Shortcut WP:PPRA Please cut and paste nominations to be archived from the Picture peer review mainpage to the top of the appropriate archive page, creating a new archive (by nomination date) when necessary. 2012: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December 2011: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December 2010: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December 2009: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December 2008: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December 2007: January - June | July - December 2006: January - December

I found this photo breath takeing how stunning a man made ranbow is. Cocoaguy_contribs^talk 20:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Far too small, the guideline size is at least 1000 pixels horizontally or vertically. This one is 449 by 197 pixels. So there's no point in putting it up for FPC - Adrian Pingstone 16:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to nominate this image for Featured Picture status. It meets the following criteria:

• is very pleasing to the eye, and is among the best on Wikipedia.
• is of high-quality and high resolution.
• is neutral and is completely non-biased.
• perfectly portrays the subject matter it discusses and explains, even with other buildings nearby, the Sears Tower is instantly identifiable amongst them.
• the image is copyright-free.

This image is listed on the article for Sears Tower, and was taken by Soakologist.

• Nomination for Featured Article Status by: The Legendary Raccoon Fox: RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, you have ignored a fundamental FPC rule which is that the horizontal or vertical size should be at least 1000 pixels. This pic is 500 by 643 - Adrian Pingstone 16:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It is a good picture but like stated above it's not big enough. Well that's too bad.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 21:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took this picture last month while at home for Thanksgiving. Though I really like the current featured picture, it shows only a small portion of the Long Beach skyline while at night. The photo I am proposing is more current, shows more of the skyline, and includes the boat docks. I feel it better represents the downtown area as a whole and would give the reader more of an idea of what Long Beach looks like. Before I figured out how to try and nominate it, I wanted other opinions.

• Nominate and support. - Tisoy 01:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Too much sky/water IMHO, not much pixels are actually for the buildings. Also the contrast is too high, try maybe afternoon-dusk kind of sky? Also the image is quite blurry and I would suggest you to take multiple, zoomed in shots of it and stitch it together for higher resolution. The current FP is also not that good, a bit too small and probably would not pass if it's nominated now. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

This is a photo of one of the many statues lining the Charles Bridge in Prague, Czech Republic. Taken in March 2004. The statue just happened to be pointing at the moon, which I did not see as I snapped the photo.

• Nominate and support. - Shagmaestro 08:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Not bad, However, it needs to be in an article. Also, the angle the statues are at lowers the encyclopedic value (compared to shots which show all of the statues), and the moon thing may be a touch too whimsical to help the image. Right now I'm neutral on its chance at FP-ship. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

• Good shot, stands a chance of being promoted. My only concern is that people may find the moon distracting, and they may not see enough "wow" factor. But its better than a lot of the stuff that gets nominated. --Niro5 16:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an awesome photo of a musical organ; It appears in the article Organ (music), and was created by the commons User:Flibbertigibbet. I think this could be a potential FPC candidate, but the image needs a little help before going to the FPC.

• Nominate and support. - TomStar81 (Talk) 03:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• The light sources to either side are a bit distracting. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice image, shows the instrument quite well. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to pass FP due to the blown highlights in the side windows. It's a shame, though. I'd like to see a pipe organ as a featured picture. Bob talk 20:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I think the colours look good, along with the clouds. I've touched it up in photoshop, made the colours warmer. Image is a self-image.

