed because of the facial tumour disease). At the same time it was on an actual, growing tree (note the leaves on the RHS) Noodle snacks (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Changing it to support after giving it more thought. :P — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: I don't mind multiple FPs of the same subject if they are offering something different. Maedin\^talk 14:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per Maedin. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Phascolarctos cinereus Bonorong.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Henry Clay in the U.S. Senate[edit]

Reason: Historical significance and high quality image. Restored version of File:Henry Clay Senate.jpg
Articles in which this image appears: Compromise of 1850, Henry Clay, History of the United States Senate
Creator: Drawn by P. F. Rothermel, engraved by R. Whitechurch

Support as nominator -- Jujutacular ^T · C 18:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Support edit. The uncompressed version has been sent to Durova. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Pretty good work on the dirt and scratch removal. Hope you don't mind the liberty of an extra edit to bring detail out of the shadows. If you have a version saved in TIFF format I could redo this without loss. Durova⁴⁰³ 20:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit. Durova⁴⁰³ 05:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit, per nominator. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit. Notable photo. Looks good. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit. Picture of high value and historical significance. - Darwinek (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit. per fastily --NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Henry Clay Senate3.jpg —Maedin\^talk 13:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Balaklavansick 2.jpg

Eastern Grey Kangaroo - female grazing[edit]

Reason: all animal shown, side on, good EV. Seeing a nom lower down for the same species reminded me of this image and made me thought it would be worth uploading.
Articles in which this image appears: Eastern Grey Kangaroo
Creator: Benjamint 11:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support as nominator --Benjamint 11:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Let the battle of the roos commence. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I wonder who will "roo"l the "roo"st at the end of the battle?!!......... Gazhiley (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Haha, As near as I can tell this is a female, whilst the one below is a male. There could be room for both (though the anatomical differences are not large). Noodle snacks (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I'm an idiot - it says female on the nomination! Noodle snacks (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - You're also an idiot for missing the comedic opportunity to continue the pun! Yes, I do believe there is "roo"m for both... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Re this nom and the one below, existing Eastern Grey FP . --jjron (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Compared to the current FP, this one is much better IMO. Delist the other? --Muhammad(talk) 11:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support Frame isn't as cluttered as the existing FP, only complaint I have is that it's head is down eating and not raised, is there more shots of this with it's head raised (asking since the photographer is also the nominator)? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Oppose. The very dark background on the top affects the visual balance. Current FP presents much better pose and composition. Elekhh (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Elekhh -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A shot with the head up may be possible, I'll give it a seperate nom if I do manage a better shot -- Benjamint 11:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This image illustrates well an Eastern Grey feeding, and appears to be a female. They look like this when they eat on my lawn! I'd suggest making this a delist and replace. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that there is a quorum - an adequate number of voters. However, there was no consensus to promote this image. Snowman (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Richea Scoparia[edit]

Reason: Good image for the white form of this alpine plant.
Articles in which this image appears: Richea scoparia
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment size ref? Spikebrennan (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I've got this photo next to Barn Bluff, but the perspective could make it slightly misleading. More seriously around 5-6cm high I'd say. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Looks like it's not saturated enough? Blacks are pretty light, maybe some levels adjustment would be in order? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Maybe, I don't have the facility to do so at the moment though. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Added an alt with levels adjustment... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: (original or alt, preference for alt) See no reason to oppose. Maedin\^talk 12:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I can't see why this hasn't had more support. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support alt 99of9 (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No quorum. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

George Clooney[edit]

Reason: Good quality, EV. Celebrity picture, a rarity for wiki
Articles in which this image appears: George Clooney
Creator: Nicolas Genin

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 18:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, the arm position is awkward, and the photo needs some image touching such as adjusting the level, and saturation not to look the actor pale.--Caspian blue 19:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Alt 1. The lighting is quite flat (probably strong flash?) but for an 'event' style portrait, it's fairly good and clear. His (false) teeth are quite scary though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose, largely per Caspian blue -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support per nom and Diliff. Flash is a bit harsh, but otherwise pretty good portrait for a notable celebrity. --jjron (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Note: Preference to Original in terms of framing (and yes, I agree the arm is a bit awkward, but there's something about the framing of the alt that nonetheless makes me prefer the original). --jjron (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The framing of the Alt adds relevance to the face and the eyes and therefore emphasizes that he is looking (for an unknown reason) outside the frame. Maybe that's what you see. franklin 12:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support alt; looks good to me. Very nice shot accurately showing what he looks like, in a rather typical movie star setting. My main criticism is that he is not looking at the camera. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not looking directly at the camera is not a problem if the photo suggests what is it what he is looking at, the problem is that he is looking outside the frame and nothing is suggested that he could be looking at. That's why we feel something is missing. With more space to the left that wouldn't look odd. I have seen white backgrounds being cloned and blue clear sky in some nominations. If I (or anyone) clone this kind of background would that be considered excessive editing? In any case it looks like a complicated task, especially for me. franklin 19:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another thing that is not desirable is the light on the back of his head. That one is probably easier to remove as was done with the mosquito nomination. franklin 19:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think any significant cloning is particularly acceptable when it changes anything relevant to the scene, to be honest. Being selective about the framing used, or adjusting contrast, colour balance and saturation is one thing, but actually changing the reality of the scene (even if it is the background) is deliberately falsifying the reality of the scene. Think about it. Would a newspaper find it acceptable? Photographers have been fired for doctoring a photo. I don't think we should do it either. White backgrounds are slightly different, because it's self evident that the subject has been artificially isolated and we're not usually bothered by what is missing. It just wouldn't work so well with George Clooney at an event. The background is part of the scene. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm completely with Diliff here. J Milburn (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Alt upstate NYer 01:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Alt1: See no reason to oppose, now that the arm is cropped. Maedin\^talk 12:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support either. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:George Clooney 66ème Festival de Venise (Mostra) 3Alt1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mandelbrot zoom animation[edit]

