Featured Picture Tools
Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons What is a featured picture? Featured picture candidates on Wikimedia Commons Featured picture thumbs Featured picture archive Picture of the day Picture of the day archive

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

• For promoted entries, add {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}} to the bottom of the entry, replacing FILENAME.JPG with the file that was promoted.
• For entries not promoted, add {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} to the bottom of the entry.
• Do NOT put any other information inside the template. It should be copied and pasted exactly, and only the first one should have FILENAME.JPG replaced with the actual filename.

Chinese Garden of Friendship

The entrance to the Chinese Garden of Friendship in Sydney

A very pleasant photo which illustrates the visual style of the Chinese Garden of Friendship. It is clear and colourful and is of much higher quality than the other photo in the article. It was taken by Greg O'Beirne (Gobeirne) earlier this year and is licensed under GNU Free Documentation 1.2.

• Nominate and support. - Fipe 06:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - poorly composed image, with too much distracting action on the side of the (off-center) main subject.--ragesoss 14:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - the trees in the background distract the viewer from the main subject. --Ineffable3000 15:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose If the subject is the garden, then it is out of focus. If the subject is the statue, then the people next to it are distracting. HighInBC 16:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. It's too busy; would a crop help? --Tewy 03:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per HighinBC. Either it doesn't display the subject well or it needs recropping and highlight work for the statue. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --Fir0002 07:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nishi Tribal

A Nishi tribal wearing a traditional headdress

Edit 2, lightened with curves, by User:Janke.

A photograph of a Nishi tribal taken during sunrise in Arunachal Pradesh. Appears in the Nishi article and another article depicting the people of the region. More information about the subject on the Image page.