• Nominate and support. - =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Nice shot, but very blurry, not FP quality. If it were in better focus, it might stand a chance, try taking it again!--Niro5 16:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a way of sharpening the image to compensate dor the bluriness? I don't think I can get the sky like that again. :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can use the sharpening filter for one, but that will only do so much. After you do that, you can try to downsample the picture. Its a large picture now, if you downsample it to say around 1000 pixels across, that should make it look a little sharper. These won't be enough to get it featured quality. I would suggest 1. manual focus, 2. tripod, and 3. take a TON of photos and then hope one turns out good. It takes a lot more work, and patience to take a good photo than it takes skill. People go through a lot of time and effort to get just one photo good enough to feature. Keep trying (and the sun sets every day, you'll get the sky like that again, its only a matter of time).--Niro5 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, no chance, far too blurry (but beautiful to look at, just not FPC material) - Adrian Pingstone 16:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently found this freely-licensed article on Flickr.com, and was struck by its quality. It is sharp, aesthetically pleasing and all the more impressive considering the difficult nature of photographing the subject (high speed). There is slight motion blur, but I think that this enhances the image. The image demonstrates the nature and speed of Formula One in general, and Mark Webber (the driver), WilliamsF1 (the team) and Circuit de Nevers Magny-Cours (the track) specifically. Although it does not meet the normal FP size requirements, it is larger than the only current F1 Featured Picture (Image:Webber usgp 2004.jpg) and, in my opinion, this is outweighed by the quality and significance of the image, as it could have only been taken on three days in 2006.

It currently appears in Mark Webber and Circuit de Nevers Magny-Cours, and was taken by cobber_cpd.

• Nominate and support. - --Diniz 14:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Unfortunately, it's just too small. FP need to be at least 1000 pixels width or height, normally candidates don't pass unless they're 1200px or more (these days). Image:Webber usgp 2004.jpg should in fact be delisted because of its size, it was promoted some time ago, and standards are much higher now. I'm certainly not into racing, but I fail to see a lot of significance about this particular image, not enough to outweigh its size. It's not particularly good quality either. It's more blurry than the current FP, the lighting is worse (this one is more backlit), and the bright white stripes on the background are distracting. Sorry. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, look st this one Bruno Senna, granted it's Formula 3, but it is also large with zero motion blur.--Niro5 16:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Too small at 800 by 533 pixels, FPC needs at least 1000 pixels in one direction - Adrian Pingstone 16:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Has the criteria has changed? This one, which coincientally is also of Webber, has been featured and is only 663x338. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk • contribs)

A very good image of Islamic art and architecture. Beautiful patterns, colourful and high resolution. Appears in Turkey, Islamic architecture and Ottoman architecture among others. Ideally i'd like it to be a featured pictures, so would appreciate users comments.

• Nominate and support. - A.Garnet 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Wow! Beautiful dome! The only problem is that part of the dome is cropped out of the picture. Are their any versions when then entire dome is visable? With that little part missing, I don't think it will be featured. --Niro5 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think it stands no chance without the full dome? I havent come across any with the full dome, it may be too big to fit in the picture. Thanks for comment anyway. --A.Garnet 20:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Great picture, I love it. However, FPC voters are very choosy and they'll probably throw it out because of the missing piece - Adrian Pingstone 16:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Composition is not good enough. Other then that it's great.24.21.143.195 21:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppot. Are you guys sure of the copyright status of the image? --Aminz 03:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well drawn flag, created by User:Zscout370, used in Lesotho, Flag of Lesotho, and loads of other pages. It was used on BBC News Online at [1].

• Nominate and support. - Edward 11:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Personally I'd recommend against putting this up on FPC. National flags don't have a good history of success; see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Union Jack for one example. I doubt this would fair any better, I'm afraid. Raven4x4x 04:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, I'd recommend against, since a flag is just an accurate reproduction of a specification, it'd seem like favoritism to pick out this one. All the other flag images illustrate their subjects just as well. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Like they stated any flag doesn't really stand a chance at getting featured just because their so simple and not as attractive as other pictures. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 05:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What about a set of flags, perhaps of all sovereign nations?--HereToHelp 17:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I nominated it because it is a strong, clear and aesthetically pleasing image which illustrates well both the Nest and its contents, the Eggs. It appears in both the Nest and Egg (biology) Articles. I created and uploaded the image.

