|
|
|
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates
|
|
|
Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria.
If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the nomination for delisting section.
For promotion, if an image is listed here for about seven days with four or more opinions in support (including the nominator), and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Note, however, that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis.
The archive contains all opinions and comments collected on this page, and also nomination results.
If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons, to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.
- To see recent changes, purge the page cache
|
Featured content:
Featured picture tools:
|
How to nominate
Step 1 - Evaluate
The submissions will be evaluated using the criteria listed on Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? Please read the criteria before submitting a picture to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of making it. If you are unsure if your picture will fulfill the criteria, or would like advice on improving your nomination, please consider adding it to Wikipedia:Picture peer review for initial assessment. If you find this process too complicated, see below.
Step 2 - Create subpage
Create a page to place the article on; this page needs to be a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. To create your own subpage, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the form below (for example Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.
Step 2.5 - Transclude and link
Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (direct link).
Step 3 - Update image
On the nominated image's page use the 'Edit page' button to add the fpc template like so: {{FPC|title}}. This inserts the featured pictures candidate template, to let the original contributor and other interested parties know that the image is up for voting.
Too complicated?
If you are unable to follow the above procedure, add your image to Wikipedia:Picture peer review following the simpler instructions provided there. You can mention that you would like to submit it to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, but that you don't know how. If someone else deems it suitable, they will add it to FPC on your behalf. Alternatively you can request a regular FPC or PPR editor to submit an image on your behalf by contacting them on their talkpage.
How to comment
- If you approve of a picture, write Support followed by your reasons.
- If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image.
- If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case.
- To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.
Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version.
Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.
Editing candidates
If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g. add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (eg, Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied.
Is my monitor calibrated correctly?
In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.
On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background.
Note that on a LCD display (laptop or flat screen) the viewing angle strongly affects these images. Click on the images for more technical info.
|
- To see recent changes, purge the page cache
- Your comments are also appreciated on images at Picture peer review.
Current nominations
- Reason
- After months of searching I've finally located a high resolution portrait of Harriet Tubman at the Library of Congress rare book division. It's from the end of her life (she was 91 when this was taken), but look at the expression in her face and the way she grasps the arm of the chair. This is a distinctive portrait of an important historic figure. Restored version of Image:Harriet Tubman late in life.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Harriet_Tubman#AME_Zion_Church.2C_illness.2C_and_death
- Creator
- unknown
- Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- The unrestored version is not displaying for me. I believe you mean [1]? smooth0707 (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Give it another shot; should work now. DurovaCharge! 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- a sharp high resolution near 180 degree panorama of Los Angeles on an exceptionally clear winters day clearly showing a large number of landmarks and illustrating the geography of the city.
- Articles this image appears in
- Getty Center, West Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, Interstate 405 (California)
- Creator
- Mfield
- Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support fantastic timing: a rare moment where the 405 Freeway isn't bumper to bumper north of the 10. Seriously, a very large 180 degree panorama. Los Angeles being what it is, any image that gives a relatively clear view from downtown to both Brentwood and the peninsula is a good one. DurovaCharge! 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- I know you didn't mean 360, but i added the angle - it's actually a couple of degrees short of 180. Mfield (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Righto. DurovaCharge! 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- I can see where I used to live (Veteran Ave.) and work (UCLA physics building). Any reason you aren't sharing the full size version? --Dschwen 18:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- One reason only - the lack of a non commercial license option. I upload less commerically useful imagery to Wiki at full reslution and if there was a way of doing CC with NC then I'd upload the original of this in a heartbeat. However this version is not exactly small at 10000 wide. Mfield (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Original - No Noise Removal.
Edit 1 by Fir0002 - Noise Removal (belly untouched).
Edit 2 by Arad - Noise Removal & Contrast Correction (belly untouched).
- Reason
- I don't think the result of the previous nomination was satisfactory for any of the parties involved, so let's start again, shall we?