• Nominate and support. Preference for Janke's edit. - doniv 18:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support Wow, technically excellent, encyclopedic, good depiction of subject, and a funny hat! HighInBC 19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support any version - slight preference for SG's or Janke's. Excellent portrait - good composition and quite an emotional image in addition to being encyclopaedic. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Nice portrait. Iorek85 01:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - getting my vote in before somebody shouts "OMG blown sky!!!!!111" - this is a superb, encyclopaedic and refreshingly human image; agree with Diliff about the emotional impact. --YFB ¿ 01:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support — either edit. Blown sky!!!!!111 ;-). I'd strong support with a better exposure. --Tewy 03:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why do people care about blown highlights so much? For example, what information would otherwise appear there? A shallow gradient of sky color? Debivort 08:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I completely agree with you there. There are times when blown highlights can ruin a landscape image, but I generally think it is not nearly as important as people suggest. Sometimes it is literally impossible to avoid SOME blown highlights and still capture a specific scene. Sometimes selective overexposure/underexposure actually helps you to isolate a subject, in the same way that good composition does. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • People care about blown highlights because they are a distracting flaw in most photographs that contain them. You might consider the information that would otherwise appear there unimportant, but that doesn't mean the blown areas aren't distracting. Blown highlights were almost nonexistent when 95% of all photographs were taken on negative film, and the 5% that were taken on slide film were shot by working pros who were careful about overexposure. Now the majority of photos seen on the web are shot with digital cameras, which react to light more like slide film - easy to overexpose and a narrower dynamic range than negative film to begin with. I don't think the presence of a few 255, 255, 255 pixels necessarily means a photo can't be featured. It's when those pixels are an obvious distraction to me that I oppose an image because of them. -- Moondigger 12:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I do see your point, and I agree with much of it, but its the idea of what constitutes an obvious distraction that there is some subjectivity in, I guess. For example, while I wouldn't nominate this image for FPC by any means, I don't feel that the very obviously blown highlights in the background truely distract that much. Yes, you notice them, but since the background isn't the focus of the image, it isolates the foreground and thats what I was refering to previously. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The image smoothly gradiates into a small band of overblown sky near the horizon. I think it looks good. HighInBC 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support beautiful, top notch quality -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Janke's edit. As per HighInBC, Diliff, and Yummifruitbat. NauticaShades^(talk) 08:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• support per above. Debivort 08:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. This is indeed a great portrait, marred by the gigantic swath of blown pixels across the center. My first thought upon seeing this image was, "nice portrait, too bad about the background exposure." The viewer's attention should be on the subject of the photo, but even folks who supported this image have to admit they were at least temporarily distracted by the blown area. That said, the portrait is so good that I can't oppose - so I'm Switzerland on this one. -- Moondigger 12:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't like the angle much, and I cannot possibly support something with so many blown highlights. Clearly I'm the only person that feels this way, but the image isn't very striking for me. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Pharaoh Hound. --mstroeck 14:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support for me, the quality of the image in the foreground completely makes up for any blown highlights, especially as those highlights seem to be an area around the setting sun. The head is practically a silhouette but still contains amazing detail in the face and clothing. Blow a few highlights if you must. --Bridgecross 15:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I could have uploaded this photo, but it wouldn't have been encyclopaedic. With a sunrise in the background, there are bound to be blown highlights. But for portraits, I think it sometimes accentuates the subject. I do agree that the blown highlights are distracting in the FPC image, and was hesitant to nominate it. But then I thought it was a great portrait too. doniv 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose IMO it doesn't show the subject clearly. The highlights are very distracting because they are on the ecuator of the picture and with that angle i have a hard time figuring out how that headwear is suppoosed to look. Very artistic, but not very encyclopedic.Nnfolz 18:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great photo, and remember people the subject is the headdress, not the particular person (not a bio photo). Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the subject is supposed to be the headdress, it does not show it clearly at all. And the photo itself hurts my eyes a bit.--DaveOinSF 02:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  My oppose vote applies to all three versions now on this page.--DaveOinSF 19:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support — Incredible detail! Even with the bright sky, I still support this photo. However, I've uploaded an edited version to make the sky easier on the eyes, though I support any version. ♠ SG →Talk 03:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. per Diliff and others Mikeo 07:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose- per Pharaoh Hound --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I think there needs to be more light on the head and headgear. howcheng {chat} 21:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support original my edit... ;-) Blown highlights - Duh! - he's looking into the sunrise! That gives a nice lighting effect on the face. Here, the 255-255-255 pixels are a plus, not a minus. --Janke | Talk 15:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sunrises don't have to be blown -- in fact, they look far better when they're not. -- Moondigger 15:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure, but the subject here is not the sunrise. Had the exposure been for the sky, the face would have been a silhouette. Fill flash would have destroyed the feeling - the solution is perhaps a white or sivered reflector card, say 2 by 2 ft, but who carries something like that around all the time... --Janke | Talk 07:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC) PS: Uploading a lightened version for those who think original is too dark. I used only the Curve adjustment, which means the highlights aren't affected. --Janke | Talk 08:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • A proper background exposure for a portrait, however difficult it might be to obtain, is an important factor in what separates a good portrait from a great one. An off-camera shoe cord and a flash positioned to the left for fill would have done it, and it would have still looked as if the sunrise was the light source for his face. A reflector to the right (behind the subject) would have provided some needed light on the headdress. This is an excellent, moody image if we consider only the man's face. But the lack of fill lighting for the headdress and the overexposed background prevent me from supporting the image. I'm not opposing, but I'm not supporting either. -- Moondigger 12:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Janke's edit. Very encyclopedic, nice hat, good detail if the sky is ignored, which is supposed to happen as it is not the main subject | AndonicO 16:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - To all those who have opposed this on the premise of the subject not being clear, let me clarify that it covers all the elements. The hornbill beak, the monkey hair, the brass skewer through the hair bun and the cane weaving. As for the lighting, it's taken care of by Janke's edit - do check it out at full size. Please do explain if it still isn't encyclopaedic - doniv 16:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you pointed out what's supposed to be in that picture, because I sure can't tell... --DaveOinSF 06:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The above description has been along with the image all the time. Also, if you could tell what these elements are at first glance, there would be nothing unique about them, no? Exactly the reason why people brave non-existent roads, nature and spend a lot of time to get such images - doniv 07:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that I cannot tell what part of the photo is the headdress and what part of the photo is the woman's hair. It's very unclear.--DaveOinSF 08:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a man! Actually I'm surprised about what you said, since the headdress is the half-cup cane woven part. His hair is black with white streaks. The bun up ahead is tied up with string. Anyone else facing this problem? Or are you pulling my leg? doniv 09:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support Edit 2 - Good photo but doesn't make me think WOW! Arad 02:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Help! - It's been over 7 days, and there is an FP consensus. But I'd prefer to go with Janke's edit on this one. Unfortunately, I don't know the procedure. Can someone help or tell me what needs to be done? doniv 05:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Nishi_tribal_lightened.jpg It seems to be the consensus --Fir0002 07:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Lassen Volcanic National Park

