I know we have a ton of flower pictures, but this one seemed to me particularly well done, with the focus at such a short range. On Yellow rattle, taken and uploaded by sannse.
nominated by Hephaestos|§ 21:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
From Pin tumbler lock by Wapcaplet. I know it's silly, but can we have enough of Wapcaplet? The model is very clear, and really adds alot to the article. ✏ Sverdrup 13:20, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
User:Jawed's excellent panoramic diptych showing the changes in the vegetation of the mountains in the San Francisco Bay Area over the seasons. Beautiful clear photos, each of which gives an clear idea of what the locality looks like. Combined they really capture the region's wide seasonal range. Nominated by Finlay McWalter|Talk 11:08, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Wow! These are absolutely stunning. Fully support. Fredrik | talk 11:27, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support. Gorgeous, although they could have been placed side by side on one image file for easier comparison.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo(Talk)]] 18:34, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Self-nominating again. I took this photograph at Kiyomizu-dera, Kyoto in Japan, of a couple of women dressed as geisha wearing kimonos and wooden clogs called geta. I think it illustrates typical geisha make-up and dress. - MykReeve 00:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support. It would be great if it was bigger and less compressed for print or for zooming in, but it works great for the web.– PlatinumX 04:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support. Nice illustration and wow! colors. Fg2 08:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hi. This is a self-nomination for a photo that I took myself. It's used on the Chess page to illustrate the appearance of a chess set, and I uploaded it after a request for a better picture than the one further down the page. Photographically, it encompasses the beautiful reflections of the glass set on the glass table, and its symmetry adds to its appeal. I can upload a higher res picture if anyone thinks it's too small. - Enochlau 03:00, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Right off the bat, I'd like clarficiation on the copyright status. The page give no hint as to what the terms of use are. →Raul654 03:02, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm? I put this there: This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the photographer, Enoch Lau, is credited. --- Note: I am willing to release it under GFDL if that is what is required. (I am the copyright holder) Enochlau 03:05, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You need to give *some* terms of use. Because you own the copyright, that means only you can distribute it, and/or determine the terms by which others can distribute it. We prefer you grant us use under the GFDL, but one way or the other, you have to grant us *some* terms of use.
I'm sorry about this cos i'm somewhat confused... by terms of use do you mean something along the lines of this: "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the photographer, Enoch Lau, is credited. Permission is granted by the copyright holder to copy, display and/or distribute this document pursuant to the previous sentence."
Right. That's a BSD-style license, by the way. →Raul654 03:15, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
Cool, fixed.
I think it's too dark - and the focus is poor. Secretlondon 14:23, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Unclear overall. Yes, it's challenging to take photographs of glass objects.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo(Talk)]] 09:22, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm assuming the photographer owns this chess set. May I suggest you:
1. Balance the light left and right.
2. Increase the depth of field to f/11 or better.
The framing is good, but the fuzziness in the highlighted area is not acceptable, and the differential in focus from the left foreground to the right foreground is equally problematic. A good test shot, and has much potential. Denni☯ 05:30, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
Oppose. Bizarre background reflections and clutter compete for the audience eye - especially the upper-right and left-hand corners. Davodd 13:05, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
Problem is -- it doesn't contribute significantly to the chess article. To illustrate that article, I'd prefer "real" positions. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 04:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thanks for the suggestions, i'll try and take a new one very soon
Potential replacement... is this one better?It has more balanced lighting, real positions (black has castled, and white is in check), there is less visual clutter, and it should be more in focus. Enochlau 04:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think this is a clear, striking and informative image. Taken by ChrisO, used on Tawaret.Secretlondon 14:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
(not a vote) question: what's the legal status of photos taken in the British Museum? This says "Photography with flash and video recording is permitted in most galleries for private purposes only" - this isn't a private purpose, but I don't know if the restriction is a legal one, or just a museum rule. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I presume it is because they charge commericial users. We've been discussing this - we think it may be okay as they are donated personal photographs, not taken for wikipedia. But it's probably a grey area. Secretlondon 14:29, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's a fair point, but you could say the same for just about every picture taken somewhere that isn't a public place. My take on this is that such images are taken by individuals for their own use (hence a "private purpose") but are donated to Wikipedia - note that the BM's language doesn't address subsequent usage, merely the initial purpose. It's not as if they're giving people EULAs to sign, thankfully. ;-) -- ChrisO 14:49, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support. We've had pictures of this legal status before. See the Tutankhamun funerary mask in the archivebelow . You should see the version of this statue in the Egyptian Museum - all black so a bit clearer to see, and very funky.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo(Talk)]] 09:25, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