- Articles this image appears in
- American Tree Sparrow, List of Kansas birds, List of New Jersey birds, List of Iowa birds
- Creator
- Mdf
- Support as nominator --NauticaShades 15:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, as before. While I have the utmost respect for Mdf, this picture is just too small. --Dschwen 16:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- It is not too small: 1024 x 1024; with the bird filling almost all of that. In most other bird pictures, the bird is the same size, it just has more dead space on each side to make the picture longer. Clegs (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not up to par with other FP of birds. Not "the best work" of Wikipedia. --victorrocha 18:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 and Edit 2 Great work, good enough. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 2 Great photo and EV. – LATICS talk 23:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Dschwen. Mdf's bird photos are wonderful but this is at the bottom of the size limit and does not compare favourably with other bird FPs - Peripitus (Talk) 12:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- If it passes the criteria as they are, why should it not pass? All FPs are not equal (nor should they be). There are always going to be images that are better than others, but we should stick to the standards set up by the WP:WIAFP until consensus decides to change them. NauticaShades 22:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support either edit. Excellent picture, good color, high quality, and the bird itself is very large at full size. Clegs (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- High-quality image of a strange and unique piece of equipment. I cropped out the one major flaw in the original (a line on the right side of the photo).
- Articles this image appears in
- Convair B-36, Undercarriage, Continuous track
- Creator
- United States Air Force
Unaltered - for comparison
Original - In an underground surgery room, behind the front lines on Bougainville, an American Army doctor operates on a US soldier wounded by a Japanese sniper. December 13, 1943.
- Reason
- Meets the criteria and is historical as well as dramatic.
- Articles this image appears in
- Bougainville Campaign, World War II casualties
- Creator
- "Miller", US Army, US National Archives File # 111-SC-187247WAR & CONFLICT BOOK #: 918
- Support as nominator --Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support - fits the criteria, and a very nice picture too. Thelb4 08:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow, wartime surgery...the medics aren't even wearing clothes...smooth0707 (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose the lighting is horrible, and the subject is barely visible. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- I believe there are several subjects in the image, including the dugout bunker itself as well as the surgeon and the patient. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Weak Oppose Illustrates nothing about the article it's in, and any encyclopedic value about combat surgery at the time is limited by the lighting. Thegreenj 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think its value to that article is to show the difficult conditions that the combatants were living under, including performing life-saving surgery in basically a hole in the ground by surgeons operating shirtless, I assume because of the heat or difficulties with keeping clothing sanitized. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- But is that something unique to the Bougainville Campaign, or just an overall result of the combination of technology and resources anywhere in the fringes of WWII? This doesn't help me understand the Bougainville Campaign any better, but it is encyclopedic for World War II casualties, so I've changed to weak oppose. I can't support a photo whose subject is blown. Thegreenj 14:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, make that oppose unless the image is actually in World War II casualties, as it has been removed by User:Woogie10w without an edit summary... Thegreenj 14:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I've added the image to World War II casualties where it replaces an image that had uncertain copyright status (due to a change in Russian law). It would be better in an article about wartime medicine, if that could be found. DurovaCharge! 02:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for doing that. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Blown highlight where it matters the most. --Janke | Talk 06:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support Because I'm evidently too stupid to realise that primitive surgeries generally go hand-in-hand with professional photography. I mean, really, who wouldn't expect that? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Original - The Red-bellied Woodpecker, Melanerpes carolinus, is a medium-sized woodpecker of the Picidae family. It breeds in southern Canada and the northeastern United States, ranging as far south as Florida and as far west as Texas. Its common name is somewhat misleading, as the most prominent red part of its plumage is on the head; the Red-headed Woodpecker however is another species that is a rather close relative but looks entirely different.
- Reason
- Beautiful specimen, stunning image, high resolution, great detail.
- Articles this image appears in
- List of New Jersey birds, Red-bellied Woodpecker
- Creator
- Ken Thomas
- Support as nominator --ZeWrestler Talk 03:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Noticeable compression artifacts, e.g., on the bill and the tree bark.--ragesoss (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Distracting background/composition, and artifacts. NauticaShades 15:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per the points mentioned by Nauticashades. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Original - Official U.S. Twelfth Army situation map for 2400 hours, 6 June 1944.
