Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Skip to: Table of contents | Current candidates | Decision time | More input needed | Suspended candidates | Candidates for delisting

Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria. If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the nomination for delisting section. For promotion, if an image is listed here for about seven days with four or more opinions in support (including the nominator), and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Note, however, that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. The archive contains all opinions and comments collected on this page, and also nomination results. If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons, to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well. To see recent changes, purge the page cache	Shortcuts: WP:FPC WP:FIC Featured content: Featured articles Featured pictures ← On Wikimedia Commons Featured lists Featured portals Featured topics Featured sounds Featured picture tools: Featured picture criteria Picture peer review Featured picture candidates Nomination procedure On Wikimedia Commons Featured pictures thumbs Featured picture archive Picture of the day Picture of the day archive
[edit] How to nominate [edit] Step 1 - Evaluate The submissions will be evaluated using the criteria listed on Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? Please read the criteria before submitting a picture to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of making it. If you are unsure if your picture will fulfill the criteria, or would like advice on improving your nomination, please consider adding it to Wikipedia:Picture peer review for initial assessment. If you find this process too complicated, see below. [edit] Step 2 - Create subpage Create a page to place the article on; this page needs to be a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. To create your own subpage, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the form below (for example Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button. [edit] Step 2.5 - Transclude and link Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (direct link). [edit] Step 3 - Update image On the nominated image's page use the 'Edit page' button to add the fpc template like so: {{FPC|title}}. This inserts the featured pictures candidate template, to let the original contributor and other interested parties know that the image is up for voting. [edit] Too complicated? If you are unable to follow the above procedure, add your image to Wikipedia:Picture peer review following the simpler instructions provided there. You can mention that you would like to submit it to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, but that you don't know how. If someone else deems it suitable, they will add it to FPC on your behalf. Alternatively you can request a regular FPC or PPR editor to submit an image on your behalf by contacting them on their talkpage. [edit] How to comment If you approve of a picture, write Support followed by your reasons. If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case. To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly. Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version. Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person. [edit] Editing candidates If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g. add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (eg, Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied. [edit] Is my monitor calibrated correctly? In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting. On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that on a LCD display (laptop or flat screen) the viewing angle strongly affects these images. Click on the images for more technical info.

Contents 1 How to nominate 1.1 Step 1 - Evaluate 1.2 Step 2 - Create subpage 1.2.1 Step 2.5 - Transclude and link 1.3 Step 3 - Update image 1.4 Too complicated? 2 How to comment 3 Editing candidates 4 Is my monitor calibrated correctly? 5 Current nominations 5.1 Iowa and Nebraska lands 5.2 Vancouver, BC dusk panorama 5.3 I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapse 5.4 Coca-Cola 5.5 LCAC 5.6 Magnifying glass 5.7 Table d'hôte menu 5.8 Harper's Ferry, 1862 5.9 American Tree Sparrow 5.10 Expansion plan of Gothenburg 5.11 Masculine Beauty 5.12 Pula Aerial View 5.13 Long Billed Corella Beak 5.14 Meadow Pipit 5.15 Port of Boston, 1876 5.16 First manned balloon flight 5.17 Antelope Canyon 5.18 Vancouver, BC night panorama 5.19 Girl with a Pearl Earring 5.20 Musa x paradisiaca flower 5.21 Hotel del Coronado 5.22 Grumman Bearcat 6 Nominations older than 7 days - decision time! 7 Older nominations requiring additional input from users 8 Suspended nominations 9 Closing procedure 10 Nominations for delisting 10.1 Long Beach, CA at night 11 Delist closing procedure

To see recent changes, purge the page cache

Your comments are also appreciated on images at Picture peer review.

[edit] Current nominations

[edit] Iowa and Nebraska lands

Original - Settlement of Nebraska and Iowa: a land offer from the Burlington and Missouri River Railroad, 1872.