Reason: Simply an epic animation and a fantastic representation of the multiple layers of complexity and chaos that make up the Mandelbrot set. The user Slaunger suggested that a scaled up version of an earlier animation, made by user Zom-B would probably be worthy of being a featured image. The full Java library (-colouring) is available here.
Articles in which this image appears: Mandelbrot set
Creator: Simpsons contributor

Support as nominator --Simpsons contributor (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Something weird seems to happen at the end of the animation. The frame sort of jerks back and forth for a second. Any idea what's happening there? Kaldari (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I left that part in intentionally. That's were it starts to break down due to lack of precision (caused by the limited amount of information that can be stored using the DoubleDouble object). I can remove this part if you think it looks unsightly. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

support per nominator. Just a little criticism. It could have ended in the same image if the point were one of those where the set is zoom-self-similar but maybe I am wrong and the reason why it doesn't is that too much precision would have been required or too many images. I don't know. franklin 20:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure that would have been possible, but I think that zoom is best because it follows, and leads on from, the set of featured images already on the page. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I have NO idea what's going on here, so I'm not going to vote. However, I would like to say it is very pretty. :) J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check the Mandelbrot set article. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. The image has remained in the article for almost a month. On the basis that it's a reasonable size WP:Math article, that for me constitutes a vote of support in favour of its accuracy as a representation - something I am in no position to do directly. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per nom. Durova⁴⁰³ 05:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support.--Garrondo (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - oooh, trippy... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent illustration of the subject. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. per nom. Awesome image. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I only seldom voice my opinion here, but passing by by coincidence tonight and seeing again this very well made animation, which very nicely illustrates the subject, I simply had to vote. I think this animation is a powerful presentation of the beauty of mathematics. Personally I think it is a good idea to keep the end as it is showing how the numerical precision breaks down. I get nostalgic seeing this, recalling how I in a period of my life in 1990, where I was incredibly bored programmed the recursion algorithm on my HP-42S pocket calculator (only the initial picture) in B&W divided into two stacked 131x16 pixel images printed out on the HP-82240B Infrared printer. The calculation took 24 hours and consumed one set of batteries. The algorithm I used was hopeless. The one used here is much more sophisticated and optimized. ;-)--Slaunger (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent Picture Enti342 (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think it would be a good idea to move this to Commons such that other Wikimedia projects could use this nice animation as well. If you do, I'll nominate it at COM:FPC as well. --Slaunger (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you move it to Wikimedia Commons? --Simpsons contributor (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea as Commons is my home wiki and the place I always upload media, but surely another reviewer here provide a link to some guide? --Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anybody can re-upload this at commons with the same name and license and then put this one here up for deletion --Muhammad(talk) 11:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is getting a bit complicated now. I think it'll be OK if we just leave it on Wikipedia. I certainly don't want it deleted now. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like Franklin.vp uploaded it to Commons, and that the en version may be speedy deleted. But don't worry!. It does not affect your nomnation (it shouldn't, at least). When the en version is delected, the commons version with the same name simply takes presedence. --Slaunger (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support I'm becoming drowsy. Need to stay awake to watch cool... (head hits desk) Buggie111 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I also have absolutely no idea what is going on here (and reading the article didn't help at all, it just made my head hurt) but this looks excellent -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Mandelbrot sequence new.gif —Maedin\^talk 07:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Baffin Island Sea Ice Satellite Picture[edit]

Reason: This image shows the last remnant of the Laurentide ice sheet which covered much of Canada during the most recent glacial period. Some of this ice is 20,000 years old, making it the oldest ice in Canada.
Articles in which this image appears: Barnes Ice Cap, Baffin Island, Sea Ice, Laurentide ice sheet
Creator: NASA, uploaded by Originalwana (talk · contribs)

Support as nominator --NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per nom. Durova⁴⁰³ 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It's no Snowy Great Britain though... Gazhiley (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. per nom. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Illustrative and encyclopedic. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Sea_Ice_off_Baffin_Island.jpg —Maedin\^talk 07:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mt Kilimanjaro[edit]

Reason: Good quality, and EV. A recent picture hence it shows how little ice is left. Different view from what is normally seen, I personally had never seen such a sight even with google earth.
Articles in which this image appears: Mount Kilimanjaro, List of African Ultras
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 12:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The slight haziness and bland colour can be forgiven for the rarity and EV of this picture... As far as I'm concerned anyway... Gazhiley (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

