Oh my bad, I just tried to nominate this, and got *really* confused about how fast all these comments popped up, before realising it's been nominated and shot down before. But 2 nominations isn't worth anything? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antigenic shift[edit]

Reason

Significantly contributes to understanding of the concept of Antigenic shift by illustrating clearly and attractively. The shifts are understandable at thumbnail, and the text provides context for the processes at larger sizes. Also very timely, would be nice to have featured media on this high visibility subject.

Articles this image appears in

Antigenic shift, Influenza A virus subtype H1N1

Creator

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)

• Support as nominator --Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Probably should be SVG, but the resolution is high enough to mitigate that problem. Quite a relevant image given the potential near future swine influenza pandemic. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did think about the JPG/SVG issue, but it's not something I can fix today, and I thought that timeliness was more important (and still featurable as JPG). If anyone wants to have a go at replacing it I'd be thankful. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditionnal Oppose. I'm not an expert on influenza, but from what i read in Antigenic shift, the diagram doesn't seem right. The article seems to indicate that the shift is specifically what happens in step A3. On the other hand the diagram seems to say "they are three types of shift : A, B and C". The diagrams doesn't show antigenic shift, it shows ways to pass influenza from a bird host to a human host, one of which involves antigenic shift. Ignore this vote if I'm wrong. Ksempac (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is poorly written and under referenced at this stage imo. However there is specific discussion further down regarding pigs (A-1/A-2). A-4 seems to be covered too. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I understood what you said, but what i mean is A1 to A4 is obviously transmission through antigenic shift (which happens in step A3). However, as I understand it, B and C are direct transmission without modification of the virus, therefore without shift. Yet the top text on this image states that a jump from one specie to another is an "antigenic shift". Ksempac (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh I see, I'd trust an external source to validate the other two methods, not the WP article. I would have thought that the author of that image was pretty reliable. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems i was wrong : " Antigenic shift refers to an abrupt, major change to produce a novel influenza A virus subtype in humans that was not currently circulating among people (see more information below under Influenza Type A and Its Subtypes). Antigenic shift can occur either through direct animal (poultry)-to-human transmission or through mixing of human influenza A and animal influenza A virus genes to create a new human influenza A subtype virus through a process called genetic reassortment. Antigenic shift results in a new human influenza A subtype. A global influenza pandemic (worldwide spread) may occur if three conditions are met: 1 A new subtype of influenza A virus is introduced into the human population. 2 The virus causes serious illness in humans. 3 The virus can spread easily from person to person in a sustained manner." http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/gen-info/flu-viruses.htm We really need some good input on this oneKsempac (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support - as the others have said, this really should be SVG. Usually diagrams here that should be SVG are PNG instead, but JPG is even worse. However, thankfully this has been saved using low JPG compression (high quality setting), and is both high resolution and very encyclopaedic. Therefore, pending confirmation of the accuracy (as raised by Ksempac), I will support this version only if it is made a high priority candidate for redrawing as SVG, and as soon as a suitable SVG is made it is nominated for delisting and replacement with the SVG as the featured image. Phew, long sentence. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, doesn't have to be SVG but should be PNG. The image itself is fine... but when we have MediaWiki auto scale it it gets artifacts and looks a lot worse and rarely will we be viewing it at native resolution. gren グレン 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Should I withdraw this then until someone can turn this into a PNG or SVG? Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, I'd just let it run its course because I'm not sure if others will agree with me. As far as JPGs go it is very good quality and my main worry is about resizing problems not about native resolution. gren グレン 17:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted to PNG here (no idea this was at FPC, though). Please don't support the JPG version—those artifacts are nasty. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting to hear if Ksempac still opposes. Please do not close until user comments. Other !votes are still welcome until that point in time (only fair). ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the condition is met. "Ignore this vote if I'm wrong" and he later said "It seems i was wrong". Noodle snacks (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, even though I would have liked some expert's advice on this one, you can go on. If i find some time for that (unlikely but still...), i will try to research this and complete the article since both NIAID and CDC websites agree on this matter Ksempac (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 14:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Falls[edit]

Reason

Probably the most notable waterfall in Tasmania, appearing on much tourist documentation and so on. It replaced another more obscure waterfall in the Tasmania article. The upper curtain isn't easily accessible but is partially visible in the background.