Reason

Period advertisement from 1872 for land sales in Iowa and Nebraska. Clear large file articulates loan terms and settlement inducements offered by a railroad that engaged in land speculation. Restored version of Image:Iowa and Nebraska lands.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Burlington and Missouri River Railroad, History of Iowa, History of Nebraska

Creator

Burlington and Missouri River Railroad

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 23:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver, BC dusk panorama

Original A panorama of Vancouver, BC at dusk, viewed from the south with mountains behind. 20 stitched images

Reason

A sharp, 9000 pixel wide panorama showing off the downtown buildings, bridges and stadium of Vancouver, BC at dusk against the mountain setting of the city with illuminated ski runs.

Note this is to replace the earlier withdrawn nomination with a third and better version to reduce confusion, please re-vote.

Articles this image appears in

Vancouver, BC

Creator

Mfield, Matthew Field, http://www.photography.mattfield.com

• Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Absolutely stunning! Clegs (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. A beaut Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Boring composition, jpeg artifacts, blown areas....tsk tsk :D victorrocha (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Is the link to your website necessary on the creator field ? I much see this as a form of "free" advertisement, and I believe it's not welcomed here. Blieusong (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support great. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support better than the ones here. --Spencer^T♦C 20:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapse

Original - Cars that were on the I-35W Mississippi River bridge when it collapsed remain on the wreckage. They were numbered as part of the investigation.

Reason

Highly encyclopedic image showing a close-up of a modern disaster. This was chosen as one of the 12 most powerful photos of 2007 on ABC News online: [1]

Articles this image appears in

I-35W Mississippi River bridge

Creator

Kevin Rofidal, United States Coast Guard

• Support as nominator --howcheng {chat} 04:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coca-Cola

Original - An 1890s advertisement showing model Hilda Clark in formal 19th century attire drinking Coke. The ad is entitled Drink Coca-Cola 5¢.

Edit1

Edit2- WB adjustment

Reason

A very good image which does a good job of showing 19th century advertising.

Articles this image appears in

Coca-Cola, Hilda Clark

Creator

The Coca-Cola Company

Shall we begin again, then? MER-C 04:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Edit 2 Although it is slightly unauthentic as edit 2 vs edit 1 removes the yellowing of the image (presumably due to age) Edit 1 is just for lack of a better word ugly due to the yellow aging tint. Great work removing the #000000 spots btw. Cat-five - talk 04:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks. I need to clarify to anyone that I have the cleaned up image with the border if anyone prefers it. I was leaving the nomination suspended to get some feedback, sorry for the extra work MER-C. User:victorrocha (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1 It looks great now. I'm not sure about edit 2, though; I'd think the LOC has their scanners pretty well calibrated, and none of us has any idea how the original looked, so correcting the #000000 balance of a painting really is a shot in the dark, IMO. It's plausible the original painter chose a warm scheme on purpose. Thegreenj 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 Looks more natural. Nice job on the restoration. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LCAC

Original - A United States Navy LCAC hovercraft assigned to USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) as seen from the ship's binoculars.

Reason

It isn't easy to get a good photograph shooting through a binocular lens and this is quite a sight. It's the only photograph of this type on Wikipedia or Commons and it happens to be a view of an encyclopedic subject: a United States Navy LCAC hovercraft assigned to USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7). For reference, the type of binoculars used for this shot is Image:Navy binoculars.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7), Binoculars, Hovercraft