* Oppose this isn't Mahammad's best image of Kilimanjaro, the other image being used in the article is technically superior, but doesn't show the loss of ice. This image has blown high lights and is a little soft. I don't see why you would use 800 ISO when shooting in daylight. --Leivick (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- I was in a plane moving at over 900km/hr. I needed a fast shutter speed to avoid blur. Even with ISO-800, some pictures came out a bit blurry. --Muhammad(talk) 01:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Edit 1 curve adjustments are a great improvement. I also realized that the monitor I was looking at it on doesn't display highlights very well. --22:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per the above --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. per above. A bit hazy so, not exactly FP standard, but great image nonetheless. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Slightly hazy, but it's fairly unrealistic to expect a non-hazy photo from such a distance and (presumably) through an an aeroplane window. Having said that, increasing the contrast or black point seems to help quite a bit and is probably worth doing to combat the haze. Anyway, I think this aerial view is interesting and uncommon and shows the shape of the mountain far better than one from the ground. It's a shame there is so much cloud though. Also, this image does not have significant blown highlights. In photoshop, go to the Image menu -> Adjustments -> Threshold, then drag the slider to 250 (still 5 values below blown). There is virtually nothing in the image that is white (above 250). Therefore no blown highlights IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit 1 Uploaded --Muhammad(talk) 01:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 1 per Diliff. Interesting and encyclopedic. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit1 per Gazhiley, great shot. Fletcher (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit 1 per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit1 per Diliff. Very nice view. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Mount Kilimanjaro Dec 2009 edit1.jpg —Maedin\^talk 07:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harbor Seal[edit]

File:HarborSeal2700ppx.jpg

Original - A young Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina) relaxes off the coast of La Jolla, San Diego.

Reason: High technical standard, high resolution, used in infobox of Harbor Seal, avoids significant digital manipulation.
Articles in which this image appears: Harbor Seal
Creator: FASTILY ^(TALK)

Support as nominator --FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the subject is out of focus. franklin 00:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose. Sorry, it's a nice shot, but I just feel the quality isn't quite there- doubled with the fact the subject only takes up a small part of the picture... J Milburn (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Cute animal, but the subject is not perfectly in focus. This would be even more visible if the image would be croped. The nomination statement that it is "used in infobox" was correct for less than 1h. It was placed there by nominator 5 minutes before this nomination, and replaced 48 minutes later. Elekhh (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I was too mean. It was me who replaced it. Let me say to the nominator that if the image were of good quality, not being in the infobox is not a problem. franklin 21:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hook echo[edit]

**Original** - A Doppler on wheels image of a tornadic thunderstorm near La Grange, Wyoming captured during the VORTEX2 project. In the velocity image on the left, Blues/green represent winds moving towards the radar, and reds/yellows indicate winds moving away from the radar. The reason that some of the darker blues contain red/yellow within them is a trait known as Aliasing, where the winds are moving faster than the radar can detect. In the reflectivity image on the right, the main body of the storm can be seen, with the appendage on the bottom of the storm being a hook echo, which is associated directly with the tornado, and the tornado circulation itself can be seen as the doughnut like shape in the later part of the animation.

Reason: High quality radar animation showing a severe storm, hook echo, and tornado vortex signature.
Articles in which this image appears: Hook echo
Creator: Josh Wurman, Center for Severe Weather Research

Support as nominator --Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the caption all the colors represent winds moving towards the radar? franklin 23:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Wow...I never caught that...thanks. Corrected it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I'm concerned about the size of the animation and the resources it hogs. When I try to scroll past the nomination it locks up my browser for half a minute or so, and I've had the same problem when viewing the Hook echo article. Actually viewing the image page itself is even worse. I'm not on a very fast connection, fair enough, but is anyone else having difficulty with it? From what I can tell, the right hand frame is communicating the most information, as it's the part that most clearly shows the hook echo. Couldn't this frame stand alone? Halving the animation would be good, I think, making it more easily understandable, more easily viewable, and hopefully not kill my browser, :-). Maedin\^talk 09:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- That would be fine, but if that happens the halved one needs to get uploaded as a different file...this one just got featured over at Commons. I don't really have the skills to edit an animation in half, though...is this something the Graphics Lab could do? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Errmmm, pass? :) Even if they aren't familiar with .ogv, I guess they may know others who are or they might be able to figure it out. Hopefully, anyway! Maedin\^talk 16:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

USS Arizona, 1918 fleet review[edit]

Reason: high-quality image with good composition; not the best photo of the ship (that would probably be File:Uss arizona.jpg), but the only one that is large enough to qualify for FP. The angle this is taken from highlights one of the major differences of First World War capital ships from the same in the Second World War: the extremely low bridges. Compare the bridge on Arizona here to Nevada's in the Second World War.
Articles in which this image appears: USS Arizona (BB-39), Naval Review
Creator: Paul Thompson/War Department

Relisted, support as nom - previous nom (ended in no quorum) here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
support as before; will support either with or without foreground. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

USS New Jersey, 1918[edit]

Reason: Image is of high quality and great composition.
Articles in which this image appears: USS New Jersey (BB-16)
Creator: Navy Department