(not a vote) Just noticed that I've mucked up the filename - the r and w are interchanged (ugh). Is there any way of renaming it within the system or do I have to re-upload it? -- ChrisO 16:00, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support. To change the name you need to upload the new one and delete the old one, i think -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:41, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Public domain it may be, but I'm afraid that if this isn't the work of a wikipedian I fail to see how it qualifies.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|TALK]] 08:44, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
Featured pictures are divided into two sections. The ones created by Wikipedians, and the ones discovered by Wikipedians. The main idea is to promote Wikipedia by showing the excellence of the accompanying illustrations, and when appropriate, additionally point out the creativity of Wikipedians. - Bevo 14:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - this doesn't look so special to me. The rings and the planet surface are rather undetailed, for example. Lupin 10:06, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. But will support such images from Cassini as are worthy of Wikipedia. I have waited a very long time for this mission to see fruition, and I have only praise for the folks at NASA who have had nightmares about glitches and failures. If Cassini can do at Saturn what Galileo did at Jupiter, we're in for an incredible ride -- one worth inclusion here. Denni☯ 05:22, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
Two comments. Seems overexposed. Also, since this is not the usual lighting, is it the best representative image for an encyclopedia article? - Bevo 19:59, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support. I like the angle of the shot and seeing it when it looks a little different.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|TALK]] 08:47, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, pic is clearly leaning and could so easily have been rotated upright. I find sloping pics irritating (unless done for artistic purposes, which doesn't seem to apply here). Adrian Pingstone 16:14, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not sure what is meant by "clearly leaning". The columns on the building are vertical, and the steps on the north side of Trafalgar Square and water are horizontal. The roof appears to slope due to perspective because the photograph was taken from left of centre, but this cannot be fixed merely by rotation. - MykReeve 17:49, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
How's this effort at perspective correction? See the image talk page for discussion. Perspective corrected?Lupin 09:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I think the "leaning" is probably repairable, but the coloration is not normal. (Think; would a "purple cow" be appropriate for an encyclopedia entry on Cattle?) - Bevo 18:44, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the comment about colour, but it looks much more interesting that way than it does normally! (A point so good, Bevo made it twice? :) ) - MykReeve 19:38, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
First the comment, then the rationalization!   8-)       If not for the other two problems (overexposure and "leaning", I might try to find another article to associate this image with. Maybe Pepsi ? - Bevo 22:13, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
support. I don't know if the picture is really leaning or if it is just the perspective Lorax 00:58, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
Anyone interested in this picture might like to look at User talk:Arpingstone where I've uploaded a rotated version - Adrian Pingstone 08:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. It's a lovely photo, with great exposure (one can see all the delicate stuff in the stonework everywhere it's not being blasted with light) and the composition and depth of field are great. But I think that, because it's so unrepresentative of the building's normal condition, it falls short on the "adds significantly" criterion. I'd wholeheartedly support the same photo taken in normal circumstances (oh, and the photo's caption in the article should be clear this is a special-occasion photo). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:19, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support. I think this does add significantly to the article, which is (incidentally) missing a picture of the gallery by day. Lupin 10:04, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Conditionalsupport: if Dr Reeve or someone else goes down to Trafalgar Square again to take a 'normal' photograph for the 'National Gallery, London' article. -- Kaihsu 18:14, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)
Gah, this misses the whole point; 'proper' shots of the National Gallery are ten-a-penny (indeed, I've just uploaded one, here); I nominated this one because it adds a sense of beauty and art that is missing - it not only "adds significantly" to the article, it adds signficiantly more... James F.(talk) 04:58, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Support. It's a very pretty picture. The unusual lighting really makes it an interesting photo. Zoney 16:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Support. No doubt anyone who looks at it would know this is not usual lighting. Certainly the roof appears to slope due to perspective. --Ankur 06:14, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Support. Who cares if its not "normal." It appears in this way from time to time I presume, so that is a part of its function. The photo gives a clear, interesting impression of the building and that is sufficient. If people want a "normal" photo then one can be used to supplement this photo. Peregrine981 14:00, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