- Reason
- Once in a while an archival find stands out from the rest. Here's the official (declassified) U.S. Twelfth Army position map from D-Day, showing the intelligence as it was available to headquarters at the end of the day. When WMF's new servers come online I hope to upload the full scale version (it's 109MB in .tif). Restoration of Image:D-Day.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Normandy Landings, D-Day
- Creator
- U.S. Twelfth Army Group
- Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 02:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Could the fading of the map towards the bottom left be corrected? Also, why is it curved? Is that from the photography, warping of the page, or was the actual map printed like that? Can it be corrected without making things look even weirder? (And if that gets corrected, the left and right borders could probably be cropped; I assume they were left on to de-emphasize the curvature.)--ragesoss (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- The shape of the map reflects the curvature of the earth. With regard to the slight fading at lower left, I've actually done a great deal of work at the pixel level in terms of reconstructing letters, redrawing longitude and latitude lines, etc. That was difficult to execute to perfection with a few of the smaller village names. Bear in mind that this version is downsampled due to the Commons upload limit, which should be remedied in the next couple of months, and I'll be uploading the full version as soon as possible. All of the place names are legible in the full version. DurovaCharge! 07:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- On second thought, I've gone into it again and put more work into that area. Uploaded over the existing file because the changes are subtle. DurovaCharge! 07:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Interesting, encyclopedic, well-restored.--ragesoss (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- A stunning picture with very high technical quality and high encyclopedic value as well: I can't imagine a greater way of illustrating Fountain.
- Articles this image appears in
- Fountain
- Creator
- Dori
- Support as nominator —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support as a really cool closeup showing jets of water in motion. I doubt it's the best possible way to illustrate a fountain, though. At 1/4000 of a second we are seeing a view that's not readily discernible to the human eye, and at such a close perspective, this isn't really what a fountain looks like to most people. But still, a useful image to show people. Fletcher (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't illustrate a fountain, and doesn't have (for me) any visual grab. Clegs (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. As far as illustrations of fountains go, I really like this. NauticaShades 15:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- I saw that fountain in real life last week. Absolutely stunning. —CyclonenimT@lk? 18:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Eh. Rococo's not for me. A very fine babe-magnet on nice days, though --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support -- I like the photo, but don't find much encyclopedic value there. Maybe you can find another article it fits better in? --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Clegs. Mfield (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- It is of a good resolution, has great visuals, and is encyclopedic for both articles it appears in.
- Articles this image appears in
- Silver Star, Michael Mullen
- Creator
- U.S. Navy photo/MC1 Chad J. McNeeley
- Support as nominator --Hello32020 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose tilted, messy background. Also, is this really very enc? --Janke | Talk 10:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support. It is a bit tilted, but I think it's encyclopedic (it shows a ceremony involving the Silver Star, and shows Michael Mullen performing one of his less-exciting duties). It's a good picture, IMO. Good choice. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose background and composition is not that great Thisglad (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Original - An F-15 Eagle on combat air patrol mission over Washington, D.C., in support of Operation Noble Eagle.
- Reason
- This high-res pic shows great details of the aircraft in flight.
- Articles this image appears in
- F-15 Eagle, 71st Fighter Squadron
- Creator
- U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Samuel Rogers
- Reason
- The British capture of Jerusalem in 1917 was one of most far-reaching events of World War I. Up until now Wikipedia has had no featured images of that war's Middle Eastern theater. Proposing this photograph of the British camp and artillery for encyclopedic value, and it's not a bad piece of photography. Restored version of Image:Capture of Jerusalem 1917.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- World War I, History of Jerusalem, Battle of Jerusalem (1917), Middle Eastern theatre of World War I
- Creator
- American Colony (Jerusalem)
- Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- nice historic photo, good encyc. value. Nice restoration, as always. Though I doubt that this is "one of most far-reaching events of World War I." Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support for original version only, see below.--Pete Tillman (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- Consider how important this was to the creation of the state of Israel, and how much Israel's existence has affected international politics for the last 70 years. DurovaCharge! 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Noted. Pity there's not a better version of Image:Allenby enters Jerusalem 1917.jpg available. Maybe you can find one? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support for its quality and EV. Good find, good restoration. Fletcher (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support all three versions, though my personal fav is the original tone color on the second pass restoration I did on Durova's work. I mainly changed the cropping a bit and cleaned up the levels some more. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I rather doubt that the picture displays actual artillery dispositions during the assault on Jerusalem, as it looks to be just an artillery park. It hardly encapsulates its name "Capture of Jerusalem". That's not to say that the capture of the city wasn't important, however this picture hardly illustrates that. It could be a collection of guns anywhere from Palestine to Mesopotamia. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 14:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Could you explain why they would space the guns this distant from each other, if the only purpose was to park them? DurovaCharge! 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. The picture may have good EV
(although even that is in doubt), but the poor quality is inexcusable for the time period. NauticaShades 15:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support original only Further edits bring out grain in shadows. Quality is good, and unless there's some real evedence that this isn't what it says it is, I don't see any reason to doubt EV. Thegreenj 00:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Concur in preferring the original. Edit 2 ('Second cleanup original tone') is really bad in full res. Plus it has an odd, distracting sepia cast (on my monitor, anyway) --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- In fairness to the uploader, that second edit retains the shade of the unrestored digital file. I desaturated during my restoration (the original nom.) because the source file was a scan from a print that had yellowed with age. The grain of the source photograph makes this hard to sharpen effectively. DurovaCharge! 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Edit 1 - higher resolution
Edit 2 by Diliff - Reduced highlight luminosity slightly on his face, which has the added effect of showing the facial features a bit more clearly.