• Nominate and support. - Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 07:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I think it would be very helpful to have the caption mention what species of eggs are pictured, as well as a general location - i.e. forest floor, wetlands, open field &c. Otherwise, it's a technically and aesthetically pleasing image. -Spyforthemoon 15:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, I would have these things mentioned, but I am not a biologist. I've no idea what they are. I can provdie a location, but I'll need help to define the species of the eggs. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 22:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a nice image, but is a higher resolution available? Normally an image needs to be at least 1000 px on one or both dimensions. Raven4x4x 04:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bigger resolution, but it looks less focused. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I actually like this picture very much, even though it's not parcticulalry eye-catching. Is has no real quality problems, but could you think it could pass WP:FPC?

• Nominate and support. - NauticaShades 09:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Well, as you said, it's not the world's most eye-catching photo, but I would support it. No noticeable quality issues, simple yet effective composition. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

• I'm inclined to second it especially since Commons already ok'ed it. I see only one hang-up, and that's that the German inscriptions might puzzle en:wiki readers. But I think it's good enough to give it a go. ~ trialsanderrors 06:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I like it very much (second.) --William Pembroke^(talk) 08:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose A requirement for a featured picture is that it must be interesting and make you want to read the accompanying article. It just isn't to appealing to me. Why1991 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an extremely large picture, and could be very good with a few edits (I'm bad at that). It is a featured picture on the French Wikipedia. It appears in the article Valles Marineris, and was taken by NASA.

• Nominate and Support. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Is this the best image we can get of this? The other image on that page: Image:Mars Valles Marineris.jpeg has much better color/contrast in my opinion (though lower resolution, and it gives the false impression that it's a full-size image of the planet) I agree we should see what can be done with editing though. -Spyforthemoon 15:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean it isn't a full size image of the planet? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 15:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the caption I got the impression it wasn't - I would also expect there would be an ice cap visible in a full planet image? Some mars images for reference: Image:Mars_Hubble.jpg, Image:2005-1103mars-full.jpg. The Valles Marineris area seems to be visible on the left equatorial edge of the second image - and appears to be slightly smaller there. It's also completely possible that I misinterpreted things, and it is full size. -Spyforthemoon 18:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know either. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 22:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I'm very proud of this picture. I have taken quite a few pictures for Wikipedia (you can see them here) and I think this picture is one of my very best. It was taken from a park in the Sydney suburb of Tamarama during a sculpture exhibition. It was taken in the late afternoon when the sun is fairly low, and the sky is almost clear. The picture was taken with this camera.

It features in the Sculpture by the Sea article, and when I update My Picture page it will be there too. I created this image.

I hope you like the picture, and look forward to reading your comments.

• Nominate and support. - Whats new? 09:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• comment I'm not a qualified photo critic, but it strikes me that the composition could have been improved by having the background of the wire sculpture be the sky or the sea (probably the sky, for best contrast) rather than having the drab brown city partly behind part of the sculpture. Spikebrennan 14:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's very difficult to make out the three dimensional shape and details of the sculpture. It might be helped by coming back when you can put the sun behind you, to add a little depth and shadows to it. I imagine this might be a difficult item to get a good photograph of. Spyforthemoon 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

View of a major Buddhist monastery in Tengboche, Nepal, used in the article monastery. I shot this picture myself, using a Sony DSC-P100.

• Nominate and support. - Nmnogueira 12:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Unfortunately, I doubt that it's high enough quality for FP. there are some blown highlights on the buildings, and the whole image is somewhat blurry. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

Appears in the Stockholm article. Good image though it's rather grainy, would it survive as a FPC? Created by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Oke

• Nominate and support. - Krm500 02:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• It's very artistic, but a daytime picture would probably illustrate Stockholm better. Unless it's particularly known for its nightlife or sunsets?. Spyforthemoon 21:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

Nice panorama view of the Berlaymont Building, Brussels, Belgium, appearing in the Berlaymont building article. I shot this picture myself, using a Sony DSC-P100.

