Wikipedia:FPC.html
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 


Skip to current 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 picture tools:

How to nominate

Step 1 - Evaluate

The submissions will be evaluated using the criteria listed on Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? Please read the criteria before submitting a picture to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of making it. If you are unsure if your picture will fulfill the criteria, or would like advice on improving your nomination, please consider adding it to Wikipedia:Picture peer review for initial assessment. If you find this process too complicated, see below.

Step 2 - Create subpage

Create a page to place the image on; this page needs to be a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. To create your own subpage, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the form below (for example Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.

Step 2.5 - Transclude and link

Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (direct link).

Step 3 - Update image

On the nominated image's page use the 'Edit page' button to add the fpc template like so: {{FPC|title}}. This inserts the featured pictures candidate template, to let the original contributor and other interested parties know that the image is up for voting.

Too complicated?

If you are unable to follow the above procedure, add your image to Wikipedia:Picture peer review following the simpler instructions provided there. You can mention that you would like to submit it to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, but that you don't know how. If someone else deems it suitable, they will add it to FPC on your behalf. Alternatively you can request a regular FPC or PPR editor to submit an image on your behalf by contacting them on their talkpage.


How to comment

  • If you approve of a picture, write Support followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image.
  • If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.

Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version.

Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.

Editing candidates

If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g. add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (eg, Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied.

Is my monitor calibrated correctly?

In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.

On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background.

Note that on a LCD display (laptop or flat screen) the viewing angle strongly affects these images. Click on the images for more technical information.

Contents


To see recent changes, purge the page cache
Your comments are also appreciated at Picture peer review and at Valued picture candidates.

Current nominations

Sydney Skyline at dusk

Original - Sydney's skyline as viewed south across the harbour from Kirribilli at dusk. The Sydney Opera House is visible on the far left.
Reason
Shows the skyline of Sydney in an encyclopaedic and visually pleasing way. It is currently the lead image in the Sydney article.
Articles this image appears in
Sydney
Creator
User:Diliff




Homelessness

Original - A homeless man in Paris, June 2005
Reason
Found this while preparing the Commons POTY 2008 - this was second place in 2006, and was so powerful that I had to bring it over here a bit more. It is a little under size, but I think that its power is sufficient that we should consider it.
Articles this image appears in
Poverty in France, newly added to Homelessness
Creator
Eric Pouhier





Columba livia

Original - The Rock Pigeon, Columba livia.
Reason
Good technical quality, excllent EV, though the image is of relatively low resolution. It is an FP on Commons.
Articles this image appears in
Rock Pigeon
Creator
Dori
  • Support as nominator --Elucidate (light up) 17:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm undecided. My gut feeling is that it doesn't show enough of the bird. This is an extremely common animal - probably the most visible and plentiful bird (in cities, at least) in the world, and I would imagine we should be able to get a similar quality image of the entire bird, not just the head. That said, we did recently feature the head of a rooster... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)