Kings Creek in Lassen Volcanic National Park

Edit 1 - Fixed what was fixable. Downsampled (happy now?), and lightened (that was actually a reasonable suggestion). Of course it still has the unsurmountable stigma of uneven polarisation. Sorry I just couldn't do better.

Edit 2 - Separately corrected the sky with a gradient to compensate for the uneven polarisation

A panoramic shot of Kings Creek which appears in the Lassen Volcanic National Park article. The park, home to Mt. Lassen, a volcano which last errupted about 90 years ago, is a lesser known park in northern California, and its article was lacking a picture which truely conveys the magnificent landscape. Oh, and it is taken by me, so fire away.

• Nominate and support. - Dschwen 17:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - won't vote yet, this is too dark on my calibrated monitor. Needs some curve or level correction, to remove the "sooty" feeling from the greenery. Some downsampling would be nice, too - a teeny bit fuzzy in full size... --Janke | Talk 19:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't get the downsampling. Too fuzzy at full size? Don't look at it in full size! Downsampling always looses information. Always! If anyone needs a downsampled version, its no big deal, create one, but why replace the original with a downsampled picture? --Dschwen 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Way too dark on my CRT monitor - Adrian Pingstone 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support It does not look dark on my laptop monitor. I looks like a great picture. HighInBC 22:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Would support a lightened version. Great picture, and the overexposed snow isn't enough for me to oppose. Plus it's so difficult to not overexpose the snow. --Tewy 23:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Will support if someone brightens it.Nnfolz 00:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Way too dark on my calibrated monitor. I would change to support if a much lighter version was made available. --Nebular110 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The image is dark on my monitor as well, and somewhat unsharp at full resolution. These might be adjusted, but the uneven polarization across the sky is nearly impossible to correct. The left side is significantly brighter than the right side. -- Moondigger 02:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Very blurry. --Midnight Rider 02:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Which picture did you look at? Sorry, but this comment is just ridiculous. Slightly blurry maybe, I used a G3 to take the pics. But very blurry implies out of focus parts or motion blur, and the pic has neither. Look at the grass, is that blurry, no! --Dschwen 07:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Blurry - no, but soft - yes. You probably could have safely downsampled without losing much/any detail [Ah, I see you did, sorry]. Also, did you notice you have a horizontally recurring hot pixel/spec of dust in the sky near the top of the frame? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Uh oh, dead pixel, I totally missed it! --Dschwen 10:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose uneven polarization of the sky. Glaurung 05:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Impossible to fix. And I've only seen this complaint cone befor, yesterday. Is this a new thing? --Dschwen 08:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, uneven polarization has always been an aesthetic bugbear, which is why it is not recommended to use for wide angle/panoramic photography. Whether it is enough to oppose the photo all depends on the extent of the polarization and the way it affects the sky. Hazy skies are not affected as much and the effect is minimal. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1. Downsampled image is still high resolution and alleviates most of the faults, but you're right, the polarization is not really fixable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment; Sure it is fixable - I'd do it, but I'm busy building steam trains in my workshop now... But, here's how to do it in Photoshop: Use the selection tool with a suitable value, additively select several spots in the blue sky. The, use "select similar", and the whole sky and is selected. After that, you can use an adjustment level or other tools such as gradients to lighten the darker portions of the sky... Greetings, --Janke | Talk 11:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think there'd be a better chance of success (more natural looking) if the sky was adjusted with a new layer and a layer mask using the gradient tool on the mask itself. I said it was nearly impossible to fix uneven polarization in my previous comment -- and that's usually true for most images. But given the large, uninterrupted blue expanses in this one, it stands a better chance of success. I could give it a try later on... -- Moondigger 14:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, ok, it is, in theory, fixable in the same way that you can fix a landscape blemished with power lines by removing them. ;) To use a gradient means falsifying the sky by guesswork... I'm not saying I'm completely against the idea in theory, but usually you would end up flattening the sky, removing cloud texture and random variations. As moondigger said, it is as a general rule unfixable but you do have options. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • "To use a gradient means falsifying the sky by guesswork..." Not if you apply the gradient to a layer mask over a sky which has merely been levels-adjusted, which is why I suggested it. The analogy to removing power lines is applicable to Janke's method, but not to mine. Mine uses the actual sky captured in the image, including minor variations and cloud texture, and does nothing more to it than levels-adjust it. Then we vary the transparency of the layer mask using the gradient tool, such that the levels are unaffected on one side of the sky but progressively adjusted across the sky to the other end. The trick (and the primary problem, really) is making the layer mask adjust at an inverse rate to the change in the sky due to polarization. For many images with uneven polarization, the rate of change is not regular, and the gradient tool cannot simulate the proper rate of change on the layer mask. In those cases the only solution is to just select the entire sky and replace it with the sky from another image or with a paint-bucket dump of sky blue color. But doing something like that is no solution at all IMO, for the reason you mention -- it's akin to changing the actual content of the image rather than simple brightness/contrast adjustments of what's there. This image looks as if it might lend itself to the layer mask method. -- Moondigger 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
        • By mentioning gradients, I didn't mean you should dump a blue greadient over the sky, no, no, use the gradient as a tool (you can adjust the linearity of it, so a good match can be achieved), for masking (or whatever) the original sky. I don't want to spend an hour or more on it, but it can be done, I bet. --Janke | Talk 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the clarification. However, even though you can adjust the linearity of the gradient you apply, I believe the change still has to be mathematically "regular" -- either linear or logarithmic. If the uneven polarization is not regular (a possibility given the fact that this is a stitched pano), even small imperfections in the layer mask gradient will be visible. -- Moondigger 18:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll try the following: Creating a layermask by subtracting red and green channel from the blue channel and adjusting curves (Yields a sky only mask). Then applying a gradien on the mask (from left to right, modulating the mask transparancy) and and adding the unbrightened sky to the brightened image using the aforementioned layermask. This should preserve structure while reducing the polarisation effect. Stay tuned. --Dschwen 20:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • But let me mention that I actually like the gradient in the sky... --Dschwen 20:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Uneven polarization in the sky can be an interesting effect sometimes, but doesn't represent what skies actually look like when you're viewing the scene in person. It is almost universally frowned upon by professional photo editors, even if it isn't mentioned here often. -- Moondigger 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. If a version eventually address the polarization I might change my vote. But Edit 2 doesn't. --Fir0002 12:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, I whish I'd have been told before I wasted my time editing it. Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Thanks for the constructive input, but if even edit 2 doesn't satisfy the new fad I withdraw the nomination. It's a slap in the face if on the same page pictures with worse issues get nothing but support.

Duck at UConn

A female mallard duck

Many featured pictures of this, I know, but I feel like this particular angle shows the mallard's face in a different fashion from the others. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support I should probably do this, as noted by Arad. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support I love the photo but i think it lacks something. Maybe it's those little blown highlights or the focus? I'm not sure but still it's a good photo. By the way aren't you going to support your own nomination? (And i hope your not going to strike my weak. :-D) Arad 22:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurred feet, as much shadow as duck. HighInBC 22:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• The feet are not blurred in the original, but I couldn't find an effective way to balance the background blur (so you didn't focus on the grass) with the feet (so there weren't these blocks of focus surrounded by out of focus grass). If I gave you the original, think you could give me a better idea? Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, the large shadow really ruins it for me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Head isn't in focus (and that's what is being portrayed), poor angle, DOF, blown highlights. --Tewy 03:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above, but mostly the poor DOF. This shot should not have required an unusual aperture setting, since the duck is not in motion and it's not low light. No reason for the feet to be out of focus. This in spite of it being a really cool duck (it's at UConn=defacto cool). --Bridgecross 13:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)--160.79.219.133 13:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too much of the duck is in shadow. howcheng {chat} 23:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Those totally blurred legs rule it out for me - Adrian Pingstone 14:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's all been said. NauticaShades^(talk) 16:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 06:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Answer to The Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything

Bow before the awesome power of 42!