(not a vote) I figure the image has the wrong PD tag (shouldn't it be the US govt one?), and on the article itself I think the caption should clarify this is a mock-up image, not a photo (if that is the case) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. If it were a real photo, there'd be no question. But this is just some graphic output from a beyond-my-Visa-limit package that can make Fred look like Superman with a few keystrokes. Suggestion: find a real firing range. Carry a camera. Wait. Denni☯ 05:16, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
In this case you would have to wait forever. They never actually built one. - Bevo 09:36, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
super, support (although the caption on the other amphitheatre photo on that article could do with some clarification, to properly distinguish it from this one). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:26, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. What a great picture. →Raul654 08:27, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
Whow! Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:31, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for all the compliments! In truth I'm a bit unsatisfied by that montage for these reasons:
It was taken right before an advancing snow storm (see the clouds over the far hills?) and with no direct sunlight (it was also very cold so I did not try to find the best perspective point)
The photo is a montage of three different photos but I took four at that spot - the far right photo was lost due to a memory stick failure
But don't count that as an objection - just a note that I plan to create a better photo montage in the future. --mav 10:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Support. No indirect sunlight is often an advantage as an even exposure of all elements can be achieved,which is appropriate especially for encyclopaedic images.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|TALK]] 09:23, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I like the full-size montage, but it doesn't seem to scale down well for a thumbnail. --Zigger 08:49, 2004 Jul 10 (UTC)
Vote in opposition by Ankur and subsequent discussion moved (by Ankur) to User talk:Ankur as it was disruptive to the voting process. --Andrew 05:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
While I wish we made a smaller footprint, I support this excellent picture. Denni☯ 05:07, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
Support. Bet it loses a huge amount through evaporation, though... -- ChrisO 10:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Support. Great composition. Davodd 12:58, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Yep, she's a bute.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|TALK]] 09:24, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. A waste of desert, it could have been way better than this. Poor natural lighting I presume, but I am no student of photography. --Ankur
Comment - Waste? Would you rather a parking lot? I am not a photographer either but IMHO you can not light it any better naturally, thats what the desert looks like on a clear day due to constant smog from Los Angeles and Phoenix. Are you just looking at the thumbnail?Buster 03:41, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Though I agree with Ankur, irrigation does seem like a waste of a perfectly good desert :) Lorax 02:42, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
Nominated by - Montréalais 19:48, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - a bit small to see much detail of the building. Perhaps a larger version....? Lupin 10:08, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thanks for the suggestion! Larger version uploaded. - Montréalais
Oppose. Newly uploaded larger image seems to be a simple enlargement of the small image, resulting in very bad picture quality -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My computer is playing tricks on me. Picture quality looks OK now, but I am still not convinced about the photo. Good photo, but not feature material. -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:37, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Nice enough shot, but the stage tent and the shadow from the left obscure details, and I'd like to see more of the square. Radagast 17:39, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose with regret. The sky is incredible, and I know from experience how hard it is to match the building, the light, and the sky. If only that shadow weren't there. This is the type of photo that, when I find it in my prints, causes me to say things that threaten the surety of several afterlives. Denni☯ 05:04, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
Oppose. The shadow at the front of the building and disembodied heads at the bottom lose marks.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|TALK]] 09:27, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
No vote. Such a nice picture had it not been for the shadow. --Ankur 06:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Crisp and very useful graph! Edward Tufte standard. Spending only 1 minute to study this graph has brought me so much closer to Canadian politics than weeks of travelling the country. Used in Canadian federal election, 2004. --Kaihsu 22:06, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)
By the way, late 'Happy Canada Day!' -- Kaihsu 13:51, 2004 Jul 2 (UTC)