Technical Drawing of Historical Hot Air Balloon Designs

Original - Technical illustration showing early balloon designs: "Lana's aeronautic machine," "Montgolfiers' balloon," "Blanchard's balloon," "Garnerin ascending [and] descending" in his parachute, the "Charles & Roberts' balloon" being inflated, the "form of the wings employed by Lunardi," and the "form of the wings employed by Blanchard."
Edit - colour redone based on the original LOC scans; some additional cleanup.
Reason
High quality LOC scan of the state of aeronautics and hot air ballooning in 1818. Displays many different versions of hot air balloons of the time, many of which are quite fascinating. I admittedly just added it to the Hot air balloon article, where it definitely belongs. I found it at the Wikipedia for Schools site interestingly enough.
Articles this image appears in
Timeline of aviation - 19th century, History of ballooning, Hot air balloon
Creator
Ambrose William Warren, 1781?-1856, engraver. (Uploaded by Bubamara and CarolSpears it seems)
  • Support as nominator --ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to the image page the creator is "Warren, Ambrose William, 1781?-1856, engraver". You've listed the uploaders. Have made a change above in the nom. --jjron (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Good find. Perhaps an adjustment to the color balance would be in order? Highlights are deficient in blue. DurovaCharge! 21:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Request brief suspension - I'd like to have a go on an edit. There's some tricks you can do with engraving scans of this sort that will help this one a lot. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Endorse Shoemaker's request Shoemaker's our best restorationist of engravings. It'd be fascinating to see what he does with this. DurovaCharge! 18:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Support alternate. Good job. DurovaCharge! 15:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Suspended pending Shoemaker's edit Noodle snacks (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Done - Right. Done. I'll put this back up at the top of the page. I think that's right? Feel free to critique the colour - I have an LCD monitor, so colour is a bit angle-dependent, which can make precise matching a bit difficult. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the effort - I'm not really a graphical editor. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 16:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
      • No worries! It's one of those things that's not really all that hard if you know what you're doing, but the trick is learning what you're doing in the first place. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I've had a look at both the original and the edit and I'm finding it hard to notice any significant difference, other than the greater contrast/higher black point value. Durova mentioned that she thought the blue channel was deficient and looking at the histogram, it is. But correcting this would make the background a neutral light grey. I assume this is not what you intended to do. If anything, I see a greater deviation on the green channel in the edit, but to the eye, the colour is extremely similar - just a bit darker. Also, I'm curious about what exactly you tried to achieve in the edit as it doesn't seem explained here or on the image page. As I know very little about the technicalities of etchings/engravings, I wouldn't know what makes a good or a bad restoration of one. Given the paper has no doubt become faded/stained over the years, do you aim to restore it to as-close-as-new, or do you accept the colour of the scan but merely remove blemishes to the detail? Why do you trust the colour balance of the LOC version? Without knowing the answers to these restoration questions, I'd find it hard to judge this nomination and the two images beyond the artistic/historic value. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a few different things I'm trying to achieve:
  1. Firstly, ink should look reasonably black: Grey ink has a tendency to look "blurry", as the eye instinctively expects it to be black, and presumes deviance is from the black being blurred. I've almost never had reason to regret this trick.
  2. The paper should be a reasonably-natural looking colour. It doesn't need to be a pristine white - that's very easy to generate from something like this for printing, anyway - just drop saturation and tweak the whitepoint - but it should look believably like paper. The old version didn't look quite natural, with regard to colour. I tried a few things, and in the end thought that matching the LOC scan showed a pleasantly-non-distracting sign of age - something I try to leave in my images. Of course, had I been working from a non-historic original, e.g. a modern reprint, or thought it likely this one would be used for printing (you do NOT fake paper texture when printing), I'd have immediately removed all paper texture and set the background paper as a pure white. In my experience, desaturating to greyscale looks ugly - it gives far too "cool" of colours to look natural - and requires you to either nearly or completely make the background white. But this image with a white background is already available. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. There's a few minor bits of cleanup I did that were missed in the original. None were hugely visible - but they annoyed me.
I hope that helps. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, thanks for the explanation. I guess what confused me was that if this was an image of an engraving, then the paper that it was printed on would not be relevant like it would be if it were an actual historical document. I'm also confused about whether this particular print is of historical importance. Is the original etching still around or is this print all we have left? If the original etching is still around, would a modern re-print be preferable to this restoration of an old print? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • While I'm at it, I'll Support my edit. Hey, why not? =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support alternative Great job on the restoration. Elucidate (light up) 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)




Brooklyn, 1879

Original - Currier and Ives chromolithograph of Brooklyn, 1879.
Reason
Detailed chromolithograph of Brooklyn, New York as it appeared during the late nineteenth century. Individual storefronts by the docks are legibly named. Restored version of File:Currier & Ives Brooklyn.jpg (very high resolution).
Articles this image appears in
History of Brooklyn
Creator
Currier and Ives
  • Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 03:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Yet another excellent restoration. A good historical image with great EV. Elucidate (light up) 18:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support People think they know Brooklyn, this is what went before.. GerardM (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)





Original Pages of the U.S. Constitution.

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4
Reason
(First nom and Second nom of the first page, which is currently featured.)The first page was linked in relation to Nixon's resignation letter, and I thought, "why just the first page?" Featured sets seem to have come back in to the vogue recently, so I'm giving all four pages a shot at becoming one. They seem as large, clear, and important as the first.