Articles this image appears in

Russell Falls, Mount Field National Park, Tasmania

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Have to admit, from memory it isn't the best photo of this falls that I've seen - the tourist brochures typically show the upper curtain much better, I think... That said, having done a quick search I haven't found any that match my mind's eye of it. Think I'd prefer to see an angle a bit more like this one though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate I have one too :-) And the park is named after me? Mfield (Oi!) 05:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, practically an identical photo, except with slightly different white balance and seemingly more distortion (the path of the water isn't as straight at the edges as NS's). Amazing how little has changed in a year. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The waterfall has been around for 170 million years, so it probably hasn't changed much in a long time (apart from when the area was logged iirc)! I think that the best shot I have seen was with a wide angle from the left hand side over the fence. There are usually too many people to go climbing/swimming though, and the enc would suffer with that angle. Lady Barron Falls was taken knee deep in water after climbing the fence and a few logs and is much better than the view from the lookout (the left log has moved now, the right hasn't). Noodle snacks (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I went up to Mfield's park again today. I walked up to the tarn shelf (up on the hill on the LHS of this pano) with the aim of photographing the deciduous Nothofagus gunnii. Naturally just before I arrived the weather went sour with very poor visibility and I didn't get any decent photos up there. I did drop into Russell Falls and took another happy snap, but apart from a slight change in flow rate it didn't look substantially different. I did get a better shot of Horseshoe Falls falls though. Noodle snacks (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No quorum => Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 14:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oncidium excavatum[edit]

Reason

Meets the standards imo. The first photograph I ever uploaded to WP was an Oncidium years ago.

Articles this image appears in

Oncidium, Oncidium excavatum

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 04:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support This one is a tough call for me. While i agree that the purple and yellow mix is great, somehow the blurred purple background (especially the bottom left) distract me from the main subject. I had to set it as a wallpaper to decide between a weak support and a weak oppose. Ksempac (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A crop off the bottom would reduce the distracting OOF flower. --Muhammad(talk) 16:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the purple background colouration, unconnected with this species (petals of another plant?), is too prominent and distracting. Melburnian (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am not happy with the angle of the shot. You can't really recognized how the shape of the flower actually is. Slightly from the side would have been better. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus => Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 14:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Tulip[edit]

Reason

The image is of high quality, the image is very sharp, the focus is good, it has good contrast, accurate exposure, and it has no noise and good composition.

Articles this image appears in

Tulip

Creator

Bettycrocker

• Support as nominator --Bettycrocker (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You replaced an existing featured picture in the article when placing this image. I have fixed that. In order to establish some encyclopaedic value for this image you really need to identify the cultivar in my opinion. -- Noodle snacks (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Through my research, I have identified this tulip as a Triumph cultivar. I have also identified this particular color is called "Atilla." That information has been added in. I apologize for overwriting the featured picture, I honestly didn't take the time to look and see if it was featured, sorry about that. -- Bettycrocker (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will agree with the Triumph group, but I am not convinced that it is "Atilla". Atilla looks more purple to me. Is it possible to ask your neighbour for a definitive ID? If not, you may like to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. -- Noodle snacks (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a little more research, and according to this page, the color most similar to this one is "Burns." It is only a color found in the Triumph cultivar which convinced me further. Thanks for the catching that. -- Bettycrocker (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the supplied reference the cultivar 'Burns' has fringed petals, this one doesn't. It's a very difficult task to identify such a cultivar, there are many hundreds of tulip hybrids, a matching colour on its own doesn't establish the identity. -- Melburnian (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tulip had fringed petals believe it or not, I think the saturation of the colors may have blotched the fringes, or the lighting (overcast) flattened the fringes. I'm not sure. It's very difficult to identify this specific tulip, so I'm just gonna call it a pink Triumph. -- Bettycrocker (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing special about this composition. Rubenescio (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by candidate => Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllactinia guttata[edit]

Reason

High resolution quality illustration; very high EV–shows various aspects of this mildew's life cycle far better than a single photo could. This is my first 'restoration', which in this case involved removing the page yellowing and cleaning up afterwards. Props to all the restorers here, I can now sympathize with the monotony of point-click-point-click several hundred times... There are several dozen other high quality images like this I'd like to upload (and write articles for), so any opinions on how to improve my technique would be greatly appreciated (and implemented in future uploads). Thanks!