As The Answer to The Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything, I feel that this picture is way beyond qualified to be a Featured Picture.

• Nominate and Support TomStar81 (Talk) 02:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm as big a fan of Douglas Adams as the next guy, but... you've got to be kidding. --Paul 02:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This IS a joke, right? Arad 03:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is a joke. There is no way that this will pass, and I knew that when I placed it here. Still, though, it is good for a cheap laugh (and I really need one right now ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support opposition! In all honestly, the image could easily (and should) be converted to SVG format. ♠ SG →Talk 04:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose 42?? Well, everybody knows that is is what you get when you multiply 6 by 9! Glaurung 06:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose 6*9=42? It does in base 13 I guess. I feel this subject is better depicted using the 2 bytes 4 and 2. HighInBC 13:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • But then you don't get the cool crepuscular ray effect. ;-) howcheng {chat} 22:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I do hope this is a joke. NauticaShades^(talk) 17:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• speedy close We don't like base thirteen around here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose conversion into hyperspace bypass. Slartibartfast says no! You are going to get lynched, d'you know that? Spot the obvious mistake and I'll give you a wikicookie. Answers on a talk page, please. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Well.... Base seven is much more fun, if you ask me...but at least the picture is blue... --Tewy 04:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Shouldn't this be removed as even the nominator has said it is a joke? And what's Base 13? | AndonicO 12:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• What is base 13? and base 7? btw: Full support (<--not serious bout that)Nnfolz 13:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • For God's sake, this is an encyclopaedia... Base 13, as you will see, was also an injoke. I quote from that article:

'In the end of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams, a possible question to get the answer "forty-two" is presented: "What do you get if you multiply six by nine?" Of course, the answer is deliberately wrong, creating a humorous effect – if the calculation is carried out in base 10. People who were trying to find a deeper meaning in the passage soon noticed that in base 13, 6 × 9 is actually 42 (as 4 × 13 + 2 = 54). When confronted with this, the author stated that it was a mere coincidence, and that "Nobody writes jokes in base 13 [...] I may be a pretty sad person, but I don't make jokes in base 13." See also The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.'

Base 7 was just continuing the joke. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• All your base are belNOg to us. --Ouro 19:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• So long, nomination, and Thanks for all the fish. (oppose) --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 06:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Long Island Rail Road

A Long Island Rail Road M3 train on a siding at Jamaica Station.

I first saw this image when I was looking for a picture of a Long Island Rail Road train to replace the one that had been at the top of the LIRR article (Image:LIRRtrain.JPG). It immediately struck me as the perfect picture for the article. It provides an excellent visual, since it's a clear, direct shot of an LIRR train. But it also struck me as a great piece of photography. The scene is very serene and quiet, a quality I like in a picture. The color balance is exceptional; the yellow strip on the platform compliments the shade on the side of the train perfectly, and combined with the dark blue sky and the red light on the back of the train, it makes the image stunning.

It's also used on the page describing the type of train it is, an M3 (M1/M3 (railcar)) made by the Budd Company. Photos are especially important in articles like ones about train cars because description often isn't enough, and this picture is a perfect illustration of an M3 car. It's also used in the Budd Company article as an example of a car made by them.

When I found the image, it was licensed as "Non-Commercial," so I glumly began to look for another, but there was absolutely no image anywhere of anything approacthing this quality. So, I emailed the person who took the picture, Eugene Wei, and he happily cooperated and changed the license to what it is now.