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. It provides the framework for the organization of the United States Government. The document defines the three main branches of the government: The legislative branch with a bicameral Congress, an executive branch led by the President, and a judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court. Besides providing for the organization of these branches, the Constitution carefully outlines which powers each branch may exercise. It also reserves numerous rights for the individual states, thereby establishing the United States' federal system of government. It is the shortest and oldest written constitution of any major sovereign state.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles this image appears in
United States Constitution
Creator
U.S. Government; uploaded by User:Keeleysam
  • Support as nominator --HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. DurovaCharge! 03:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Speaking of which, per the discussion that arose on the Nixon resignation letter nom, let's start a FPC/Discussion conversation about standards for documents as featured pictures. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Well, the nom just about covered everything I could have said... Definite support. Elucidate (light up) 18:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Support Historic material ... really important. GerardM (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


Tuskegee airman

Original - Portrait of Tuskegee airman Edward M. Thomas by photographer Toni Frissell, March 1945.
Reason
The Tuskegee Airmen were the first African-American pilots in United States military history; they flew with distinction during World War II. Portrait of one of the airmen by notable photographer Toni Frissell, the official photographer of the Women's Army Corps. Restored version of File:Tuskegee airman.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
Tuskegee Airmen, Toni Frissell, Military history of African Americans
Creator
Toni Frissell
  • Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going to commit blasphemy against Toni Frissell by suggesting that the photo be cropped for ENC purposes. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support a great restoration, a relevant subject. GerardM (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)




Erythrism in a katydid

Original - Katydid with erythrism, a rare mutation believed to help some members of a species to survive on certain flowers.
Reason
Intriguing shot of a rare condition: erythrism in katydids. Good quality; reasonably high resolution. Erythrism in katydids cannot be adequately explained without a picture.
Articles this image appears in
Erythrism, Katydid
Creator
Flickr user ricmcarthur
  • Support as nominator --AxelBoldt (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Regretful oppose High enc does not outweigh a cut-off subject that's not as sharp as we're used to.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Regretful oppose similar to HereToHelp's opinion, but it looks more like a too-shallow depth of field. Might be ok with focus on the insect's head, but it's on the creature's thorax. Can't quite understand why. Also cut-off leg. Sadly opposing despite high EV and good contrast otherwise. DurovaCharge! 21:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, The author would have gotten much more in focus if he was side on to the bug. I'd nominate it at WP:VPC though. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)




Burned mobile home neighborhood in Sylmar, California

Original - The remains of Oakridge Mobile Home Park in Sylmar, California. 480 of the park's 600 mobile homes were burned in the Sayre Fire in November 2008.
Edit 1 - Fixed tiltdubious – discuss, sharpen
Reason
The image was taken a few days after the Sayre Fire in November 2008. There were a lot of reports in the local news about the site, as it lost almost all the homes in the park. The area was deemed a crime scene by the LAPD, and the public were not permitted access. This is one of the few free images that exist of the area. Although the image is a bit cluttered, what with all the burned rubble, I believe it is of encyclopedic value and that it meets the FPC criteria, but then I'm no image wiz. <shrug> This is my first PFC, so be kind :)
Articles this image appears in
Sayre Fire, Sylmar, Los Angeles, California
Creator
Michael Mancino
  • Support as nominator --Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - For now. Good EV and aesthetically nice, need to see it in better detail later. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 20:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Query - Does anyone else find this kind of similar to this FP? ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 01:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone fix the epic tilt? Noodle snacks (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not convince that it's tilted, Noodle snacks. Sylmar is at the northwestern end of the San Fernando Valley and abuts the mountains. Basically it's built on alluvial fans. DurovaCharge! 03:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I was looking at the building verticals and some of the conifers in the background, which generally have straight trunks. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I initially thought the was tilted, too; however, if you zoom in and look at the one remaining trailer home, the walls surrounding it and the flat-bed tow truck, you'll see they are all straight and their lines are parallel with the edges of the image. The trees and surviving houses in the background do look tilted but I think this is more to do with how the land lies. Also, the worker standing in front of the truck, although bending at the waist slightly, his legs are also in line with the edge of the image. I would imagine the man would not lean lean backwards and then bend forwards as it would be an unnatural stance. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I think it was suffering some distortion which I made some edit to correct as well. Anyway, attached is an edit for someone else to decide on :D. The fix does eat some stuff out of the frame though Noodle snacks (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)