• Nominate and support. - Nmnogueira 15:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• its a nice shot, but the lamp post and tilt are unacceptable for a featured picture. Other than that, I am not sure if you caught the building at its most pleasing angle.--Niro5 15:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong angle IMO since the lamp is in the way and the building to the right side is in the way. --Krm500 02:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I nominated it because I feel it is a naturaly beautiful, and it uniquly illustrated the article.It was taken from the top of the Mount Ginini, New South Wales, Australia. It apears in the Namadgi National Park article. I took the picture on the: 5th October 2006. It is my own work.

• Nominate and support. - Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 01:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Unfortunately, it's too blurry. Also, I'm not sure how encyclopedic it is (all it tells me about Namadgi park is that it's rocky and hilly). --12:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconder:

An impressive panoramic image of Fountains Abbey in North Yorkshire by Commons user Klaus with K. It illustrates the historically important site well, showing the entire side of the structure, including outbuildings and the tower. The image is of a high resolution, so details of the stonework can be seen, and there is no evidence of stitching to be found in the sky or building. In addition, the lighting gives the photograph a suitably "brooding" quality inkeeping with the nature of the site.

• Nominate and support. - Bob talk 11:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Great sharpness and clarity overall, the lighting is effective for most of it, but the rightmost building is very shadowy and indistinct. Is there something past it in the right 1/4 I'm missing? It just looks like trees and grass that should have been cropped out. Spyforthemoon 21:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if that would be pointed out, yes the right hand side is a bit dark. I'll have a go at cropping the right side off, as its not part of the main structure. Bob talk 21:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, my editing programme didn't seem to like the size. Would it be possible for somebody else to help, please? Bob talk 22:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer here. Media:Fountains Abbey view crop1 2005-08-27.jpg shows a cropped version. Regarding the shadow to the right, in a situation where there is sun on the annex buildings it could well be that trees to the left cast a shadow onto the main building. Klaus with K 17:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I shot this image diving at Paradise Reef off Cozumel, using my Powershot S50 with a UW housing. It's one of my best UW shots so far, now I'd like to hear others' opinions.

• Nominate and support. - Laban712 14:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Do you have it in a larger resolution? It probably wouldn't make it on resolution alone. Also the coral in the foreground might also be brought up as an issue. Other than those two issues, I think its a great picture!--Niro5 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Two other problems besides the ones mentioned by Niro5 would be blown highlights on the fish's belly, and the tight cropping of the tail. Tighter cropping of the rock below and the water above the fish might also help. It's nice quality, but I don't think it's quite FP quality. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

This image is a perfect metaphor for the term "architects of apartheid". The men themselves who invented apartheid, gathered around a map (or blueprint) of their idea.; appears in History of South Africa and was uploaded by PZFUN --Ringmaster j 16:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - Ringmaster j 16:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• This is far too small to be a featured picture. Please see WP:WIAFP for the guidelines. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm aware of that problem, but what if we could find a bigger copy? Even if not, couldn't it fall under a historical exemption? Apart from size, what's wrong with it?--Ringmaster j 17:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I love the history of this picture, but I am sure that you would be able to find a larger version of this picture, or another one that tells the same story. It just doesn't seem rare enough that you would only be able to find only one picture of evil-doers doing evil. Keep looking, it might not be easy, but its not easy to be wikipedia's best work.--Niro5 15:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

This is a photograph of Fourth of July fireworks over Washington Monument. i obviously didn't take it, but I found this on the Washington Monument article and thought it looked absolutely spectacular. Any thoughts?

• Nominate and support. Ackatsis 08:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• It was nominated for FPC about a month ago and was demolished - see here. --jjron 13:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, I just noticed that about ten seconds ago! It's a bad idea, then... Ackatsis 23:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

This is an absolutlely amazing photo shot by a United States Navy person on the 17th of May 1987, after an Iraqi fighter jet mistook the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate USS Stark for an enemy ship and fired two anti-ship missiles into the vessel. I allways found this picture very moving and powerful in a dramatic way, but until recently the photo we had of it was only a few hundred pics big, well short of the mandated 100px by 1000px needed to be FP eligable. Today I checked up on the Stark article to see if anything had changed, and was delighted to see that a much larger version of this image had been uploaded; sadly though, this new image looks hideous when enlarged to full size, but I think it can pass if someone cleans it up. The image is a US Navy photo (photographer is/was unnamed), and currently appears in the articles Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate, USS Stark (FFG-31), 1987, and Exocet.