• Nominate and Support per above. Robert 05:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even though I'm a train buff myself, I find nothing in this image making it special. You need a "wow factor" for a FP, and this shot, even thoug nice, hasn't got it. --Janke | Talk 07:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Janke. -- Moondigger 12:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Janke, and quality, size issues. --Bridgecross 14:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The image meets the Wikipedia criterion for resolution for a featured picture - it is exactly 1,000 pixels wide. Robert 01:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment This isn't just a matter of numbers. The size requirement is in place to ensure that images capture sufficient detail to portray their subject well in a reproduction. This image doesn't show a lot of details, and that isn't helped by the low resolution. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Janke. NauticaShades^(talk) 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, grainy and not showing much detail, which isn't helped by the low resolution. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Janke SOADLuver 01:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Unacceptably grainy, for an example have a look at the front window with the wiper on it (on the largest pic) - Adrian Pingstone 14:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 06:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jumping ant fight

Jerdon's jumping ants fighting

Looks stunning and the subject is clearly captured. It's used in Harpegnathos saltator. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Well below resolution requirements, and oversharpened. -- Moondigger 12:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too small for FP. Find a larger, better version, and I'll support. --Janke | Talk 12:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Far to small. HighInBC 14:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose nice photo but per all above oppose. --Bridgecross 14:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is unfortunately too small. I really like this image otherwise, though. NauticaShades^(talk) 17:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose To small to be a featured image, I personally believe. SOADLuver 01:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry, too small. If you can find a higher res version, I'd happily support it, it's very encyclopaedic. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - lovely photo but it's too small to be an FP. - CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 18:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wow, never seen ants like this. sikander 18:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 06:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Maltese Dog

A Maltese dog.

A great picture that exemplifies both the breed Maltese and the rich diversity that is in the dog species.

• Nominate and support. - [[--Tobyw87 00:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)]]
• Oppose Nice doggy, but the photo is not encyclopedic. We'd need to see the whole dog in a pose that would add some significant information to an article - and this picture isn't in any! --Janke | Talk 06:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Awww, he's so cute! OPPOSE!!! (per Janke) --Bridgecross 13:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• First of all the picture is in two articles. Dog and Maltese as a matter of fact. And secondly I think it adds a great deal to both of these articles because it really makes the breed appealing to individuals who have never heard of the breed or have not considered owning a maltese. Its up to you but I think its a great picture and perfectly encyclopedic. --Tobyw87 13:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see that this image is in any article. Another version of it is (an uncropped image with a time stamp), so technically, this nomination is in error. Please replace the stamped image with the one you nominate here. --Janke | Talk 19:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose cute pic but, not encyclopedic. An "encyclopedic" image of a Maltese would show the entire body so that the chariciteristics of the breed could be seen. Bridgecross dont be a jerk. This is Tobyw87's 1st nom (AFAIK), no wonder we are running out of pics for the front page when people who submit pictures are treated like that. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 15:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, with a heavy heart. Scores top marks in the cute factor, but it also looks like a cute head lying on the ground. Also, for reasons already stated, not encyclopaedic - doniv 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose cute dog but I don't think its featured image worthy Trashking 21:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks like a disembodied dog head. howcheng {chat} 22:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 06:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Fighting Brown Bears

Two frolicking brown bears.

In all my months of using this site, I have not seen a picture that does a better job of capturing the moment of action, and I think it certainly meets and exceeds all the criteria in Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?.

• Nominate and support. - Marvin 05:41, 28 September 2006
• Oppose I realize that the blurriness reflects the motion of the animals, but the background is blurry too, e.g. the rocks, so the blur due to motion is harder distinguish. If the background were razor sharp, I might vote for an FPC that had a blurry primary subject. Debivort 01:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Debivort. In addition to the focus and blur issues, the color is not that dynamic or striking, and I have a feeling that the white balance may be off (things that may be correctable after editing).--Andrew c 01:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Debivort. This was shot at 1/40 second according to the metadata, and had to be zoomed in quite a bit as I don't believe the photographer would get too close to two fighting bears. A significant amount of blur can be attributed to motion of the camera during exposure. The image is also very noisy, probably due to underexposure, high ISO, or both. That would also explain the lack of vibrant color. This is an interesting image, but it doesn't have the technical quality necessary to be a featured picture, IMO. -- Moondigger 02:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mostly because of the heavy blur. --Tewy 04:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Debivort. NauticaShades^(talk) 07:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Far too blurry even considering the subject matter. --Nebular110 20:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Is this a joke? Sorry to sound rude but putting a pic of this quality up for FPC is just ridiculous - Adrian Pingstone 19:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good subject but bad quality. sikander 18:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Interesting subject but far too blurry. RFerreira 06:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I was actually pretty close to the bears but I hardly knew how to use my camera so it turned out the way it did :) Thanks for nominating it though. Mackan 09:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 06:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