Creator

MC3 Michael Starkey

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, impressive shot through the binoculars with good detail on the subject. DoF is better than most shots of this kind, keeping the binocular eye cup acceptably clear (so we know what we're looking through). Could use more eels. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support for quality, EV, rarity. Very cool. Fletcher (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Very cool, very ENC, and very unique. Clegs (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Skepticism - I really doubt this is through binoculars. It looks much more like a porthole. 1) It is not round - I have never seen binoculars (or any optics set up) with non round lenses. 2) You can see a weld-point at left, suggesting the housing is metal. 3) The tube is in near focus throughout - intervening lenses would have to make some of that tube unfocused. 4) The tube is all dinged up with pits and scratches, not like a piece of optics built to fine enough tolerances to generate a universally sharp image like that. 5) there is lots of light hitting the inside of the binocular tube/porthole - since the focal distance for binoculars is very short (You have to put your head right up against them) - how can this much light be getting in with the camera sufficiently close? 6) That there is no blur, even on the outside of the "lens" challenges credibility. I've taken photos through binoculars before, and there is always blur. [2]. de Bivort 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Nominator linked to Image:Navy binoculars.jpg which appear to be heavy duty, metal binoculars mounted to a ship, which would explain their condition. I can't explain why it doesn't appear circular -- an optical illusion maybe? The lighting appears to have been extremely bright -- 1/500th second exposure at f/8, so there was plenty of daylight to illuminate the tube. Additionally, a porthole shot is unlikely, because you'd have to wait for the hovercraft to enter your field of view, and how would you even know you're stationed at the right porthole! It would have to be an extremely lucky shot. By contrast, the binocs can surely swivel on their mount. Lastly, and no offense, but a navy photog with a dSLR can likely take pictures you can't get with that Olympus P&S. I'd still be curious how he or she took it. Fletcher (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• The linked binoculars appear to have plastic eye pieces - they are smooth and without weld points. They cannot be the same as the tube we see here. Optical illusion taking a circle and rendering it as a rounded rectangle? Please... You could know which is the right porthole by looking over the rail - portholes are often built right into the gunwale of large ships look along the tires. As for the olympus shot vs DSLR, true, but with my new D20, I have found identical constraints shooting through both binoculars and microscopes. other military photos too. Honestly, there is no way the microscope or binocular housing can be in focus while the subject is also in focus. The light paths through the lenses don't work that way. look a the light path and tell me how the entire length of the tube could be uniformly in focus. de Bivort 18:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hehe - I know exactly what's going on here. Through the porthole you can see wake preceeding the hovercraft. This is because LHD 7 has a stern loading bay for hover craft. Take a look at this military blog and this image. The aft rail of the ship, the one with the obvious shot of the approaching hover craft has portholes that are easily visible in that photo! They even are of the correct shape! de Bivort 19:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Plausible... I wasn't too convinced by your tugboat image, as the Iwo Jima doesn't seem to have portholes on the gunnel like that, but it looks like it does have them on the stern.Fletcher (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• conditional support if it is removed from binoculars article. de Bivort 19:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I also share doubts that it is taken through binoculars... and even if it were, I don't see the encyclopaedic value of a photo of a hovercraft taken through binoculars. ;-) To me, the housing of whatever it is we're looking through is simply a distraction, in the same way that artificially introduced vignetting is a distraction. The actual image of the hovercraft is quite good, but to crop the image to remove the 'binoculars' would make the resulting framing too tight. I just don't think it works particularly well as an encyclopaedic photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• FWIW I thought about the hole as a distraction, but ended up thinking that it was good for this image, since it shows a view of the craft from its "mother ship", kind of uniting the two ships into a single system. Not bad since it illustrates both the hovercraft and LHD 7 articles. Admittedly, a steady shot from a third ship along side the landing scene would probably be better. de Bivort 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced.. I agree that the concept you mentioned is a good idea, but surely a view that actually shows the "mother ship" as something more than an out of focus, unidentifiable metallic frame around the main subject would be better. I don't think that this particular photo gains anything from this composition. Even just a photo from an elevated position (such as the control room maybe?) looking down at the stern of the ship toward the hovercraft would be far better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think it should be removed from the binoculars page; it's the only example of looking through a pair of binoculars there. Also, what if there's no lens at all? Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if it's not actually through binoculars, that might be a reason to remove it from the binoculars page. :-) Fletcher (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Is this about binoculars a joke? Permit me to doubt that this is shot through binoculars. I've made such shots myself, but they never turn out as sharp as this one - there has always been some chromatic aberration, as well as loss of focus at the edges of the image. Furthermore, the source page states: A landing craft air cushion assigned to Assault Craft Unit 4 approaches the multipurpose amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) while under way in the Atlantic Ocean July 8, 2008. The Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group is conducting a composite unit training exercise, which provides a realistic training environment to ensure the strike group’s deployment capabilities and readiness. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Michael Starkey/Released) - nothing at all about binoculars! To me, it looks like it is shot through one of those cast iron holes (er, the hole is in the casting, to be precise) used for passing ropes through (I don't know the proper term for it, sorry...) You can even see raised lettering typical of cast iron items in the upper left corner... --Janke | Talk 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment To the doubters, I respect your concerns. U.S. Navy "big eyes" binoculars have removable synthetic rubber facial cushions. Those were removed for this particular shot and were installed for the other featured picture of the binoculars. And yes, "big eyes" viewpieces do have this shape. If any doubts remain, please contact the webmaster at DefenseImagery.mil. It's an official U.S. Government website and the armed forces policies restricting image manipulation are extremely strict. Editors who know my professional experience may trust my word (and it does relate directly to these concerns), yet for the rest of FPC voters--the horse's mouth is a few clicks from the source link. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 21:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't the text on the image source page state it is a shot through binoculars? Is it just an assumption, or can you point us to a reference saying it is, please? If so, I'll retract my doubt... --Janke | Talk 21:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the right eyepiece; note the ergonomic shape of the border. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not enough for me - please note the perspective of the hovercraft - if shot through binoculars, there should not be as strong a convergence between the lines of the left and right edges (draw the lines) - you'd expect the typical "crunched" perspective of a long tele lens... Interesting, though - and in fact, I'd like to be proved wrong on this ... ;-) --Janke | Talk 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps my recollection fails me. It's been a few years since I served. Will check this out at oh-dark-thirty; the office is probably on East Coast time. ;) Durova^Charge! 22:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the logic Janke has used here. And in addition to the issue of a relatively wide perspective (consider also how far below the horizon the hovercraft is. Either the ship is extremely tall and you are looking through 20x magnification telephoto binoculars, or the ship is just pretty close to the hovercraft, which seems more likely to me), I imagine that if you were to take a photo directly into the binocular eyepiece, you would have to do it from very close up, in much the same way as a human viewer does. And if you were to take it from close up, the frame of the eyepiece would be far more out of focus than it is in this shot. This is purely intuitive, but from my experience, with an aperture of f/8, focal length of 24mm and with that degree of out-of-focus-blur, I would imagine that the photographer was half a metre or more away from the eyepiece/port hole/whatever it was. So as I said, intuitively, to me, it just doesn't make sense to be binoculars. Oh, and I had a quick look on Flickr for images of the stern of the Wasp class, and I didn't find any close ups with good detail, but this was probably the best of the ones I did find, and there are some suspiciously similar looking port holes that could well be what the photographer shot through. Just a thought anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The DOF isn't a problem for me - you can adjust binoculars so that the plane of focus is almost anywhere - even close to the eyepiece! Scrutinizing the image closely, there's one thing that points to a glassed-in hole (maybe even lensed-in...), i.e. not a rope hole as I originally assumed: at top right, there is a smudge in the image that couldn't be hanging in mid-air, and there are a few circular out-of focus smudges in the image itself - more out-of-focus than the edge of the oval... This is very interesting - maybe I'm wrong and it is a binocular image after all? Amazing aberration-free quality, in that case. Proof, please! ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that smudges could just as easily be water droplets on the camera lens itself, though. I've got many photos taken in the rain with somewhat similar smudges. And the DOF may not be a problem (not having had any experience taking photos through binoculars, I must admit), but surely the vertical angle that the photo was taken from should be as I mentioned above. It just seems an implausibly steep angle for such high magnification (large distance to subject and steep angle = very high camera location). And that, combined with the perspective of the hovercraft, points towards the photo being directly photographed. But I suppose we're best off waiting for Durova's proof! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we'll have to wait. Interesting, in any case! --Janke | Talk 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I found this image which is far more high res and has some almost identically shaped slightly oblong portholes at the stern just like the one in this nomination. I'm almost positive this is what was shot through - not the binoculars... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magnifying glass