• Nominate and support. - TomStar81 (Talk) 07:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Sorry, the quality is just too bad to be cleaned up enough. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can any cleanup be attempted? Even if it doesn't meet FPC standards in the end I would still be happy to have the photo improved. It can not get much worse than it already is. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A cleanup would probably show very little improvement, simply because the photo has basically no detail to work with. However, I'm willing to fool around with it on photoshop and see if I can improve it. If the improvement is significant I'll upload it. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There. I've cropped it, removed some noise (the most I could remove without total loss of detail), played slightly with the contrast and colours, and eliminated the fading at the edges. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know why the thumbnail quality is so bad -- the large version on Commons doesn't look so horrible. howcheng {chat} 23:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

This is a picture of Beck's Mill in Washington County, Indiana. It is on the National Register of Historic Places. Of the four pictures I took of the mill, I think it is the best example of a midwestern mill in need of restoration. I think the fall color helps to make it a distingished photo.

• Nominate and support. - Bedford 22:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Bedford

Comments:I hope people will think that this photo deserves featured picture consideration.

• Comment' the sky is a little blown. The resolution is too small (do you have a bigger version?) The horizon seems tilted. And there is something about the color/contrast that makes the image appear a little dull. The image to me personally, is missing that extra bit of 'pop', you know the dynamic element that makes the image unique and 'worthy' of being featured. A side note, I love abandoned buildings and historic sites. Seems like the kind of place I'd like to visit, especially this time of year.--Andrew c 01:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Normally, my pictures are automatically deleted after I download them. However, this one time it didn't so I do have a full-res pic. t's downloaded on WP at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Becks_Mill_Master.jpg --Bedford 02:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I like this for its historical significance and picturesque setting, but I think your camera was tilted 1 or 2 degrees counterclockwise. With most buildings, I would make vertical members vertical, but it looks as if this mill may be slipping off of its foundation, so that method won't be reliable. But the top of the waterfall should appear horizontal, I think. I'd try rotating it clockwise to that point to see if it looks better. Appraiser 19:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

• Support picture is definately clear and conveys good subject matter and content. It is also a unique candidate for featured picture status and gives visitors to the site something a little out of the ordinary to look at on the main page. Well done Ahadland 00:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A pictuer of eastern harbour of Alexandria city in Egypt showing the back of the arc of Alexandria library , Qauitbay citadel and the open sea; It is added in alexndria article Its on of my contibutions to wikipedia .

• Nominate and support. - Tamer Maged 11:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Well I don't really like your composition here. You've got half a concret arc and some road and doesn't really show either of them. Please don'try and do too many things at one time unless you're doing a panorama. Also, 1.3MP is just barely enough for FP... --antilived ^{T | C} 21:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I think it adds on nicely to the Acrotis article, showing a picture of one of its more vivid variations in close up. I myself took the picture, and I'm sure there are plenty amatuerish blurbs in it but I greatly appreciate any criticisms what-so-ever.

• Nominate and support. - ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Unfortunately, I seriously doubt it would pass FPC. The angle doesn't show the whole flower (unencyclopedic), and it has some quality issues, namely blurriness, shallow depth of field, and graininess. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Pharoah Hound. There's too much grain on the pistils/stamens and the blurriness of the foreground petals is too distracting. howcheng {chat} 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's what I thought were the drawbacks, thanks for the comments I greatly appreciate them.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Where did the sharp circle of graininess in the center come from? Pure photographic curiosity. Spyforthemoon 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• While sharpening the photo in photoshop for some reason the pixelation of the stigmas became overly grainy. Unfortunately I work with a standard digital camera as a opposed to a manual, and as you see above the depth of field and sharpness can leave much lacking at times. I managed to find an old affordable Cannon F1 which satisfies me way more and in the future I may simply scan images which I have taken from that. Thanks for commenting by the way.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