Articles this image appears in

Phyllactinia guttata, Phyllactinia

Creator

Sasata

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great illustraton ... talk to Durova, GerardM (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Nice restoration, and I'm sure it is informative, but I have no idea what I'm looking at. I think the caption needs some work perhaps with reference to the numbered parts. The articles don't shed much light on it. |→ Spaully^₪† 10:07, 2 May 2009 (GMT)

• Ok, have added the info from the image description. Sasata (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a restoration? No documentation at all of edits performed. If it's a simple scan then that's fine, otherwise I'd strongly oppose until the unrestored version is uploaded, cross-linked from both the hosting file and the nomination, and the specific edits performed are documented. Durova^Charge! 17:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Have uploaded the original at Commons as requested and added information about the edits performed. I'm not sure how to do the cross-links though. Sasata (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the edit notes, and thanks to Michel for the crosslinks. :) Support; good work. Durova^Charge! 22:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I've added the crosslinks for you. :) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah ok... "Other versions" ... I understand now. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't see why a historic picture should be used to illustrate the article. Surely, a coloured SVG drawing can be made. --Muhammad(talk) 09:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose, if someone has the skill and inclination to offer their services for free to do such a task... are you offering your services? :) BTW, on which of the FP criteria is your oppose based? Sasata (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• LadyofHats has made numerous illustrations, perhaps she can be approached. As for the criteria, #3. --Muhammad(talk) 15:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It would still depend on her having a specimen and microscope available. Illustrations like this should be prepared directly from specimens, not from other people's drawings. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - A good restoration, but I don't think the fact it's a historical restoration benefits the article at all, and I don't think it's a particularly clear illustration to begin with. I believe a more modern illustration could potentially made with improved legibility and encyclopedic value serving the same purpose using both vector graphics and colour. Useful, but not Wikipedia's best work, hence my oppose. -Halo (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't agree with these last two opposes. What does it matter if it's a "historical" restoration or not? Would it have made a difference it it were drawn in 1980 rather than 1890? In either case, it's an accurate representation of what the fungus looks like microscopically. About it being not clear, have you looked at it at full size? I thought it was quite clear, one of the reasons I put the work in to clean up the image. I also printed out the image on 8.5x11 paper and it looks great (to me). The oppose seems to be based on a hypothetical image that does not exist. So let's say I take the time to learn how to draw vector graphics, acquire the software to do so, and spend my time instead rendering this image in SVG format, complete with inaccurate/meaningless, but pretty colors. One could then just as well oppose that image because "a more modern and accurate image could potentially be made using electron microscopy". The reality is the images won't get restored at all, and those articles on plant pathogenic fungi will remain without any illustrations. (end rant) Sasata (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'unclear' comment is a reference to the confusing presentation of the image where each of the stages seem to overlap, mix-and-match scales, the use of shading that distracts from the image, and the poor legibility of the labels, not the resolution. If you take away the historical context and consider it on its own merits, you get a rather old-fashioned badly laid-out illustration that isn't particularly exceptional, lacks colour, makes poor use of shading, isn't particularly striking or exceptional to look at, and has hand-drawn lines that detract from its purpose of an illustration. I don't think this image would past muster in a modern full-colour textbook or a modern encyclopedia published today, for example. The oppose /is/ based on an hypothetical image, one that I think would be an 'ideal' illustration and thus represents in my mind the third criterion "Wikipedia's best work", therefore that's the standard I'm judging this illustration on. The standard that you seem to want me to judge this on is "the best image that Wikipedia currently has on the given topic" instead. I'm not saying it's not useful, I just don't think it's exceptional. -Halo (talk)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. Thanks for the clarification. Sasata (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Unconvinced because of the low level of visual detail. We're also missing a scale. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not an especially great illustration IMO. Would prefer a modern full-color SVG. Kaldari (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by candidate => Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Horse Chestnut Tree[edit]

Reason

Easily the best resolution image of a work by Mary Cassatt. Mother's Day is upcoming: could be good for the occasion? Restored version of File:Under the horse chestnut tree.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Mary Cassatt, Parent

Creator

Mary Cassatt

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 03:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Illustrates the subject well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This should be the Mother's Day featured pic. Xxjubilee18 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The female impressionists are very fashionable right now. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Under the horse chestnut tree2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baccha bequaerti[edit]

Reason

Good quality, composition, aesthetics.