Relisted, support as nom - previous nom (ended in no quorum) here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um, Edit1 and Original are the exact same image right? So why put up the edit? --jjron (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- That was me being an idiot; it should be fixed now. Thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, a nice shot considering the age of a notable ship; obviously not reproducible. J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit per nom. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 02:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I prefer the edit, but I've just noticed that the mast is cut off. That's annoying. Do we know what the ship in the background is? J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Nothing we can do about the mast, unfortunately. But look at the bright side: only a small bit is missing, and the cage mast isn't cut off at all! ;) I tried to zoom in on the ship, but it's just too blurry for me to give a definitive answer. ~~To me, it looks like a member of the Connecticut class.~~ —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - No, the superstructure (or something?) is too high. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Navsource says that it is probably New Jersey's sister ship Rhode Island. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - I don't know about that; you can clearly see the turret face for the 12" guns, but it doesn't look like there's a superimposed 8" turret above it. It actually could be a Colorado class ship; compare it with this contemporary photo of New Hampshire. Parsecboy (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        You mean the Connecticut class? :P You're right re no superimposed turret. I think that we can definitively say that it is either a Maine or a Connecticut based on this: it's obviously a predreadnought, there is no superimposed turret (rulling out BB's 5–6, 13–17), and there are multiple funnels lengthwise (ruling out BB's 8–9). I think that BB's 1–4 were too low in the water to be this ship. If only we had more detail... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Yeah, one of those "C" states...Parsecboy (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support prefer edit .. GerardM (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per nom. Fletcher (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit. Original had tilt and too much seawater, this better frames the subject. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit. This is a high quality and interesting image the ship. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support edit. Parsecboy (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:USS New Jersey (BB-16) in camouflage coat, 1918 edit.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australian military encampment, 1918[edit]

Reason: Most of the Australian light cavalry units of World War I served in the Middle Eastern theater. This photograph depicts an encampment in an important location: overlooking Jerusalem during the early months of the British Mandate of Palestine. Restored version of File:Australian camps on slopes of Olivet & Mount Scopus.jpg.
Articles in which this image appears: Military history of Australia during World War I
Creator: American Colony Jerusalem

Support as nominator --Durova⁴⁰³ 23:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good image well worked --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There seem to be some strange artifacts along the horizon which aren't in the original LoC version. The most visible ones are above and slightly to the right of the point where the road turns the corner. Time3000 (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support High EV, good image, nice restoration. Elekhh (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Weak Support I agree with some of the arguments below regarding limitations of EV. Elekhh (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose EV is questionable; this photo boils down to a bunch of horses, tents, and a few people and carriages. The meat of the image (i.e. what was just previously mentioned) probably takes up ... 10% of the pixels, being generous? There is no context to place this near Jerusalem or even in Israel; as far as viewing it goes, this could be any desert. A saving grace could be a good display of the uniforms, arms, etc of the soldiers or the soldiers in formation, among other things, but I only count less than 20 visible bodies in the foreground. They don't seem to be dressed as soldiers. Basically the detail, and especially the context, is severely lacking. Might as well be a big group of nomads. What does it really add to the article? upstate NYer 23:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Well, for one thing the Bedouin weren't known for living in pup tents... ;) Durova⁴⁰³ 04:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Point taken, but that pushes my point further: based on the image this could be any desert. The Gobi, Sahara, Death Valley, etc. In no way do you know that the Bedouin have ever stepped foot here. upstate NYer 06:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Many historic pictures have little to positively identify themselves as genuine on the spot. The provenance of such material is what makes that you accept that the material is authentic. It is exactly for this reason why material from GLAMs are vitally important; we post their original, we refer back to their online original and we make damned sure that you can verify its authenticity. GerardM (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - But I don't vote based on my feelings of GLAM works. That is not part of the criteria. I am here to vote on the criteria. I understand you feel strongly about passing many old works as 'proof' to GLAMs that they should release their work but I'm fundamentally opposed to operating like that; in essence you are voting support for all the wrong reasons. The goal is to promote the best, most representative works of a given situation. This, clearly, is not that. upstate NYer 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - The source is reliable and the historic importance is far-reaching. They were guarding Jerusalem during the beginning of the British Mandate of Palestine. Do you assert that history would be no different if the Ottoman Turks had retaken that city? ;) Durova⁴⁰³ 20:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Not in any way questioning the sources; it's the context of content of the image that I don't see adding much, if anything, to the article. No detail on the soldiers, the housing, the horses, etc. and to repeat myself, the meat of the image makes up less than 10% of the pixels in the image. Good image in itself, but not one of WP's best work overall. upstate NYer 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Reasonable people sometimes disagree. :) Durova⁴⁰³ 21:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support EV is high IMO. At performance of household jobs in camp soldiers are always similar to peasants. The official uniform isn't observed. I well know it as the former soldier of the Soviet army --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regretful oppose We need more (some?!) FPs covering Australian military history, but I don't think that this meets the criteria for pretty much the reasons raised by upstateNYer - the EV of this photo isn't particularly high. The Australian War Memorial has lots of much better photos of the light horse in its huge collections - it's a real shame that the versions they place on their online database are much too small to be eligable for FP status (though in fairness they've recently done Wikipedia a huge service by accurately labeling their pre-1955 photos as 'copyright expired' and the huge number of photos is a fantastic asset for editors interested in Australian military history). Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support historic material from a well respected source, beautifully restored. High encyclopaedic value GerardM (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- In line with your comment above, what exactly about this image makes it deserve a day on the Main Page? What do you learn from the image itself? If you must depend on the caption to know even a bit of context, then that picture isn't really worth the 1000 words referenced in the criteria. Is your support really based only on "good restoration" and "historic material"? Because that's not what the criteria specifies. Nothing in the image tells you even on what continent it take place, what century it is in, or even that there is a war going on. All three are essential to understanding the context, yet none of them are made apparent in the image. You even have one of WP's most prolific editors regarding Australian military history agreeing with me here. I'm no expert and am opposing just based on a novice's view (I can't learn anything from this image, even in the article), while User:Nick-D is opposing as a relative expert for the same reasons, including pointing out that there are a lot better images out there to work from. upstate NYer 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - But nothing from the other collection is available at sufficient quality. My comments to his user talk about that might be worth a read. Durova⁴⁰³ 04:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - That's fine, but that doesn't change the lack of context and, in all honesty, content, in this image. Those images are incidental; voting is based on this image only. upstate NYer 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - GerardM is the key person who negotiated the partnered WMF Netherlands-Tropenmuseum exhibit, which received national news in the Netherlands and a head of state visit from the president of Suriname. In the context of potential leverage to open the doors of more museums, there's no Wikimedian with more successful experience. Durova⁴⁰³ 02:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Which is exactly the argument we shouldn't see in nominations. See my post above dated 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC) (nope, up one more, above your reference to the Ottomans). GLAM work is not a reason for supporting an image; GLAM is nowhere in the criteria and the criteria are what dictate voting rationale at FPC. For all the discussions and accusations about 'double standards' and 'moving the goalposts' in the past, this is exhibit A, in that you're creating a 'standard' out of thin air that has nothing to do with the criteria and the process agreed to by consensus at FPC, and are thereby 'moving the goalposts' to make it 'easier' to support, when in fact, the image offers little encyclopedic content and almost no context. "For the greater good of GLAM" is not - and most definitely won't be - in the criteria. If you have to settle for an argument based solely on "opening doors", then it seems you're admitting how much this image lacks overall. upstate NYer 03:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        This image shows what an encampment looks like in those days, the distribution of horses and tents, the proximity of roads. It is also has the provenance of being a camp in a certain place. This image is worthwhile in its own right. When you look at many modern vistas that are proposed you will only find a panorama without anything interesting in it but a snapshot. GerardM (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Once again, nothing in the image is actually informative; you learn nothing of the army outfits, the formation of the soldiers in battle, or even the location or century. Later vistas that you refer are typically promoted for outright beauty; this image offers no beauty so your comparison is as apples to oranges as it gets. Big deal, it shows an encampment, something that changed very little between the 1700s and early 1900s and is just an amalgamation of randomly set tents and parked horses. What on earth do you learn from that? Roughly speaking? Nothing. upstate NYer 22:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support a bit dark for my liking, but well, we can not manipulate original images if the uploader is the photographer. I think the image has "good educational values" --Caspian blue 05:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support'. Bit dark and blurry, but high EV. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: As UpstateNYer. Maedin\^talk 16:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Australian camps on slopes of Olivet & Mount Scopus3.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haiti Airdrop, Jan 18[edit]