Support. I think that the alignment of the expanded areas could be a touch better, but it's pretty good as is. Perhaps each white box could have a dot of a certain color inside it that indexes it to the expansion below somehow. I wonder if the use or red=liberal and blue=conservative is the norm in Canada? - Bevo 13:24, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the colours I used are the colours used both by the party in question and by the media. - Montréalais 13:30, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Support. Wonderful layout of the data, makes everything very clear. Radagast 17:44, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
Support. The more I look, the more impressed I am. Any time data can be presented in more than two dimensions simultaneously, I'm paying attention. Denni☯ 04:58, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
Oppose. Fails the brilliant standard. The concept, size, color choice and image clarity are right-on. But it is not intuitive enough and relies on the reader to work out what the dots and their shaped groupings represent. Maybe if it was super-imposed on a line map of Canada with blow-out line drawings of metro areas. Davodd 12:57, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. This is no where near the aesthetic standard that would be found in statistical information of publications of the National Geographic Society for instance. Does the job, but minimally.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|TALK]] 09:30, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't seem to get the graph, I also agree with the above opposing comments --Anthony Liekens 07:19, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I like it, and think it presents a lot of information... my only concern is that it's not intuitively obvious to someone unfamiliar with Canadian geography which areas at the bottom correspond to the white squares in the provinces at the top. For example, it might be read that Ottawa was in Quebec. So, I have to oppose... though that is my only reason for opposition. - MykReeve 16:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Self nomination, a beautiful sunset shot used on Ceará. Copyright free from the Brazilian Embassy in London. [[User:DO'Neil|DO'Иeil]] 12:14, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
Support [[User:Avala|Avala★Talk]] 12:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've uploaded a larger version from the same place. Lupin 17:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Support - could be sharper but the colors are beautiful. --Andrew 06:02, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Who is the photographer gets the photo credits? - Bevo 11:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - it's pretty, but it's a picture of silhouettes of trees and doesn't illuminate the reader on this location. Tempshill 00:37, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Self-nomination. I'm nominating it because I just got my digital camera, I'm proud of this picture, and I want feedback on my photography so I can improve it. It's used on the Darlingtonia page, and maybe it could be used on the pages of it's broader classifications.
Support. Good lighting on this. If you have a picture of a closup of the 'fangs' you may want to add that to the Darlingtonia page too. Lorax 02:45, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
Comment - It's not exactly a bad picture, but it could be so much better. The plant on the far right is contrasted against a dark background, is (mostly) not blocked by other plants or leaf litter, and shows off the "fangs" well. This plant should be centered to take up the full height of the frame. Mackerm 21:32, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - small and strange composition. Lupin 18:44, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - the hieroglyphs take up under 25% of the picture area, and are broken. Looks like a pic to accompany an article about a site. Tempshill 00:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - the composition is indeed somewhat strange (the perspective makes the background figure look like it's standing on the foreground object), it's not immediately obvious that the image is meant to illustrate hieroglyphs, and the way the hieroglyphs are displayed isn't necessarily the best or most typical illustration of how they were used in practice. -- ChrisO 18:13, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It seems to me that this panorama falls short of brilliance, because of the mismatches where the composite images have been stitched together - this is particularly noticable where neighbouring capsules on the London Eye are visible, but also causes distortion to some of the buildings (Buckingham Palace is particularly affected). It's a nice image for illustrating the different ages of buildings in central London, but not, to my mind, "featured picture" standard. Perhaps splitting into a number of images would help? - MykReeve 23:44, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Needs to be removed from FP because 1) it's too dark (I don't see enough detail) and 2) no copyright status information. - Bevo 21:37, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The copyrightholder uploaded it himself, so I don't see the problem. The image itself is far from brilliant though. ✏ Sverdrup 14:48, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Is the lack of brilliance enough to justify delisting? - Bevo 18:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it's a particularly good image at all. Fredrik(talk) 18:49, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree with removal -- it's not an awful picture, but nothing about it is remarkably breath-taking, brilliant, or informative. Jwrosenzweig 19:52, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the removal, not a bad picture, but not that useful. Lorax 01:48, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
Would work better against a dark background. Wikipedia's light background makes it hard to see details. Fg2 08:47, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
agreed with the removal this is not a particuliar good pictures. : Chmouel 21:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