Articles this image appears in

Baccha (hoverfly), Syrphinae

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 14:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Ideally, the wings would be sharp as well, but that's almost impossible in a hoverfly. I'll just trust your identification, although I wonder how you got to species level. Hover flies are a bit of a nightmare usually. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had an expert identify it. With my little experience, I have found that almost all my pictures of hoverflies have been id'd to species level. It is usually the wasps, bees and ants that are more difficult. --Muhammad(talk) 05:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Much 2 harsh flashlight. The eyes are definitely not with a black frame and the natural appearance isn't metalic. The harsh flashlight is at the expense of value.--Richard Bartz (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Richard Bartz.--ragesoss (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House sparrow portrait[edit]

Reason

Good quality and EV, the only juvenile house sparrow picture in the article. The bird was app 5 inches long, the head around an inch or two. QI and already feaured at commons without any opposition.

Articles this image appears in

House Sparrow, Songbird, Sparrow

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 14:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support many of the important differences seem to be around the head. Sparrows must be practically everywhere. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A couple weeks ago, one of those birds for some reason flew to my pants and just hung there with its claws penetrating my pants and scratching me. Weird. ZooFari 03:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Would liked an image of the whole bird where the detailed head is a part of for an encyclopedia. But it is good enough --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:House sparrow portrait.jpg MER-C 02:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refueling a S-61 Fireking helicopter[edit]

Reason

Its a unique panaroma that shows one of the support functions that enable these craft to remain on the scene of a major fire for extended periods of time along with the precautions taken during refueling. The image has already been through peer review with all concerns addressed.

Articles this image appears in

Carson Helicopters, Aviation fuel

Creator

Gnangarra

• Support as nominator --Gnangarra 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Focus seems a bit off on the helicopter, but enough detail is there and the problem is mitigated by the circumstances imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral focus is not just off on the helicopter, but it changes between all the images in the pano, which makes the image look very odd. This should have been shot with either manual focus to prevent the AF from changing the focal plane, or a smaller aperture. Anyhow, composition is very nice, and it is an interesting shot. --Dschwen 14:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I can see the focus changes Dschwen and NS note but at a reasonable resolution it looks very good and I think that this composition works well with the subject. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comments at PPR. --jjron (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The focus could be better, but this is a panorama, not a macro! It shows everything well (perhaps not very well), and extremely high enc value.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Refueling panorama gnangarra.jpg MER-C 02:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caruso with phonograph[edit]

Reason

Enrico Caruso is considered to have been one of the most significant singers of the past 200 years in any vocal category, and a key pioneer in the field of recorded music.[2] As the Collector's Guide to Victor Records[3] says: The question has been asked: Did the phonograph make Caruso, or did Caruso make the phonograph?

Articles this image appears in

Enrico_Caruso#Recordings, Gramophone record, Victor Talking Machine Company, Enrico Caruso discography (CD)

Creator

Unknown photographer; Bain News Service, publisher. Restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As far as portraits of Caruso go, this is a better choice, has better composition, and sharpness on the subject (although ineligible for FP because of overall size). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Responding to PLW: Yeah, but this image has superb EV for the "Recording" section of the Enrico Caruso article. I quote: "He and the disc phonograph (also known as the gramophone) did much to promote each other in the first two decades of the 20th century." Spikebrennan (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. If Papa Lima Whiskey would like to locate and restore a sufficiently high resolution version of a different photograph, we can consider it when he nominates it. Durova^Charge! 20:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good. Just be sure to indicate which article you're supporting for. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me? That's not a requirement. I'm supporting per nom. Durova^Charge! 17:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Not only an excellent picture, but it definitely has encyclopedic value. Caruso's recording of Vesti la giubba (in its various versions) was the first to sell a million copies. Voceditenore (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great photo, puts Caruso in context. Disagree with PLW - this picture is much more interesting and compelling than the plain traditional portrait. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Caruso with phonograph2.jpg MER-C 02:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darmstadt photochrom[edit]

Reason

Another attractive and encyclopedic photochrom

Articles this image appears in

Darmstadt

Creator

Unknown; current version uploaded by Jan Arkesteijn

• Support as nominator --Spikebrennan (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A pretty good photochrom and a potential featured picture, but it looks as if nothing was done to this other than simple levels and color adjustment. Not quite correctly either: the sky has a green tinge. Worse, there is zero documentation of edits performed. The original could become a featured picture, but I'd sooner support an unaltered original than this type of edit. Durova^Charge! 17:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mating Common Buckeye Butterflies[edit]

Reason

It is a high quality picture which can be used to show the common buckeye butterflies mating

Articles this image appears in

no links yet
Butterfly

+ Junonia coeniaOwl butterflyZooFari 06:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator

Aseem Khurana

• Support as nominator --Aforaseem (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It is quite a nice macro photo technically, but two major issues. It is difficult to discern the shape of the butterfly as the photo is actually of two butterflies overlapping each other. It also has to already be in an article to be eligible for FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any other composition will allow us to distinguish the two butterflies. After all, they are 2 mating butterflies with camouflage instincts. Describe it in the caption, though. However, Diliff is right about the links. Add them soon or opposes will keep coming. ZooFari 03:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aforaseem - The image now appears in the butterfly article.