Original - A stamp under the examination of a magnifying glass

Reason

This picture adds signifigantly to the article by showing the effect of a magnifying glass on a smaller object. This images orginates from the commons, and is already featured there.

Articles this image appears in

Magnifying glass

Creator

Heptagon (Commons user)

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support Fascinating composition. Is it possible to get a better focus on the stamp? Durova^Charge! 03:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think it's great as the lead image in magnifying glass, but would perhaps have higher EV in stamp collecting and/or philately. --jjron (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• This could have great use at Postage stamps and postal history of Germany. Spencer^T♦C 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support as long as it goes on the stamp collecting or philately or postage stamp page(s), like jjron said. but it does give some value to magnifying glass by showing how one works Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Here is an image of the stamp in question. Spencer^T♦C 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table d'hôte menu

Original - Gilded age philanthropy: a table d'hôte dinner menu from March 4, 1893 for a meal in honor of symphony conductor Walter Johannes Damrosch.

Reason

A period cultural document of some artistic merit in a high resolution file. Contains the signature of symphony conductor Walter Johannes Damrosch. Shows the basic elements of a table d'hôte menu and demonstrates the opulent philanthropy of the Gilded Age.

Articles this image appears in

Table d'hôte, Walter Johannes Damrosch, Gilded Age

Creator

unknown (illegible)

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Great! Makes me hungry! Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support very interesting. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-25 12:53Z
• Support, but the image's usage in Walter Johannes Damrosch is pretty weak. I would suggest cropping out everything but Damrosch's signature if you wanted to use it there. Spencer^T♦C 22:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harper's Ferry, 1862

Original - The Battle of Harper's Ferry, September 14-15, 1862. Restored original manuscript from the Union Army.

Reason

An original Union Army manuscript map of the army positions for the Battle of Harper's Ferry, September 14-15, 1862. Restored version of Image:Attack on Harper's Ferry.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Battle of Harpers Ferry, Robert Knox Sneden

Creator

Robert Knox Sneden

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 18:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I think this image should be either more cropped or less. The map was pasted into a diary, and the same handwriting as the purple caption is present in the borders that were cropped out. Was Robert Knox Sneden the creator of the map, or did he just collect and annotate it? If the latter, it might be better to crop to the #FFFFFF lines. If the former (which it looks like from the hand), I think more the page should be kept, including the different top caption, the page number, and the cross-reference. There should also be a link to whatever is on page 1072, if at all possible.--ragesoss (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sigh, I was a little concerned that someone might head in that direction, but expected I'd have time to create Robert Knox Sneden and didn't anticipate a comment so soon that went so far. Private Sneden organized his diary after the war. It is over 5000 pages long, more than 4500 of which are text. I have located digitizations for most of the illustrations but for none of text pages, and to the best of my knowledge the principal text has never been published. He was a mapmaker for the Union Army. There are several ways an image such as this one could be restored and my intention is to get as close as possible to the appearance of the document when it was newly created. My hope is that for a moment the viewer of this image can imagine himself or herself in the uniform of a Union colonel, holding the field map in hand, and comparing it to the campfires from the enemy army on the other hill. That is why I cropped its proportions very close to the original paper dimensions and discarded the later diary notes that added very little direct value to the image (just a page reference and a rephrasing of the caption). Your suggestions would be very appropriate if this FPC called Diary of an American Civil War soldier, but that image would appear at different articles and I would probably select a different page for that. Durova^Charge! 19:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The cross references makes it seem like page 1072 is another image, but if it's just text then that's that. A bit more context would be helpful on the description page. I think the bottom caption should be cropped or cloned out if you want it to be close to the original map, since it looks like that caption was added after the map was originally created (but maybe before it went into the diary). This is just my suggestion, but if you feel strongly about that I don't think it's a huge problem.--ragesoss (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I got a little tiny start into the page. Will expand it in a few hours. Durova^Charge! 20:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Tree Sparrow

Original - An American Tree Sparrow (Spizella arborea) is a medium-sized sparrow. It has a rusty cap and gray underparts with a small dark spot on its breast, a rusty back with lighter stripes, brown wings with #000000 bars, a gray face with a rusty line through the eye, and flanks splashed with light brown.

Edit 1 by Fir0002 - NR

Edit 2 by Arad - NR & Contrast Correction.

Reason

The image is high quality, encyclopedic, and informative. It is already a Featured Picture on the German Wikipedia. And, well, it's cute.