Soviet Wehrmacht Soldier

Original - A Soviet member of the German Wehrmacht, fighting in the southern Soviet Union in January 1943.
Alternative 1 - higher res.
Reason
This image meets most of the criteria outright. Although "small" (not 1,000px²), the image has a good composition and I did some work to get rid of major scratches. This is one of the better quality images donated by the Bundesarchive to Wikipedia Commons. The image is historic and so I know that a number of images have been passed without meeting the minimum resolution requirements given their historic value. As if to underscore the historic value of the image, this image is fairly popular in published books; this is a well known image to WWII Eastern Front historians. This is amongst Wikipedia's best work relative to the subject it represents; the photograph cannot be retaken, and there are few images available for Wikipedia on Russians who fought for the German Army during the Second World War. It has a free license, adds values to three articles (insofar) and is accurate.
Articles this image appears in
Wehrmacht, Russian Liberation Army, Heer (1935–1945)
Creator
Waidelich; retouched by Catalan
  • Support as nominator --JonCatalán(Talk) 18:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note -- I tried increasing the resolution. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Spiffing. 82.0.93.62 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • oppose interesting composition and subject. The image quality is low though - it has lots of compression artifacts. There is no way to "increase resolution" without going to the original data or negative. de Bivort 20:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I know, but I was hoping that the historical value of the image would supersede the obvious lack in image quality given the conditions the image was taken in and who the picture was taken by. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The issue with the image quality is not something relating to the conditions the image was taken in. It is a digital reproduction issue. Also, you can't just 'upsample' the image to 1000 pixels to make it through FPC. The alternative image looks fairly awful as a result. The original film/print would have far higher quality than this. Whether it is obtainable, I don't know, but this version will not pass at this res, IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note. In that case, withdraw the nomination. :) JonCatalán(Talk) 22:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, it is a pretty good photo. Only the size and image quality stop me from wholeheartedly supporting it. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Regretful oppose for technical reasons. The type of image I call a heartbreaker during archival searches: encyclopedic, interesting composition, but just too short on technical specs to consider for featured picture candidacy. Keep up the good work and do continue searching, please. Historic FPs are rare finds, even with restoration. About 1 in 1000 has the right stuff. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)




Crazy old Mariners and the Engravers that love to illustrate Dante

Original - Original - Charon, from Dante's Divine Comedy, as depicted by Gustave Doré.
Reason
Gustave Doré was a major engraver - usually considered amongst the masters of the craft - and this particular engraving is dramatic and very nicely composed. Even at this tiny 250px size, it's dramatic and interesting, at full size, it is spectacular.
Articles this image appears in
Charon (mythology), Gustave Doré.
Creator
Gustave Doré
  • Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: You may recognise this: It's an image I nominated a while ago but withdrew, for reasons happily no longer relevant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • comment What about a featured set of the Dore Inferno images? de Bivort 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • 75 images might be an excessively large set, and I'd have to make sure every single one was used somewhere. Might not be practical. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I would support making a featured set of all the images that are used, assuming they are all of high quality. Also, I don't think an image set could be too large, at least not with 75 images. de Bivort 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The detail on the cliffs and water is nice, but it's rally incredible how anatomically detailed Charon is. Featured sets generally need to be complete. Theoretically, if there are a finite number of images, they all belong. But with 75 images (some may not be as good as this), I don't think that's possible. Besides, each image is worthy in it's own right. (Sets were made when one image was marginal, but the set was overwhelming. The tumbler locks are such a case - one image alone might not be approved.) So maybe keep a list of other Dore´ images on hand in a template, and perhaps group them on a subpage. But I don't think a list is called for. --HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • How is 75 images not "possible" - a page with an array of 9x8 or 10x7 or 12x6 images... seems straightforward enough. de Bivort 04:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
But on what page? Generally, it's preferred that such galleries are on Commons instead. One possibility might be to do a page on the art itself, as with the William Hogarth subpages, but we'd need some good sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Featured sets are a demotion; a crutch used for images that aren't good enough on their own. What we've seen has been excellent; this image is worthy in its own right. By "not possible," I was expressing doubt that all 75 images could be restored to the technical quality of this one, and have intrinsic artistic value as to match this one. (Even a master has his share of works that just didn't come out as good as the others.) That said, you're welcome to prove me wrong.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
All are pretty good, but some have decidedly more "Wow" than others, and there's also some other problems, e.g. Do we want to feature two pictures of Francesca di Rimini in the storm of souls, or is one enough? What about the three images devoted to Ugolino's story of being trapped in a cell with his family without food or water, and eventually being driven to cannibalism after begged to mercy-kill them, and left alone? (We could, actually - all three are very high-quality, but they're also a very understated and subtle tryptich, relying on the changes between the images to provide a sympathetic picture of the poor fellow, not gory scenes from a cannibal feast. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Those three could make a good set, especially if all three were good but not quite excellent.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)