Added it into common buckeye too. ZooFari 06:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is an Owl buttefly, so the captions need to be fixed. ZooFari 20:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Too much empty space for an encyclopedia. Portrait format would have fit better. Focus is ok. --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Would support a cropped version. I think this is of a high quality and does a good job. Too little of the picture is butterfly in this version however. Mostlyharmless (talk)
• Weak support edit 1 --Muhammad(talk) 16:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would have to say, there is nothing really too convincing about this composition. The image on its own would've been plenty sharp, but you way oversharpened the shot, that the butterflies are developing sharpening artifacts, and the background, which should be smooth, in fact actually has granular noise. The poor butterfly is actually sprouting halos on its antennae. In my opinion, it's also a tad small to be a featured picture. I would say, get the original shot, sharpen it SUBTLY and do it selectively for the butterflies only, crop it a little bigger, get rid of the slight yellowish cast on the butterflies and the bark, and upload it. I would suggest nominating it for a QI rather than an FP. It's just doesn't have that FP impact to me. Spectacular capture otherwise. -- Bettycrocker (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rockefeller Center, December 1933[edit]

Reason

Great image of Rockefeller Center with (then) RCA Building in December 1933. Photo taken from DuMont Building by Samuel H. Gottscho. Digital image recovered from released emulsion layer of original 5x7 acetate negative: in 2004, the Library of Congress contracted with Chicago Albumen Works to preserve this deteriorating acetate negative by removing and relaxing the emulsion layer (the pellicle) and producing duplicate negatives and digital files.

Articles this image appears in

GE Building

Creator

Samuel H. Gottscho, photographer. Restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - excellent image, beautifully restored (with a lot of effort on the part of the LoC as noted above), wonderful size and quality (expected from the LoC), highly encyclopaedic, pleasing composition and contrast and historic image of historic location. I've updated the Commons image page with some information, added categories and geotagged with heading. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Love it! — Jake Wartenberg 16:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Please be sure to link directly to unrestored versions at restoration noms and clearly state that the nomination is a restoration. Durova^Charge! 17:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice one. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I uploaded the same image and it was removed my Michel Vuijlsteke, who replaced it with his supposed higher-resolution version (3,674 × 5,050 v. 3,708 × 5,219 = basically the same). APK straight up now tell me 20:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is by no means the same - the resolution is barely larger, but still more faithful to the original, and Michel has done additional restoration work, as noted on the image page. I also fail to understand your point in mentioning this - are you suggesting that him removing your image affects the nomination? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it was only fair to bring this up. Some credit should have been given to APK for his earlier effort. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that, APK. Contacting you would've been the polite thing to do. Mental note made. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - can anyone give a source proving that the photo was taken from the DuMont building? If they can, I'll need to update the geotag for the image which I (seemingly incorrectly) added to the Commons image page earlier. I had assumed it was the next building along SSW. My bad for not reading the Google Maps street numbers correctly >.<. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The image is titled "Rockefeller Center and RCA Building from 515 Madison Ave." at the Library of Congress[4]. As far as Wikipedia tells me, 515 Madison Avenue is the DuMont Building. :) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dang. I'm off to redo the geotag then. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Xxjubilee18 (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rockefeller Center, December 1933.jpg MER-C 02:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hakea laurina[edit]

Reason

Very high encyclopaedic value thanks to the presence of multiple inflorescences in different stages of development.