This picture is visually striking and shows the geography of the Jujuy Province and the Argentine Northwest well in those respective articles. But these are only my own thoughts; I would love feedback from users with more photography experience. Dar-Ape 03:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. Dar-Ape 03:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Not bad, but if the focus is the hills, then there's too much other stuff in the frame. I'd like to see this one again where the seven-colored hills take up most, if not all, of the frame. howcheng {chat} 19:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I took this picture a while back. It's used in the articles Buddhist monasticism, Mendicant, Zen and Kyoto. It's also used in the French Wikipedia to represent buddhism in Portail:Théopédia. Maybe it doesn't have much of a "wow factor" but I think it's a really nice and representative picture of a begging monk. The background looks pretty nice too.

• Nominate and support. - Mackan 07:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I like this photo for the reasons you've said. Some issues I can notice without really close scrutiny though are the blown highlights on the hat and also in the background, which some people would not like. Another small issue I have is the bit of his robe cut off at the bottom left, and the bit of mat cut off at bottom right. These things could concern some voters. --jjron 09:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

• I like this. There are the blown highlights on the hat and a few other places, but otherwise it's an excellent encyclopedic image. Very clear and descriptive. Spyforthemoon 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It shows the culture really well with the detail you can see of his clothes/ surroundings. I love it, get it up there.--JonM 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is on the artice Great Smoky Mountains National Park. It was taken on July 9, 2006 as I was vacationing there. I think that it shows the "smokiness" of the mountains very well and just an over all good picture. What do you think?

• Nominate and support. - T. White 13:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• This is a nice picture of your vacation, but would get a hard time on FPC. I'm not sure how much this photo shows the 'smokiness' of the mountains, and how much it just shows the quality of the capture. The photo is not sharp at all (I notice you've used a digital zoom according to the metadata - can I suggest that you turn off this feature on any camera you use permanently as you will never get sharp photos using this).

Also, as I said while it's a nice pic of your vacation, to an outside observer what in this photo distinguishes it from a photo of hills anywhere else in the world? i.e., for a Wikipedia photo, honestly how high is its encyclopaedic value? I personally don't like the dark trees in the foreground either, especially the one right in the middle of the photo. And the filename (Gsm100 1547.jpg) could be a bit more descriptive. --jjron 09:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

This photo was taken at Gisborne South, Victoria, Australia in the early hours of a summer morning. I'm not sure that it's encyclopedic, but I think it's a pretty good picture. I'd like to hear everybody else's thoughts!

• Self-nominate and support. Ackatsis 10:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Oh yeah, kind of interesting and pretty, but if you're thinking about putting it up for FP it's got no chance whatsoever (in fact you'd probably cop a bit of abuse from the less accommodating voters). --jjron 11:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I never thought it'd ever have a chance of being a FP. I really just wanted some idea of what others thought about it... You sound like you know something about photography. Can you offer some pros and cons about the photo? Ackatsis 11:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hope no one minds if I jump in and give my thoughts about this image. I just have a few recommendations. It might be nice if the horse (or at least its head) was in more of a profile angle. There's nothing wrong with the angle right now, it's just sort of a personal preference. The other thing is that it would be nice to have a "cleaner" horizon with fewer trees, which are somewhat distracting. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I ask what you mean by a "profile angle?" I'm not too learned in the photography terminology! Ackatsis 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hope I'm not intruding. "Profile" just means from the side, so this is profile, but this is not. Dar-Ape 03:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Thanks! Ackatsis 05:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry if I was a bit terse. I have to say I am quite impressed by the quality of this photo given the camera you were using and the conditions it was taken under. I assume the quite fast shutter speed was due to the rising sun fooling the sensor. My main problem was (as you said yourself) the lack of encyclopaedic value, i.e., this really tells me nothing about horses, or for that matter Gisbourne South. It's simply the nature of this type of photo. I don't particularly mind the trees, although the half chopped off one on the left looks awkward. Perhaps if you had taken it a step forward and a step to the left you would have got a better profile on the horse and the cleaner background that Pharaoh Hound mentioned, although that may have affected the position of the sun and lens flare. --jjron 09:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I took the following photograph at Grampians National Park in Victoria, Australia as a group of Common Brushtail Possums were clamouring around our campsite looking for food scraps. The nose of the possum is slightly out of focus, but, other than that, I can't see anything significantly wrong with the photograph (other than, of course, the relatively low resolution). The eye of the possum also seems to bear a battle scar or two, which I always thought was cool. I was just looking to get everybody else's thoughts, since my opinion is quite obviously biased!