US Capitol Building

US Capitol Building at night, January 2006. A mosaic image of around 10 segments taken with a Canon 5D and 24-105mm f/4L IS lens. Author: User:Markles Diliff

I feel the clarity of this image is stunning. Its content has immense historical value; the image currently appears in the United States Capitol article. It was taken and uploaded by User:Markles Diliff.

• Nominate and support. —Aiden 16:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support I think this is a flawless image that is defintely FI worthy. Blind14 19:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very clear image with lot of detail. SOADLuver 19:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, spectacular level of detail, excellent illustration of the subject. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. For the record, this was taken and uploaded by me, not Markles.. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nearly perfect image Trashking 21:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support very nice, though I can see a hair or similar on the bottom left sky area. chowells 22:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right. Its probably dust on the sensor that I had missed cleaning. I can see a minor stitching fault on the right side, so I think I will try to re-stitch this weekend, and remove that dust blemish while I'm at it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice! Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Upon viewing at the highest resolution, I believe I can read the badge numbers of the officers on the Capitol steps! I was just in Washington this summer, and there is more detail in this photo than I was able to see in person. Outstanding. --Bridgecross 23:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Diliff strikes again! Debivort 01:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. Brilliant work. --Tewy 04:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Great image illustrating the building very well, and at a good moment. - doniv 04:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Those street lights (and the cell phone guy) are a bit disracting, but that can't be helped. NauticaShades^(talk) 07:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Well, it's tilted about 1 degre, and is slightly right of center, I'm sorry Diliff, but I had to give this a Strong Support. | AndonicO 13:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - AAAH! Diliff Again?! I'm tired man, half of FPs are made by Diliff. He's creating a monopoly. I'm looking for flaws... AHA. Tha guy is really annoying on the bottom and there is also blown highlights. ;-). Good job. Arad 02:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Haha, well actually Fir0002 is still beating me. I have 27 and he has 51 according to his page. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • 51 photos that he took himself or have nominated? Although Fir0002 has many amazing photos no one can really beat the quality of your pictures specially your panoramas. Arad 19:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support wow theres just so much detail! The corinthian columns on this thing are beautiful. IS IT LEANING...? that might want to be resolved? Looks like its dipping to the right. drumguy8800 C T 07:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, there is no perceptible lean. Have you tried to actually measure the lean, or are you going by your own vision? Sometimes visual perception is flawed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I haven't measured it, I just thought it looked like it. However, I was just showing your work to a friend and we noticed that there is a flaw in the stitching along the right side of the portico columns.. and into the wall to the right. (that is, underneath the pediment.. the main columns you walk underneath) drumguy8800 C T 16:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:US_Capitol_Building_at_night_Jan_2006.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 07:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

THE FLAG! Please fix the flag! -- Toytoy 00:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Snow on the Shropshire Hills

Photo showing the textures of a Snowdrift on the Long Mynd, Shropshire

Option Two. Same Time Same Place! More of a wideshot!

This photo I took myself early on the 24th of February 2005. Taken on the Shropshire Hills or Long Mynd in England. I thought it would be a nice addition to the article on Snow and to add a bit more description to the Snowdrift stub. As I couldn't find any other images of snowdrifts on Wikipedia. I know the image has a bit of a blank foreground at first glance, but it shows the amazing texture of the drift, which appears to be piled up to the horizon, actually caught in the heather. I took the photo squatting down to get a more interesting angle. The contrast with the dark sky I think its something else, as the sun was on the point of coming out at the time. I have two other photos as different options for nominations as 'snowdrifts' taken at the same place around the same time. If you wish to see them I will put them up as you ask. I thought it might also be a good idea to put a snowy nomination up for the impending northern winter :) !