Articles this image appears in

Hakea, Grevilleoideae, Hakea laurina

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High encyclopaedic value per nom, also showing leaf/venation detail; location information given. Nice lighting, reads well as a thumbnail too. Melburnian (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's a bit messy composition-wise. Kaldari (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd assume you are referring to the leaves, which are coming from the stem just behind the flower. The article says "[the flowers are] perhaps hidden by the leaves in the early stages". I think that it'd be difficult to get both the flower, and the others at various stages all in one frame without leaves and things present. Certainly no where near as difficult as some Hakea species though. I wonder about the other image in the article, it almost looks like a cultivar or subspecies the filaments (guess) are much redder. Google images has quite a few sample images of this species. It would be nice to move the opening flower a bit, but I lucked out on the arrangement as is. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like the various stages all being shown, good to get them in focus also. Slight shame the main flower is slightly impinged by the other but nature isn't perfect. Nice. |→ Spaully^₪† 10:03, 2 May 2009 (GMT)
• Support per Spauly. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hakea laurina Tas.jpg MER-C 02:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sybilla pretiosa[edit]

Reason

resolution quality

Articles this image appears in

Sibylla_pretiosa , Mantidae

Creator

Luc Viatour (talk)

• Support as nominator --Luc Viatour (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Arrr, This be pleasin' to me eye. But i get the impression that the WB might have a green tinge to it. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent composition! ZooFari 15:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Jake Wartenberg 16:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Poor lighting angle. Kaldari (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original per Kaldari, Noodle snacks. Unfortunately, the auto white balance blows out the blue channel on the wing, and red channel on the branch. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, especially if someone does a partial white balance. The color balance problem is relatively minor; the composition and overall quality make up for it, and partial white balancing could be done without blowing any channels.--ragesoss (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which version? MER-C 02:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original, unless someone does a subtler edit for color balance.
• Support original: Maedin\^talk 12:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the original is the preference. Promoted File:Sybilla_pretiosa_Cryptic_mantis_Luc_Viatour.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Scheveningen[edit]

Reason

This pen painting shows a naval battle during the First Anglo–Dutch War. The Commonwealth of England and the Dutch Republic were fighting over a trade dispute in the North Sea. This 1653 battle involved 227 ships and took place near the Dutch coast. Although the painting was finished years after the battle, its painter Willem van de Velde the Elder was actually present during the battle, of which he made sketches at the time. The painting gives an impression of the naval power of the two republics during the Age of Sail. The technique of the pen painting – oil and ink on canvas – enabled the artist to show the ships with a lot of details. Counting the individual ships on the painting is hard due to the smoke, but one could find up to at least one hundred ships.

Articles this image appears in

Age of Sail, Battle of Scheveningen, Pen painting, Willem van de Velde the Elder

Creator

Willem van de Velde the Elder

• Support as nominator --Rubenescio (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Pretty cool picture. Good enough EV. Wish there was little more detail on the ships, though. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Shame about the discolouration. Maedin\^talk 12:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:De slag bij Terheide - The Battle of Schevening - August 10 1653 (Willem van de Velde I, 1657).jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock production[edit]

Reason

An attractive piece of nineteenth century commercial artwork that gives several views of sock production, both by hand and in a factory setting. Very high resolution. Restored version of File:Stocking factory.jpg. Compressed courtesy copy available at File:Stocking factory2 courtesy copy.jpg for viewers with slower connection speeds.

Articles this image appears in

Knitting machine, Hosiery

Creator

Cooper, Wells & Co.

• Support as nominator --Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Jake Wartenberg 04:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sasata (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I really like this picture. It's neat. But I'm not sure it has enough EV in the articles. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Stocking factory2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudatelus sp[edit]

Reason

Good quality and EV. High res, alternative featured at commons.

Articles this image appears in

Pseudatelus

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any with preference of the original. I like the first composition, as it shows the top portion of the bug. ZooFari 16:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternate Better use of depth of field. Durova^Charge! 20:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternate Better IMO --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Iconic composition. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose alt. This isn't Commons, guys. The alt image isn't used in the article and shouldn't be unless the article is significantly expanded (right now its a stub). The top picture has more EV and thus gets priority for the article. The bottom picture looks better, but has less EV. To be a featured picture, however, the image must be used in the article. Kaldari (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alt if featured, will replace the original in the article; at least that's what usually happens. --Muhammad(talk) 19:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I would prefer that the original image remain in the article, as it has much higher EV. It gives you a much better idea of the shape and typical appearance of the bug. Do you guys really want the alt to the be the only image of this bug in its adult form in the article? Kaldari (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then both can be used. ZooFari 23:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you seen the article? Kaldari (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you saying the article is too small for an image? One more photograph can be placed in that long whitespace. ZooFari 00:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original I like the alternate too, but I think the original has better EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the alternate has it. Promoted File:Pseudatelus sp..jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NIF Crystal[edit]

Reason

High res, good composition, lots of wow factor, decent EV (How do you cut sheets from a single crystal? Oh!).