- Reason
- meets most of the FPC criteria.
- Articles this image appears in
- Mark Harmon
- Creator
- Jerry Avenaim
- Support as nominator --Music2611 (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
| Discussion prior to current higher resolution version |
- Comment Recommend closing as does not meet size requirements by a wide margin. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 12:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy close - nowhere near size requirement, which is a must for a living person. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Second Speedy close per Papa and Vanderdecken. Clegs (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's an old upload, but perhaps the photographer could be contacted for a higher resolution replacement. DurovaCharge! 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've e-mailed Jerry Avenaim and requested a larger image. Please suspend this nomination for 1 week pending a reply. DurovaCharge! 21:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Suspended. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 22:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)- Does my vote count? I would like to say I never got any such e mail requesting a larger size. However I did get a voice mail today with that request. If that person could call me back and tell me what is needed (and how the image at the larger size could be protected from image theft) I would be more than happy to oblige. Should I be flattered or Mark or both? Heartfelt thanks for the selection either way :) Jerry Avenaim (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not the person who called you, but we need the picture to be over 1000 pixels in one dimension for it to be eligable. There's no way to prevent theft, but if you upload it with GFDL as the only license, legally only free GFDL publications (very few) can use it; any real commercial use will likely require contact. That said, there's pretty much nothing you can do to keep people from using it illegally, so it's really up to how much you value its use here against the possibility of theft. Thegreenj 04:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, you are most certainly welcome to vote! Thegreenj 04:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Jerry, that was me on your voice mail. I was looking through websites to try to find ways of contacting you. Was planning to follow up on Monday. As the other editors explained, at least 1000 pixels on the long axis. Wikimedia Commons can accept files up to 20MB. Thank you very much for making your photography available to this project. DurovaCharge! 19:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW It's actually just 1000px in either length or height Thegreenj 15:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well that's the normal minimum. We like bigger when we can get it. :) DurovaCharge! 00:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is an excellent photograph and an example of the kind of work we want to encourage. Bastique demandez 15:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Here you go! Thank you for flattering my portrait of Mark with your request. The image has been uploaded at the desired 1000px http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mark_Harmon_1.jpg Please let me know when the image is featured :) Jerry Avenaim (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
|
- Strong support edit 1 with a request to take the nomination live. This is high quality portraiture. DurovaCharge! 05:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nomination re-opened following upload of larger version as Edit 1. --jjron (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- support - while total pixel dimensions could be larger, the face takes up a large fraction of the image, and is detailed. de Bivort 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. While the composition and mood of the photo is great, has nobody noticed that the face is a bit overexposed? I've uploaded a slight edit which reduces the highlight luminosity on his face. Its subtle, but I think it makes the photo look a bit more balanced, while still contrasty. My preference is Support Edit 2 with weak support for the original (edit 1). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment on Comment Edit 2 does seem like a more accurate exposure, but does anyone think it makes him more sullen looking, the creases and texture of his skin more prominent? I take it our job on FPC is not to flatter celebrities, but as far as portrait photography goes making the subject look good is a consideration. Curious to see how others react. Fletcher (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Another comment on the Comment I was going to say the same thing. But I refrained from going as far as an edit, albeit more from professional courtesy than a lack of desire to make the portrait more encylopedic and/or technically perfect. I do prefer it per Edit2 though with less of a high key effect on the face, that's just MHO. Mfield (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support the image, undecided on which version. Fletcher (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose' the original and edit 1. Neutral for edit 2. It's not that big, and for professional, commercial celebrity portraiture I feel that we shouldn't settle for the bare minimum; maybe somebody wants to make a poster based on the image. On the other hand, encouraging this kind of contribution is good, and we can also raise our standards later if free licensing of this type of image becomes common.