**Original** - A supply airdrop in Haiti, lending humanitarian aid after the 2010 Haiti earthquake.

Reason: Although this is not an image of particularly remarkable quality from a technical point of view (pixels and focus), the composition is, in my opinion, of a high standard, but more than this, the image jumps out as being one of great attraction and interest.
Articles in which this image appears: 2010 Haiti earthquake, Airdrop.
Creator: James L. Harper Jr.

Support as nominator --Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I can kind of see where you are coming from here, but this doesn't scream FP material at me. J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support as original uploader Its not great from a technical perspective but its unique and very informational, in a way that cannot be provided by text alone. Also it is a good current events segue. Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is amazing. Particularly good EV in airdrop, IMO --Muhammad(talk) 10:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Image looks interesting and is very informative, both for the topical article and the general one. Depicts the chaotic nature of these things. --Kateshortforbob _talk 13:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - it's an interesting-looking image, and technically quite good. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Supplied an alternate edit. Durova⁴⁰³ 00:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Original - As per above. I knew there was something about this picture that I liked. After reading the votes It all makes sense. I've looked at a lot of airdrop images earlier. I see why this one appeals to me. Tim1337 (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Alt Alt looks like the colors have been put back, original, though interesting, shows that Army camo works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buggie111 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment the alt is gorgeous fyi. Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. There are many things wrong with this image, and it of poor quality. I doubt it would be getting any support were it not connected with the tragic events in Haiti. Equally importantly, there is little that gives it high encyclopedic value as an illustration of events in Haiti. As an airdrop, certainly, but there is nothing that identifies it as Haitian. All of: File:Haitian national palace earthquake.jpg, File:Haiti earthquake damage overhead.jpg, and File:EscombrosBelAir5.jpg provide high quality and very high encyclopedic value. The first one particularly so, to the extent that it has become iconic, being used frequently in television coverage, and it has remained unchallenged as the lead image. I was waiting for stability in the article before I chose among these images to nominate. As the crisis progresses, and images proliferate, things will move. I only have confidence in the image of the National Palace as permanent, and to a lesser degree in the overhead shot above. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Or indeed, File:EscombrosBelAir2.jpg which is a very well composed image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose While the photo has EV, it's not a particularly good photo - the colours look washed out and it isn't a clear depiction of what an airdrop looks like. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Alt mostly for its EV to Airdrop. Per Mostlyharmless, there are some other images that have better EV for the Haiti quake. But I think it actually gives a really good overview-type depiction of an airdrop, showing what it would look like from the ground. You can see some crates striking ground, some on their way down, and the aircraft flying away in the background... not sure what else you would want to see! As to technical quality, it's not picture perfect, but it is an action shot. Fletcher (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose-While the picture is connected to the tragic events in Haiti, that connection does not qualify the quality of the picture. They lighting is poor, the airplane is out of focus, the colors are washed out, the rising dust obscures the crates/parachutes, the landscape is out of focus, and there is a small yellow pyramidal structure that is off-center. This looks like an everyday action shot...not featured picture material.Smallman12q (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments on the alternate, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prefer Alt Spitfire^Tally-ho! 06:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
prefer alt --Muhammad(talk) 11:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:AirdropcloseJan18haiti edited.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kea in Fiordland, New Zealand[edit]