Articles this image appears in

National Ignition Facility

Creator

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory / Jacqueline McBride

• Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs copyright checking, see Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE#NOTE ON THIS TEMPLATE. Suspended. MER-C 01:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The website says: When downloading these images, you are asked to acknowledge the U.S. Government's right to retain non-exclusive, royalty-free license in and to any copyright covering this material, and the following acknowledgment must be included in your version when this information or a reproduction of it is used: "Credit is given to Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Department of Energy under whose auspices this work was performed." 68.52.22.108 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about derivative works? I don't think the (C) info is specific enough for us to use. MER-C 07:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you're probably right :( Kaldari (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion. MER-C 09:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain until copyright issues have been resolved. tempodivalse [☎] 00:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle Main Engine Test[edit]

Reason

Eye-catching image; provides imagery to the article on spacecraft propulsion; unique subject

Articles this image appears in

Spacecraft propulsion

Creator

United States Aeronautics and Space Administration; uploaded by Evand

• Support as nominator --atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the moment needs some retouch love - has hairs all over it, a strange border on the left etc. Mfield (Oi!) 04:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow. :) — Jake Wartenberg 21:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suspend until we can compare with Mfield's Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final call. MER-C 08:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of Venus[edit]

Reason

High resolution image of a famous painting.

Articles this image appears in

Venus (mythology), The Birth of Venus (Botticelli), Venus Anadyomene

Creator

Sandro Botticelli

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 20:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - significant image. I keep waiting for her to start dancing[5]. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... cough. Durova^Charge! 17:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh dear. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Wadester16/Smile Made me lol. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - hate the painting but its a brilliant scan --Thanks, Hadseys 13:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We can't have naked people on the front page. I suggest this version instead. Thanks Durova. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Lol i love it, venus the manifestation of love dressed like a nun, haha. Thanks for making me smile mostly harmless --Thanks, Hadseys 22:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, Support.Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality of an important painting. Wish it were in better shape. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:La nascita di Venere (Botticelli).jpg MER-C 10:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wool spinning[edit]

Reason

A remarkable early photograph of daily life from the early twentieth century. Hand tinted, so brush strokes are visible at full resolution. Restored version of File:Ramallah spinner.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Wool#History, Spinning_(textiles)#Hand_spinning, Ramallah#Modern_era

Creator

American Colony Jerusalem

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 19:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Iconic image. Shame about the lack of sharpness on the yarn. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose this version. An excellent photograph and a great find, but the histogram adjustment seems to go rather far, introducing a level of contrast that suits contemporary aesthetics but is not ordinarily seen in tinted photographs of this era. Perhaps an intermediate adjustment would work better. Chick Bowen 21:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is color balance cold? At first sight, it seems so to me. Thegreenj 00:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The auto settings wanted to go much colder. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the auto settings are pretty much meaningless. --Dschwen 19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Auto gives you suggestions. If you don't like it, you undo. Apparently the auto was not suitable for this image. ZooFari 23:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a pretty good way of putting it, ZooFari. It would probably require a chemical analysis of the pigments used at this print to achieve a really accurate restoration on the color: this was artificial color painted on, and some pigments fade more than others. Durova^Charge! 15:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great picture with a great value about the traditions in Palestine at the beginning of the 20th century. The elements in the picture capture the theme perfectly. --Banzoo (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd be unhappy about the significant tilt, changes in background and change in white balance from the original, but it isn't illustrating an artist or an artwork at all and it looks pretty good in this format. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It almost looks like he's spinning from his coat. An impressive image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ramallah spinner2.jpg MER-C 10:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apis mellifera flying[edit]

Reason

Good quality and EV. Both images show the flying and pollen baskets quite well. Very difficult to capture as well.