I added the Second Option! Less texture in the drift itself, but slightly more interesting colouring. Grey blue snow? lol

• Self Nominate and support. - Sean the Spook - See above!
• Oppose. - Koolgiy 23:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Now i'm not being mean, or saying you stink at photography. But its not the most interesting of pictures. Try to get snow with a dramatic light like sunset, or something. Plus the cameras facing down, grey sky, and some noise on the picture.
• Neutral Oppose I like it, but it's not a great picture; the detail keeps me from giving it an oppose. Perhaps the other 2 are better? | AndonicO 23:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose In principal, I like the idea of a low-contrast high-quality photo to illustrate snowdrifts. But it's remarkably hard to pull off. Maybe catch it in better light, with a higher resolution. --Bridgecross 00:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have to agree with Bridgecross, here. NauticaShades^(talk) 06:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I changed my vote to oppose per Bridgecross, and also because ofAndonicO 09:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC) seeing the other pictures being nominated. | AndonicO 09:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Author Comment Thank you for your comments, I would just like to say the photos were indeed taken in a funny light, with an hour to go before sunset, cloudy etc. Its quite difficult to catch snow with the quality camera I have got, and with the conditions present at the time. Do you want to see Option Three? Sean the Spook 11:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It would not hurt anyone. | AndonicO 13:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose both. Uninteresting composition, subject not very well depicted. doniv 14:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, it took me a bit to figure out what the subject was, uninteresting. -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 20:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose both. The angle and composition are good, but both are grainy and slightly out of focus (probably because of the DOF). I don't think you need interesting lighting to display the concept of a snow drift; just an improvement on the technical aspects of the photograph. --Tewy 20:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• A few points about these photographs: They were taken in a funny light as snow reflects light back powerfully, without adjustable camera settings it is impossible to capture it with a perfect exposure. Also I dont think you realise just how rare snow in the British Isles can be, even on high ground in the winter. This not only shows a very rare sight in Britain, it shows it in its 'natural settings', maybe this coming winter, the natural settings will be completely in my favour. And in yours... Sean The Spook 18:57 2 October 2006.
• Oppose both/either. Uninteresting. Photos like this have to be taken in superior lighting conditions to work, and these don't. --S0uj1r0 10:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Very Vivid Flower

Very Vivid Flower

Photograph taken by Matthew Trevithick (Myself). Photo of a very red flower. If anyone knows what the flower may be called, would you please say. I'm no good with flowers.

• Nominate and support. - Koolgiy 22:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unexceptional image (albeit attractive enough), and unacceptable noise. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose... err. well, where do I start? The photo isn't actually in an article (which is a requirement), contains a very prominent watermark (which, while not against policy, is definitely frowned upon), it is not actually very sharp at all and is very noisy. The composition could also be improved by cropping the right side of the frame as does not contribute to the image but this would not really redeem it, unfortunately. This is an encyclopedia, and therefore images need to have encylopedic value. This one just doesn't - particularly as you are not even sure what sort of flower it actually is. Sorry. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the watermark is against policy. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images. howcheng {chat} 23:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah I stand corrected. I was refering to FPC policy not specifically prohibiting watermarks, but its good to see that Wiki takes a stand on it, too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. You have a good point. I'll take a picture, relevant to an article. And I won't put a watermark on if i'm submitting a Featured Image. Is there noise? Koolgiy 22:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is quite a lot of noise (like film grain, a speckled texture most visible in the background). And I wouldn't put a watermark on any image you put on wikipedia.. It detracts from the photo and since you're releasing it to the public domain, anyone can do whatever they like with it (including removing the watermark if neccessary), so trying to retain attribution is a bit pointless. :). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If you view it in full, its actually a very sharp picture. And ya, but I don't want people stealing images by me, so I put the watermark on. It's happened before, and that's why I have started. Koolgiy 23:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Hang on - you don't want people "stealing" your images, yet you've released them into the public domain? Do you understand the problem with what you've just said... If you don't want people "stealing" you're pictures, don't release them under a free license. If you don't want people using them without attribution, or claiming them as their own, use a cc-by or similar license. If you still insist on watermarking all your images, then please don't upload them to Wikipedia - we don't want them. ed g2s • talk 09:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That's inaccurate and, frankly, quite rude. Wikipedia will gladly take watermarked images. In