White Pelican

Original - White Pelican (Pelecanus onocrotalus) swimming in St James's Park
Edit 1 Recovering some shadow and overall detail
Reason
This image is sharp, clearly shows the shape of a white pelican swimming, and has beautiful reflections off of the water.
Articles this image appears in
White Pelican
Creator
Dakoman
  • Support as nominator --Dakoman (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per peer review Noodle snacks (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support either Good clear view of the pelican and beautiful lighting. Fletcher (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support either per the above comments. DurovaCharge! 02:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support either I wish I had light like that available everyday... A beautiful image.<sigh> Elucidate (light up) 18:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)




Construction at Mount Rushmore

Original - Construction on the George Washington portrait at Mount Rushmore, c. 1932.
Reason
A high resolution historic photograph of George Washington's portrait in the making during the construction of Mount Rushmore. Restored version of File:Mount Rushmore unrestored.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
Construction of Mount Rushmore, George Washington, George Washington's legacy
Creator
Rise Studio, Rapid City, S. Dak.
  • Support as nominator --DurovaCharge! 02:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Now this is a piece of history. Good restoration, phenomenal Ev. Elucidate (light up) 18:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)




Beck's Mill

Original - Beck's Mill before restoration
Reason
Depicts an 19th century grain mill that has seen better days and has been neglected.
Articles this image appears in
Beck's Mill, also used in two featured portal
Creator
Bedford
  • Support as nominator --King Bedford I Seek his grace 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - It's aesthetically okay, but at 100% I'm not enjoying the composition. Without the EV I probably wouldn't be able to support this pic. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 01:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Soft, blown highlights and bleeding, huge tilt, CA all over the place, it should be a WP:VPC candidate, not a FP one. The large number of images in google of this building suggest that a decent version in its original or unrestored state should be available somewhere. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There are several pictures free to use on the article page. Would one of those be better?--King Bedford I Seek his grace 07:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Noodle snacks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Assuming that the building is still standing, I suggest re-shooting with a professional camera on a day with better lighting. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, they restored that thing to death. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, they did one heck of a good charge. Still, I can't believe they charge $5 to go into it. I'm glad I was able to get Before, During, and After photos nicely showing the changes.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 21:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the points mentioned by Noodle snacks above. — Aitias // discussion 03:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Could be a good candidate for the valued image program? DurovaCharge! 17:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yeah, shame about the blown highlights and chromatic abberation. I suggest nominating it at VPC, as it still has excellent EV. Elucidate (light up) 18:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like no way this will pass. Oh well, it was my first attempt. I've uploaded over 800 pictures onto Wikipedia; one of them has to be FP worthy. Will definitely nominate to VPC.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)