Reason: Good image
Articles in which this image appears: Kea
Creator: Mark Whatmough

Support as nominator --Snowman (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good EV. Not perfect at full size but acceptable --Muhammad(talk) 01:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Far from eye-catching, and doesn't have exceptional EV. The background is cluttered above the kea's head and is too similar to the subject in colouration, especially above its neck. I do like the level of detail visible, e.g. of the raindrops on its back, but that is not enough to compensate for the photo's failings. -- Avenue (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see this photograph of an adult Kea as a scientific illustration, and I think that you have missed the point that animals in the wild are often similar in colour to their background. Snowman (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Not really seeing where Avenue is coming from- high quality picture, shows well what the bird looks like in its natural environment. Not a bird I've seen before, so I learnt a lot. Also a pretty animal, but that's not important. J Milburn (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find keas fascinating. You may have learnt a lot from this image, but I think an excellent photo of the bird could say so much more. It lives in a visually interesting habitat (the mountains), which provides many opportunities for better backgrounds than this. (Foe example, see some of the other photos in the Kea article, such as File:KeaMacKinnonPass2006.jpg and File:Kea_on_Avalanche_Peak_-_cropped.jpg.) Even the previous infobox picture, File:Kea.jpg, which had a bland background, left it more blurry and unfocussed to show off the bird better. (That picture was replaced by this one just a few minutes before it was nominated here, so don't read too much into its current placement in the article.) And the bird's pose, looking away to something we can't see, leaves a lot to be desired too. As Sabine's Sunbird says, they're not that difficult to find or photograph. I'm sorry, but while it has nice detail, I see this photo falling a long way short of what I'd expect for a featured picture. -- Avenue (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found this image showing the bird at a high resolution and moved quickly to place it on the page and nominate it. The parrot in "File:Kea.jpg" is a juvenile and so is not an obvious choice for the infobox image. The background has some rocks in the background, so it does look natural. I was thinking of this illustration as a biological illustration with encyclopaedic value rather than a idealised work of art. Snowman (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that you nominated it on the basis of encyclopaedic value rather than being a stunning image. -- Avenue (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it is an excellent creative commons image with scientific value of a parrot that can only be found in the wild in New Zealand. I also nominated it because I thought it exceeded the featured image criteria, which would be self explanatory to anyone that had read the heading on this FP candidates page. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Nice image of far from common subject. Good and appropriate DOF --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. With regards to the technical and logistical difficulties of photographing this species, this species is increasingly rare on South Island but it is still easy to find in tourist locations in the Southern Alps, in fact particularly in tourist locations. They are also very easy to photograph as they are exceptionally bold and unafraid and will actively approach people. As such they are probably one of the easiest wild parrots to photograph anywhere in the world, so that should be taken into account when considering the technical difficulties and excellence of this shot. It should be possible to take a much better photograph of this species, with better light and a less distracting background. Also, it should be noted that this is an adult, young birds have yellow nares. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that it would be possible to obtain a much better photograph of many FA photographs of animals. I would be more impressed if you presented a creative commons image here of a Kea that is better than this one. Snowman (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you found a better one already, when you uploaded the photo on the right from Flickr. It's not FP quality either, but it's got more appeal and encyclopedic value in my view. Admittedly it's not as sharp, and is not high resolution, but the bird's posture, lack of dampness, and the way the lighting shows off the feather colours outweigh that for me. And yes, I agree it's possible to take a better photo than many FPs, but that seems like a red herring. The issue is whether the photo nominated here measures up to our FP standards. Looking through Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds, I think it clearly falls short. How many photos of even slightly wet and bedraggled birds are listed there? -- Avenue (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image that you linked has not got the resolution for a FP, and I would not even think about nominating that image of the Kea standing on what appears to be a man-made monotonous flat surface. Birds in the wild do get wet in the rain - the image description explains some wet feathers. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I agree that photo's background is bland, and I was not for a moment suggesting that it was worth nominating. But I still feel it is a better photo than the nominated one, and I'm surprised at the support that one's received. Anyway, I'll shut up now. -- Avenue (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the somewhat inferior photograph that you have linked has harsh lighting, man-made and artificial looking flat background, and much lower resolution. I think it helps to enhance the wow factor of my nominated photograph, which I have used as the main scientific illustration on the species page. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support per nom. Durova⁴⁰³ 00:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Oppose. I'm not worried about the bird being wet, but the background is unfortunate: slight lack of contrast and there's a distracting stone hanging above its head. Elekhh (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is true that the background contains some of the colours similar to that of the parrot. I find it interesting to speculate that the Kea has evolved camouflage to blend in to the natural colours of the rocks and sparse green plants or mosses in the New Zealand Alps and wonder how the colour of this species might have influenced its survival. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It's interesting looking at the detail with it being wet and the background is a nice example of its camouflage. upstate NYer 06:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~*Weak oppose~~ . Per Sabine's Sunbird. The background is simply too distracting, unfortunately. Keas are very easy to find in New Zealand, as they frequent the carparks of South Island high country national parks, among other places. They're not shy. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Although I do have to disagree about light levels, which appear to be the result of drizzle. This is very typical for Fiordland, one of the wettest places on earth with over 330 days of rain a year, and up to 9000mm of rain. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - edit: Support. After another look at full size I'm now convinced it should be featured. It has detail and EV. And as noted, grey and dark wet weather is extremely common in much of this bird's range. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: To be fair, the thumbnail of the image does make it look dark, dull, and cluttered. But it improves readily upon being viewed full size. Of course a better image can be taken (you can say that about pretty much anything), but this is the best that we have at the moment and it meets the requirements. Maedin\^talk 15:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The problem I see is that being as you said "dark, dull, and cluttered" at standard size, few readers will have the interest to click on it to see it at full size, which I think ultimately affects its Encyclopedic Value. Elekhh (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I kind of appreciate where you're coming from, but I (personally) don't think EV should be "thumbnail" EV. The EV is there for anyone who wishes to open it and see it, and isn't defined as, "looks so good they want to click it"; in fact, because it shows the environment, and the dampness of the region, and the camouflage, it perhaps has heaps more EV than if it looked great in thumbnail. You could argue that it's not a compelling image, though. Just my perspective, of course, :) Maedin\^talk 07:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. While the similarity in color to the background is unfortunate, the image is vivid and the lighting is, in my opinion, spectacular (many voters seem to be looking for bright images, but lighting like this presents a more realistic portrayal). — the Man in Question (in question) 02:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Nestor notabilis -Fiordland, New Zealand-8b.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australian Pelican[edit]