Articles this image appears in

American Tree Sparrow, List of Kansas birds, List of New Jersey birds, List of Iowa birds

Creator

Mdf

• Support as nominator --NauticaShades 03:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Edits 1 and 2. Too much detail is lost during noise reduction. I would, however, support a color corrected but not noise removed edit. NauticaShades 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support !vote updated I think the DOF and size are just about sufficient, otherwise it's perfect! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support nice, excellent lighting and very enc. Mfield (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Very strong oppose to either edit--ruined a lovely picture, one of my favorites of all the FPN lately. All the usual, but it's also cute as all. --Blechnic (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Does the strike-through mean you've withdrawn your support from the original? NauticaShades 15:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I strongly support the original only, repeat: no support for edits. No, I love the original, it is gorgeous, and enlarged it includes lovely soft belly feathers of the bird. God alone (pick your deity) knows why anyone wants to ruin a gorgeous picture, though, and I don't want any mistakes made that include anyone thinking I support crapping up this fine image of an American tree sparrow. What a waste to readers who could come and get a lovely image to have it replaced with so something much lesser. --Blechnic (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support excellent detail. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-22 13:12Z
• Support good choice. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 Per above - surprised now one pointed out/fixed noise before me... --Fir0002 12:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 Very good photo. But I thought a better noise reduction was needed + a touch on the colors and contrast. --Arad (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 Edit 1+Original not enough lighting in my opinion. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 16:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• oppose - this bird is fat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairyholebutt (talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 July 2008
  • User's second ever edit. NauticaShades 21:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support original, oppose edits 1 and 2. I think the noise is acceptable; the edits are losing detail on the belly of the bird. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)(UTC)

• Comment - The belly of the bird was 90% noise. I thought that too, that we are losing detail. However this is not true, we're loosing noise. There is actually barely any detail on the belly. I agree however that it's now soft. Which is another point. And is an acceptable one. --Arad (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nah. To my eyes, the edits do create an unnatural edge between the belly and the rest of the feathers. I can't convince myself that that's what we should be aiming for, regardless what we believe about how much of the belly is noise. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say good eye, Papa Lima Whiskey, but it's so obvious I can't understand why no one else sees it. The edits create a horrid "unnatural edge between the belly and the rest of the feathers," and lose all of the detail of the belly feathers of the original. It's awful. --Blechnic (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support original Very sparrow-like. The edits look strange with the high contrast around the eyes and the glow in edit 2. Narayanese (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've redone my edit with more careful masking which should allay people's concerns - and frankly it would be plain stupid IMO to promote an image with easily fixable noise issues!! --Fir0002 09:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Better, but still blurring the edges of the bird. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion plan of Gothenburg

Original - A copy from 1871 of the original proposal to Gothenburg's expansion from 1864, with avenues, boulevards, parks, and monumental architecture.

Reason

High resolution map of the expansion plan of Gothenburg, very high encyclopedic value despite the fact that all text is in Swedish. Many, if not all of, the buildings and areas in this map which are written out have articles in the english wikipedia.

Articles this image appears in

Gothenburg, History of Gothenburg, and Kungsportsavenyn.

Creator

Creator is not credited by any source I know of.

• Support as nominator --Krm500 (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose because it's really just a decent scan of an old map. It isn't really that exciting in itself just for being old , else we'd be having every scanned in old document featured. Mfield (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's just not an old map, it's a quite unique expansion plan. It is the best preserved unvarying area of 1870–1920 urban planning ideals and architecture in Sweden, maybe even in Europe. --Krm500 (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I can see its high encyclopedic value, but it's torn in some places (I think), and it looks like someone spilled an entire coffeepot on it, especially in the upper right hand corner. the faded text also detracts from the value. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Faded text? If it help I have it in higher resolution, but the original file is too large for browsers to open I think, and users with low bandwith would have huge troubles viewing it. --Krm500 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    • If it's under 20MB, upload it, and see if anyone at the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab can help restore it. Thegreenj 22:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Definite encyclopedic value. Unfortunately time has not been kind to this map. The decomposition has not been too extensive in the essential locations, so a restoration would be possible (although it would be laborious) but this particular scan is not high enough resolution. The inscription below and to the right of the title is too pixelated to be very legible and the lines outlining the city blocks are incomplete. This is probably a shortcoming of the scanner settings, not of the map itself. So if a better scan is available I would gladly share restoration tips with the nominator and possibly assist with the work. Durova^Charge! 04:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Masculine Beauty