2009 Anti Israel Protest

Original - Tanzanian Muslims in Dar es Salaam protesting the 2008-2009 Gaza bombardment by Israel. Similar protests were held worldwide with majority condemning Israel and a few in support.
Original 2 Alternative 1
Reason
Nominating these two images as a set with the recent preference for a single image, now nominating as alternatives, since one shows the wide view and the vast number of people and the other focus on the slogan. The images are of good quality and good EV, and much better than the images which appeared in the local newspapers.
Articles this image appears in
International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict
Creator
Muhammad
  • Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Professional photograph of current affairs. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I support selecting one of these as FP, with preference for option 1. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The second image is better I think for EV, but a question... the soft patches - some parts of the image are very soft, much softer than other parts that are in the same plane. Especially around the edges of the signs at the top of the frame. My first thought was heat haze but maybe its motion? Mfield (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The shutter was quite fast, I don't know what could have caused it Muhammad(talk) 11:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose For one I don't support the concept of a set of featured photos; I think one should pick the best, most illustrative picture to nominate. It's easy and common to have many shots of the same subject from different angles or focal lengths; unless they only make sense as a group, I don't think more than one needs to be nominated. The recent nom of the pin tumbler locks diagram is an example of where it makes good sense to nominate a set. As for EV, I think either one has has some, but not a lot, given that Wikipedia Wikipedia is not a news site. It does illustrate the "International Reaction..." article, but those kinds of articles are a little "newsy" for my taste anyway, and sometimes they get merged into the main article after a couple years. Fletcher (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If the articles do get merged, surely the editors will consider using a FP to describe the situation :) Muhammad(talk) 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In regards to Fletcher, not just sometimes, often. There is usually a big "stink" over the article, with a large frenzy of edits for say, a week, and then the article disappears. I doubt the eventual EV of this picture, as it could [IMO] easily lose it in say, a month. As a result, right now I'll abstain. However, if this leads to a real war (look up definition), then I will gladly support. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I would not like the situation in the middle east any more than it is, but I looked up war as you suggested. Answers.com "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." Wordweb Princeton University PC Dictionary," The waging of armed conflict against an enemy." Surely the situation falls into these definitions, doesn't it? Muhammad(talk) 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Either. Eventually the content in those article might get integrated into Gaza–Israel conflict (which links back to articles in 2004 or so) but the image would still have EV there and the image does ultimately record a historical event. It could always be thrown into Protest or something generic too. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support original a more focused composition. DurovaCharge! 02:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support original as per noodle and durova. --Russavia Dialogue 06:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support original. Good shot and I agree that if the article merges, it will still have sufficient EV. And besides, if it doesn't, we can always consider delisting. There isn't any point looking too far into the future with FPs. It is only the present that matters. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support original. Both are well-composed and encyclopedic, and I would support Alt 1 also except for the focus. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support original Good composition and, of course, encyclopaedic value. A moment of historic significance. Elucidate (light up) 18:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)




Nixon's Resignation Letter

Original - Richard Nixon's letter of resignation.
Alternative 1 - higher res.
Reason
In the aftermath of the Watergate Scandal President Richard M. Nixon lost the faith of the citizens of the United States, and after fighting a long and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to convince the public that he was not associated with the scandal Nixon yeilded to public demand and resigned the presidency, becoming the only serving U.S. President to do so. As such, this is the first (and to date only) letter ever submitted concerning the resignation of a president, a rare and historical find that I feel deserves an FP star.
Articles this image appears in
United States Secretary of State, Watergate scandal, Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Richard Nixon
Creator
Richard Nixon / United States Government
  • Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 03:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I think this picture really portrays some of the history of the Watergate Scandal --jfk52917, future US Senator (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - While the image is a bit small, I support it for its superior EV. I also added it to Richard Nixon, where it also belongs. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 04:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support alternative 1 Top EV. (Altering to support the higher resolution version). DurovaCharge! 09:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support alt #1Comment. I thought about nomming this myself, but it seems kind of blurry. Is this really the best resolution of the document available anywhere? Spikebrennan (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hang on guys, this is a bunch of text on a piece of paper. What about this could possibly be a featured picture? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • We have text FPs of the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the Edwin Smith papyrus, Emile Zola's J'accuse letter, and both the German and Japanese instruments of surrender from World War II. DurovaCharge! 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - Only if we start a new FP category for Documents. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with a FP category for documents. Shall we work on consensus guidelines for featuring documents, as distinct from other kinds of images? Spikebrennan (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Superb EV. NauticaShades 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Papa Lima Whiskey. If the image showed the scene of Nixon signing the letter, or announcing it to people (with acceptable quality), I would definitely support, but just the text?? Nope. --Caspian blue 20:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Featured text pictures
c. 1600 B.C. 1787 1823 1898 1945 1945

Four featured text image are manuscripts while two images such as the German instrument of surrender and J'accuse are pressed by machines. The dates of them are also older than the 1974 image.--Caspia