• Self-nominate and support. Ackatsis 10:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• It is an interesting picture. For starters I find the cut-off ears and general composition a bit of a problem (i.e., it looks like a bit of a rushed snapshot), and the possum looks a bit startled. However, there was very recently an image of I think it was a racoon that was similarly cut-off that gained very strong support. Apart from the focus, another problem are the blown out areas of the nose and lips (the parts where what should be pink looks white). The uneven lighting and flash reflections are other areas that could be frowned upon in FPC voting. Nonetheless, while I personally feel it would struggle, I would be interested to see how it would fare. --jjron 11:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, the raccoon pic focuses on the mask, so the cropping is less problematic than here, where we'd want to see the whole animal. I didn't realize that Australia had possums too, but then again, "possum" in North America is really short for "opossum". I also know I'm anthropormophizing but it really looks like the possum is startled. howcheng {chat} 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'd probably look startled too if some idiot stuck a camera with a flash in my face! The truth is, we were camping at the Grampians, and we'd been preparing some fruit salad for our dessert. I swung my torch around to see that a possum had clambered onto the picnic table and was licking the fruit salad straight out of my cup! Needless to say, I let them have the rest of it... Here's some background reading on the 63 species of possum [2], which are native to Australia, New Guinea and Sulawesi. Here, too, is the article on the Common Brushtail- which is the species of possum depicted in the photograph [3]. Ackatsis 02:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Our possoms are cuter than your opossoms! :) --Candy-Panda 09:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

This image, taken by Aka is quite beautiful and encyclopedic, but it's quality is not perfect. I was wondering if it could pass FPC or not.

• Nominate and support. - NauticaShades 06:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I think the quality is just a bit too low, especially for grain. Though otherwise it's quite beautiful. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• IMHO, this image is far too agressively sharpened: you can see halo everywhere. Exposure is not very good: much of the image is clipped, and from the histogram I think the original image is quite dark and the exposure had been too agressively altered. Overall, this image is too agressively altered, and I don't think it will make through FPC as there are many other good FP flower pictures. --antilived ^{T | C} 21:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

This is one of my best pictures from my trip to Rotorua, stitched from 9 shots and is very sharp, stitches beautifully (even without a tripod) and has very little clipping. My concern is the most left part of the panorama which the image was improperly focused or something and I forgot to check it and now I can't do anything about it. This is the only photo of the Rotorua Museum on WP and commons and adds to Rotorua as this is one of the main tourist attractions within the city of Rotorua. Please provide your input on the suitability of this picture being FPC and maybe FP.

• Nominate and support. - antilived ^{T | C} 07:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I am finding that the image is not loading correctly in shrinked versions, and only shows correcly when displayed full size...TheJosh 07:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I get that too while some other times it shows up. --antilived ^{T | C} 07:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I see what you mean by it being out of focus for about a fifth of the image, to the far left. Other than that, great image. I'll second it; I think it deserves a try at FPC despite the minor blurriness.--HereToHelp 19:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've uploaded 2 other versions of the same picture. Please tell me which version you like the best and why. --antilived ^{T | C} 05:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

• HereToHelp 19:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC) See comment above.[reply]