Reason: Seems to meet criteria. I think this is a more encyclopedic pose than our already featured Aussie Pelican (although that one is a good shape for the infobox). This one is higher resolution. FP at Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Australian Pelican
Creator: 99of9

Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support Nice image, but I believe it would be better if the right side of the image is cropped a bit so that it would not reveal a lot of background besides the intended focus as well as to balance the amount with the left side. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your review. Do others agree that a crop would help? Obviously this is easy to do if there's general agreement. 99of9 (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cropping would start to encroach on the pelican's personal space and cramp it in the frame, :). Plus, environment is beneficial. Seems perfectly fine to me as it is. Maedin\^talk 09:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somewhat I agree with you if it is too much. Yet if the right hand side is cropped a little bit it should balance the left and right, making the pelican more "centered". Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak support. Technically proficient. Composition not especially exciting. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 05:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with this. But I want to say that I think the reason is that it was taken from above the pelican and that a crop is not what it needs. Actually I think a crop would do harm to the picture unless it is a very tight crop with the purpose of removing most of the rock on the left. franklin 21:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, Franklin. Which was why I didn't suggest a crop. I'm partial low angle shots for small subjects. Children, pets, etc. tend to be much more interesting when a photograph forces the viewer to confront them at their own eye level or below: a housecat looks terrifying from the perspective of a mouse. How would a pelican appear from the perspective of another pelican or a smaller bird? Durova⁴⁰⁸ 18:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak oppose Very sharp, but not best composition. Would be better if it would be standing on the sandy/lighter spot so the feet and back are better visible. There are already two FPs in the article (1, 2), and this one does not seem to be better or add new information. Finally, these are very slow birds when on the ground, and common on the East Coast, so can be easily photographed. Elekhh (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted —No quorum. Maedin\^talk 07:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absinthe Robette[edit]

**Original** - A 1896 piece from *Maîtres de l'Affiche* by Henri Privat-Livemont, advertising an absinthe

Reason: A recent high-res version from subtle MdA series.
Articles in which this image appears: Absinthe, Maîtres de l'Affiche, Henri Privat-Livemont
Creator: Henri Privat-Livemont

Support as nominator --Brand[t] 20:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - This should not have been uploaded over the previous image unless they were from the same source. As it stands, the source information only applies to the previous file, not the current one. Please either update the source information or reupload to a new filename. Kaldari (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed the source. Brand[t] 07:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finally took a look at the actual image (as the thumbnails seem to be broken). It looks like this image needs a lot of restoration. The one you uploaded over is actually much cleaner. You should revert File:Privat-Livemont-Absinthe Robette-1896.jpg to it's original version and upload this one to a new filename so that people can still use the old file until this higher-res version is restored. In the case of things like posters and prints, it is especially important to retain separate versions from separate sources, as they may have significant differences due to the provenance of the images. Kaldari (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed some dirty speckles, but decided not to remove them as they are probably original. I've uploaded as a separate file, but the preview is still void. Absinthe's green fairy doomed the image for raunchy appearance :) Brand[t] 09:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weird, I would have expected that to fix it. Kaldari (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I don't know if it's my computer, but I can't view the image...I just get the blank rectangle with an red X in the corner... Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 00:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Me too... Gazhiley (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. JPEG artifacting. Durova⁴⁰⁵ 04:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This image won't thumb because it is interlaced and over a certain size. Reupload without the interlacing to fix it. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted —Maedin\^talk 07:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Housefly on a leaf[edit]