--ragesoss (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, this nomination was suspended for a week in order to request a larger file size. During that time any argument for a larger minimum might have been made, but wasn't. The photographer has complied with our published requirements and it really isn't fair to change the rules and generate a double standard after the photographer has fulfilled our request. Professional photographers have financial motivation not to upload larger files than necessary, due to the risk of downmarket exploitation of their work. The best way to encourage this type of contribution is to operate within our existing rules. Then, if we're fortunate enough to receive more of this type of material, at some point where the standards generally rise we may review the existing material on that basis. Let's not look fickle. DurovaCharge! 08:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Durova. This sort of commercial photography being released on GFDL or CC licenses is not common, and it's easy to understand why. Once an image is put on the internet - particularly a site like Wikipedia where people actively come looking for 'free' media - it is a genie that is very difficult to put back in the bottle. I'm not a full time photographer where my work is my livelihood, but I do make a bit of money on the side from it, and even I am a bit concerned with uploading my best work at the best resolution here, because it may impact my income from photography. It is very difficult to quantify, but I can certainly see why photographers are concerned. My estimation is that only about 20-30% of people who use images from Wikipedia elsewhere on the web actually conform to the license terms. Everyone else skips the fine print and assumes they can use it in whatever way they wish. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding Durova's comment about fairness... that's why I'm not opposing it. The main reason I commented at all was to note my preference for edit 2, while intending to remain agnostic about whether any version should be promoted. Diliff: I understand that general concern, but to put the minimum resolution version of this image in the same discussion as the kinds of things you upload... I think that does a disservice to the quality of your work, not to mention that even your scaled-down shots are usually much bigger than this. I think formal portraits should be held to a higher standard, since it's such a controlled situation. (By the way, how many of those 70%-80% who misuse Wikipedia licenses would have paid for rights under any circumstances? In my experience, the people/organizations who normally pay for image rights will do so even if you mark your uploads PD; I was recently paid for such a shot, which appeared in New Scientist. Obviously you would know better than me, but I would be surprised if adding your copyleft work to Wikipedia would have anything but a positive impact on your bottom line.)--ragesoss (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're right that many of those who use my images wouldn't pay for them if given an ultimatum, but is that really the point, anyway? Why should they be allowed to break the terms of the license? That's the thing - if someone contacted me to ask if I would waive the license terms, and their intended use was reasonably non-corporate (I don't have much sympathy for rich clients who want to nick someone's work for free but still profit from it in some way), I'd probably let them. But when somebody doesn't have the decency to ask or conform to the terms, then I'm going to be far less likely to compromise. As for holding portraits to a higher standard because they're relatively static subjects, maybe, but that doesn't make a portrait any less exploitable by those who don't respect the terms of the license, which is the whole point really. In any case, it is likely that the photographer is at best mildly flattered by the nomination but isn't prepared to compromise his commercial viability for the privilege. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 2. Per all the reasons above. NauticaShades 15:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support All edits, preference for edit 1. See reasons above, the photo is beautiful, and that I believe that modifying the photograph detracts from the original photographers intent. This is my personal opinion and throw my support to any edit that should achieve consensus. Bastique demandez 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you to an extent, but this isn't the photographer's personal exhibition, and anything that presents the subject in a more encyclopaedic and easily visible way should be the goal, IMO. Granted, the change is quite minute, and possibly does grate against the photographer's intentions, but my interpretation of those intentions is that he wanted to make it a bit arty with strong lighting, which is fine for many uses, but isn't ideal for an encyclopaedia. Thats not to say I'm not supporting it - I am, but I don't think it stands above scrutiny or modification just because it was taken by an established photographer. Just my two cents anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support without particular preference (undecided on which is best yet). I've had a look through the Featured Pictures, and don't think that this falls below the standard established for living figures. Wikipedia is of course a project that anyone can contribute to, and I don't think we should discriminate on the basis of the identity of the uploader. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 2 - Not often we get posed, professional, celebrity photos. Photo is very well done and would be a great thing for the front page - Peripitus (Talk) 12:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 2 per Peripitus. You can see his features better in this one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Original - Snake eating a lizard near Ibor river, Spain.