Articles this image appears in

Bee, Pollen, Pollen basket, European honey bee, Forage (honey bee)

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 18:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ohhhhh. Much better angle than the alternative. Reminds me of an action-movie-helicopter-fly-by. Support. And to fulfill some expectations, a few complaints: DOF on the low side, resolution only a meager 1.6MP. --Dschwen 18:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Bit oversharpened and small - but uhhm, yes. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt I think in this case, the "wow" isn't too much worse on the more encyclopaedic alternative shot, even though I do like how it looks as though the bee on the original is using its 2nd pair of legs to help support the pollen baskets. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What's in the background in the original? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are flowers of a Elaeis guineensis the bee was pollinating. --Muhammad(talk) 04:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pref original. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original The "wow factor" is probably what makes me prefer the original, but the alt also have some minor imperfections that i dislike : the rope-like thing on the foreground at the top, which cut the subject, and the fact that the subject is not at the center of the frame. Ksempac (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I had the same dilemma. About the rope-like thing: in the original we can't really see the wings at all, so I'm not sure that's a good criterion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well IMO the original has better controlled blur on the wings, and as it is the wings can be seen in other pictures of the bees. --Muhammad(talk) 18:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. This is, I think, the best shot Muhammad has put forward for FPC.--ragesoss (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either Don't make me choose! They're both very good. EV about equal, I think. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Ummm, how do either of these differ from the nomination above (apart from the fact that these are flying, obviously). I was considering opposing because in these the bee takes up only a small part of the frame (although I wondered if that was just being harsh), and then I saw your above nomination. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The obvious reason is why. Very few people probably get to see a flying bee up close. This image shows how the bee flies, how it holds its legs, pollen basket and so. The above nomination on the other hand, shows pollination, foraging and overall has a different EV. --Muhammad(talk) 16:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support original, per Richard Bartz. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Apis mellifera flying.jpg MER-C 10:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koninginnedag[edit]

Reason

EV, quality and composition

Articles this image appears in

Amsterdam and Koninginnedag

Creator

Massimo Catarinella

• Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The technical quality of this image is really good, but I am not sure about the encyclopedic value of this composition, because the orange-colored people are mostly in the background. I think File:Koninginnedag2007.jpg is a better main image for the Koninginnedag article. Rubenescio (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trithemis annulata[edit]

Reason

Good quality and EV. Previous images in the articles were much smaller and very noisy.

Articles this image appears in

Trithemis, Trithemis annulata

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 06:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The dragonfly looks spectacular (reminds me of solarisation). The picture quality however is so so compared to the tons of dragonfly FPs we already have. --Dschwen 04:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was personally quite impressed with the sharpness - the DOF seems just about right for the circumstances. I don't like systemic bias either, and I understand that we're not covering all the insect groups equally, but Muhammad has done a lot of work on Diptera and Hymenoptera (even recently a Hemipteran), so I'm not sure that criticizing this on systemic bias grounds has energy flowing in the right direction. The slightly sharper and larger picture we already had of this species is fairly noisy by comparison, but one *could* try cleaning it up if there's a preference. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are certainly right about the systemic bias. The sharpness however is not impressive at all, given the rather small size of this image. --Dschwen 12:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could only find four dragonfly FPs in the collection and the sharpness of all is very much similar, if not inferior to this one. --Muhammad(talk) 17:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • ORLY?! Counterexample (yeah sorry, my own is the first that comes to mind). Check out commons for a few more, this being a nice example. And if you dismiss them for not being featured here yet, prepare for a nomination flood ;-). The bottom line is that higher technical quality is possible, and in fact we have better pictures in the project. --Dschwen 18:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Before nominating this image, I checked out yours to be sure it met the standards. I wouldn't want to get into a discussion of the sharpness of your image (I nominated it for FP some time ago) but I think my picture has a slightly larger DOF achieved by a smaller aperture and sharpness may thus have suffered. Nonetheless, I don't think there are significant differences in the sharpness. The other image is a damselfly and these are a lot easier to photograph; I will be nominating a few of mine soon which I managed to focus stack even at 1:1 using a tripod! --Muhammad(talk) 19:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll be looking forward to see these, in the mean time the crazy colors earn this one at least a weak support from me. --Dschwen 20:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Papa Lima Whiskey. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Wow, Muhammad, :-) Maedin\^talk 12:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Trithemis annulata.jpg MER-C 10:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Cavalier by Frans Hals[edit]

Reason

High resolution portrait of this unknown 26-year-old man portrayed by Dutch painter Frans Hals. The embroidery on his clothes and the lace of his collar are painted in much detail.

Articles this image appears in

Frans Hals, Laughing Cavalier, 1600-1650 in fashion, The Laughing Cavalier (novel), 1625 in art

Creator

Frans Hals

• Support as nominator --Rubenescio (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The claimed source has a completely different rendition: different white balance, more canvas (?) texture. Either someone has heavily edited this without saying so, or it's come from somewhere else. FWIW, Jlorenz1 is the uploader. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I have notified the user on Commons, and the English and German Wikipedia. Rubenescio (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]