Original - "Now then, Mossoo, your Form is of the Manliest Beauty, and you are altogether a most attractive Object; but you've stood there long enough. So jump in and have done with it!" - Cartoon by noted comic artist George du Maurier for the illustrated weekly, Punch.

Reason

I believe this is the only good-quality scan of a cartoon from this notable British artist that we have.

Articles this image appears in

George du Maurier, Swimsuit, Physical attractiveness, Sea bathing. It is also a gallery image in Victorian fashion.

Creator

George du Maurier

• Support as co-nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support as co-nominator Durova^Charge! 22:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support -- good encyclopedic value, nice, clean copy, entertaining cartoon, good example of a noted artist's style. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Another one I'm going to have to print out. This is just like me getting in the water. Fletcher (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pula Aerial View

Original - Aerial view of Pula, Croatia

Reason

The best photo of Pula, Croatia that Wikipedia can use

Caption

Aerial view of Pula, Croatia

Articles this image appears in

Pula

Creator

Orlovic

• Support as nominator --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jpeg artifacts, not very sharp, possibly oversaturated colours... Very nice view, but not the best quality photo technically. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Diliff, it may be the best photo of Pula we have, but its not the best aerial photo of a city, and that's the benchmark. Mfield (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose What they said. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought exceptional quality was an issue on commons, and here just encyclopedic value ;( --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You'd best read up Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria then. In some ways, we're a lot harder on images because we need both encyclopaedic value and technical quality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Valued images? Might be appropriate for that, if it has materialized. de Bivort 20:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC

I believe it's commons only. Here's the link, though. NauticaShades 21:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I nominated it here. NauticaShades 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For completeness: TFG is partly correct, our resolution requirement is lower than that on Commons. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To be pedantic, TFG is completely incorrect, since he was under the impression that we were just looking for encyclopaedic value. Just because we have lower res requirements, it doesn't mean we don't have res requirements at all. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To be pedantic, I prefer to say he is somewhat correct over saying he is mostly wrong. Just a matter of courtesy. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Then you're not being pedantic, you've delibrately glossed over the original point, which was that he misunderstood our FPC requirements, in order to be courteous. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, my logic is just different from yours. There are several ways to decompose his statement, and yours is just one of them. But that plurality would have been intolerable to you, I really should have known, having interacted with you in this same style on several occasions. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• oh my gosh it doesn't really matter. the confusion has been clarified; no need for more discussion. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long Billed Corella Beak

Original - The long #000000 beak of a Long-billed Corella (Cacatua (Licmetis) tenuirostris) is used to dig for roots and seeds.

Reason

Great quality. Already successfully nominated a picture of the whole bird, however this one serves a different purpose, demonstrating beak structure. This image also provides greater detail for the most important part of the bird for identification purposes.

Articles this image appears in

Beak, Long-billed Corella

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support It's a great pic, but is it my eyes (from the #000000), or are the feathers south-west of his eye VERY blurry? Dengero (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment existing FP of exactly the same subject, by same creator. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Absolute Oppose This picture is already an fp. Rj1020 (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose existing FP covers the apparent subject/focus of this image adequately already. Mfield (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - a crop of a FP is not a new FP. pschemp | talk 13:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think it's a crop, but still. Fletcher (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose since its a crop of another FP. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 16:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The other FP already does a very good job of illustrating this. Clegs (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. FWIW and in the interests of fairness, this is neither an existing FP nor a crop of the existing FP, even if it is clearly taken at the same time and is almost certainly the same bird. --jjron (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meadow Pipit

Original - Meadow Pipit photographed in Northumberland in April 2008

Edited version:Scaled, noise reduced, sharpened version

<