- Reason
- it shows that this small snake can eat a prey with similar size. it's only focused the head of the snake and the postcranial part of the lizard because the rest doesn't contribute information about snake's diet. Scales of both animals can be seen in detail.
- Articles this image appears in
- snake
- Creator
- Mario Modesto Mata
- Support as nominator --Mario modesto (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I really like the image, but the depth of field is much too shallow. NauticaShades 15:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't like the fact that I can only see the front of the snake. If I could see like a diagonal view of the snake like 45 degree angle from the ground, it would be great. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Stopping down a step or two would have done so much for this picture; the halation would be greatly reduced, the DOF would be better, and the front bokeh would look much nicer (stopping down would get rid that highlighted edge in the OOF highlights). As is, the DOF is the real killer, although composition could be improved also by putting the snake's head farther to the right. You should also get an identification on the snake. Thegreenj 21:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Unrestored version provided for comparison.
Edit 1 - complete desaturation.
- Reason
- Group portrait of all the inaugural Australian Labor Party members of parliament in the year Australia gained independence. Includes future prime ministers Chris Watson, Andrew Fisher, and Billy Hughes, among other notable politicans from a formative period. (This photograph was taken before the Australian spelling change from labour to labor, so the title spelling is historical.) Restored version of Image:LabourGroup.jpg.
- Articles this image appears in
- Australian Labor Party, Andrew Fisher, Billy Hughes, Chris Watson, Frank Tudor, King O'Malley, Australian labour movement, William Spence, Gregor McGregor, Watson Ministry, William Higgs, Hugh Mahon, Lee Batchelor, Australian federal election, 1901, Fred Bamford
- Creator
- Barroni of Barroni & Co
- Support as conominator --DurovaCharge! 20:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support as conominator Gnangarra 00:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Cut off arms. Age is no excuse for sloppy composition --Fir0002 01:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing as it's not very likely we'll be able to manufacture a time machine and pop back 107 years to ask the portraitist for a better composition, would you grant leeway for encyclopedic value? Suppose the United States Declaration of Independence had a coffee stain... DurovaCharge! 02:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I know what you're saying but IMO it's just one of those images which was almost there but not quite FP level. Otherwise you get to the point where any historic photo can be promoted to FP regardless of it's photographic attributes --Fir0002 03:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Original, Weak Support for Edit 1. Bad composition and a poor scan. Why are there colored pixels in a black and white image? NauticaShades 03:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- The original was a scan of a print that had yellowed with age. Sometimes histogram and color correction reveals staining. This was relatively mild and covered an area that would not be practical to address manually. If it would make a difference to your decision I could desaturate the image. DurovaCharge! 03:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about yellowing. I'm seeing green, red, and purple! I don't know if desaturation will help, but you should definitely try. NauticaShades 14:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's a ten second fix, fortunately. The staining occurred at upper right. I wasn't sure which you were talking about. DurovaCharge! 15:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's much better. I'm still not completely satisfied of the composition and the scanning quality, though. I upgraded to Weak Support for the edit. NauticaShades 23:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support. A good image with outstanding encyclopedic value. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support A fantastic restoration of an image with incredible encyclopedic value. For non-Australian editors, the Australian Labor Party is Australia's oldest major political party and the only one to have had had elected members in parliament since the federation of Australia in 1901. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support desaturated edit. Nautica is right about the upper right hand corner having minor colour issues. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support because it has such high EV value (included on so many pages!) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit1. Great one. - Darwinek (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Original - 18th-century anti-vaccination quackery, as satirised by James Gillray. His illustration pokes fun of one of the claims made against the cow pox innoculation: That it would cause cow-like appendages to grow out of the body.
- Reason
- I don't believe we have any of James Gillray's work as FP. Without wanting to understate Hogarth's importance, I think it's fair to say Gillray, the other major satiric artist from that period, captured a different side of 18th century life to Hogarth, and his unique view is very valuable.
- Articles this image appears in
- Edward Jenner, Vaccine, Cowpox, James Gillray, Vaccine controversy
- Creator
- James Gillray
| | | |
![[1]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Harriet_tubman.jpg){kind=link}