Reason: Good quality and EV. I am particularly pleased with the lighting and composition. One of my best if I may say so.
Articles in which this image appears: Housefly, Musca (genus)
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 15:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image goes very well with the colors of the infoboxes in these articles. For some reason, in Musca (genus), I like better the image of yours that was there before. Maybe because of the brown in the dead parts of the leaves again looking well with the colors of the infobox. This image is very pleasant to view I will weak support for the moment. I am not sure if the percent of the body that is out of focus is acceptable. franklin 16:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support. This is an extremely well-done picture- the colours and composition are fantastic. However, I am inclined to agree to a certain extent with the comments above. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another fly FPC?! Low DOF. --Dschwen 22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Something as common as a housefly deserves a lone full body shot. --Muhammad(talk) 02:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Nice colours and sharp, but the FP bar for flies is already set very high :). In a way is great as it is, but I think a slight crop could improve it for the purpose of illustrating Wikipedia articles. Elekhh (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Support edit1. Elekhh (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support per J Milburn. Agreeing with Dschwen about DOF, but as long as it's a different species it's got separate encyclopedic value. Once Muhammad provides FPs of all the fly species in the world, captures them all mating, and shoots them all perched on ahem he'll probably move on to sexual dimorphism in flies. He's a man on a mission. Go for it, Muhammad. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Some of those ahem shots could only be achieved by astounding dedication or anosmia.Reply[reply]
- LOL. It gets easy after the first few ahems :) --Muhammad(talk) 02:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Talk about suffering for one's art! Prefer crop. :) Durova⁴⁰⁹ 02:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)I might never eat mangoes again.Reply[reply]
Support Prefer the edit. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment the binomial name should appear in the image description. Snowman (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Done Do I get a support now :)?--Muhammad(talk) 02:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Support the cropped version. The sort of photograph that needs special equipment. Would you consider changing licence from 1.2 to creative commons 2 or 3? Snowman (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Housefly_on_a_leaf_crop.jpg —Maedin\^talk 07:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muscu Domestica[edit]

**Original** - This is a high-resolution image of a Muscu Domestica fly.

Reason: It was blurry at first, but than I went to improve it with GIMP.
Articles: Fly
Creator: Markturney

Support as nominator --December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at ≈ 05:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose. I'm afraid I'm not certain of the technical term (are they jpeg artifacts?), I'm sure someone else can clarify that, but this really doesn't seem to be up to the standard of our insect pictures. Additionally, very little of the subject is in focus, and the resolution isn't massively high. Additionally, the image is only used in a gallery on the fly article, meaning it is not eligible. J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont think this is Musca domestica. Waaay too hairy --Muhammad(talk) 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
December, I have reverted your upload back to its original state. Your work is much appreciated, but the original one is bar better than your edit, only because it doesn't have artifacts. the original is not FP material either, thus I'm going to have to say oppose. --Zoo Fari 06:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per above. I've removed it from the article as I believe the id is incorrect. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:SNOW plus it's no longer used in article. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cumulus and Stratocumulus clouds[edit]

Reason: Good quality and EV. Interesting view compared to the other ground level FPs of clouds
Articles in which this image appears: Cloud, Cumulus cloud
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 11:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Seems to be not really breathtaking. Still it is a very good shot, considering that it is taken from above the clouds. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support per nom. Unusual angle gives an informative view of cloud shapes for people who haven't seen them from the air. Composition, lighting, and pollution keep this from being a full support, but it's difficult to get good shots from a passenger window (which was how this was done?) Not many of us have access to private aircraft or helicopters. Durova⁴⁰⁸ 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose While it may be uncommon to get this type of shot, it's still not a great image. Also not particularly illustrative of the types of clouds identified. Becky Sayles (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red-and-green Macaw at Apenheul Primate Park, Netherlands[edit]

Reason: good image
Articles in which this image appears: Red-and-green Macaw
Creator: Arjan Haverkamp

Support as nominator --Snowman (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Good image, but the beak is blowned (over-exposed) and there is red fringing at the top edge of the head. Also some stripe artifacts, if I'm not mistaken. Additionally it isn't crisp enough and the red colors are washed out near the brighter parts. --Zoo Fari 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral, leaning towards support. It's not technically perfect, but I do love the composition, and I think it serves as a great lead image. However, as a fairly common and iconic bird (in every zoo and common as pets) I do feel we can hope for a stronger image. J Milburn (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The trouble is there are relatively few images showing the full length of the bird. However, I see what you mean. Snowman (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Snowman (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snowboarder snowboarding in Austria[edit]

Reason: An attempt to boost our sports FPs. Seems to be one of the best snowboarding shots we have and gives some snow, scenery, and motion for context. Decent size, too.
Articles in which this image appears: Snowboarding
Creator: Søren Hoven

Support as nominator —Maedin\^talk 20:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Good panning is rare at FPC. A fine action shot. Durova⁴⁰⁸ 21:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)