Not too sure if it deserves to be a Featured Picture, but I thought it was worth a shot. Just let me know what you think. It appears in Red Panda and Ailurus fulgens

• Nominate and support. - Stripthesoul27 02:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Great shot but the blurry plant in front rules it out for me. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 02:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the composition could be better, and the body is out of focus.--HereToHelp 19:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If only that blurred plant wasn't there, it could have been a really great shot! Ackatsis 12:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

Support This pic is great!! I think the berry bush makes it look nice. The panda is awesome!! Daniel10 15:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This picture, in the Burning Man article, is I think quite a good and encyclopedic picture, it is just very grainy. I was just wondering if someone could run it through a good grain-reducing edit as well as maybe cropping out the blown-highlight area, so I could nominate it at FPC. NauticaShades 21:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support. - NauticaShades 21:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• To be honest I really don't like this at all. I think it's just all too far away, and that blown out area on the right (is it smoke from the fire?) just looks awful in thumbnail, and not much better at full size. Don't think cropping will save it - you would have to crop at least a third of the picture. And the grain! It's up to you, but I would oppose for sure. --jjron 10:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, I just wanted to see what someone could do with an edit. NauticaShades 16:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's far too low resolution and already grainy for an edit to do much. I think to get a close to a good photo you'd need a really good camera to do a panorama... but, I'm not expert. It had the makings of a really nifty shot... but, you just need to spend a few thousand more on your camera :) gren グレン 20:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would second this if it didn't have the graininess problems. Very similar to a lot Richard Misrach's desert canto pictures. ~ trialsanderrors 02:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

First of all, the movement of Barnard's Star compared to the surrounding stars is amazing. It has importance in the field of astronomy, and is of relatively good quality for an image of a star. This may be a bit of a personal opinion, but I wonder what could throw a star that fast. I have my own hypothesis that a black hole did. I also wonder how long until it runs into something. That would definitely make FP status!

It is in, of course Barnard's Star.

• Nominate and support. -  ¢² Connor K.   23:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• It's fascinating if you know the background of the photo: what the subject is, why it's moving, and why that's significant. Unfortunately, it doesn't really have the visceral "wow" factor of a lot of astronomy photography. It's conceptually interesting, but visually unappealing. Snurks^TC 01:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to improve the "wow" factor? Because I think any star moving that fast is interesting. Just comparing it to the other stars in the picture wows me. Then again, I'm into astronomy, and I do know about the concept. Could a caption fix that? I'd appreciate any feedback.-- ¢² Connor K.   12:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Agree with Snurks the image itself is pretty plain, even if the phenomenon isn't. Don't really see any way it could be doctored up or replaced. Too bad. Spyforthemoon 21:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixable problem: Look at the non-moving stars. Notice that the brightness (especially of the dimmer ones) varies between frames. This is probably caused by different observing circumstances in different years. 1995 and 2005 are noticeably dimmer. It would be good if someone could adjust the levels to make each frame match. --Dgies 15:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They also jump around quite a bit. ~ trialsanderrors 10:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How hard would it be to stabilize the rest of the image, so the only thing's that change are the date and Bernard's star?--HereToHelp 21:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

Not too sure if it can squeak by under Historical exemption, as the image is under 1000 pixels on one side, but it is of high quality. Dunno if tweaking the image bigger would screw up the image more. This particular note demonstrates the neoclassical allegorical motif that makes this series unique in the Educational Series.

While taken from a commercial site, because it is an image of a product of currency produced by the United States Goverment, the image automaticlly falls under public domain and is not subjected to copyright.

• Nominate and support. - 293.xx.xxx.xx 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Seconder:

Just want to see if this is good enough to go into the candidates page.

• Nominate and support. - --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 10:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Sorry, this isn't going to make it as a Featured Picture. One, it's not very interesting (a rather non-descript building) and two, the sky is overexposed on the left side. howcheng {chat} 16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Have to agree. Also composition is a bit lacking - too much lawn, not enough sky makes it look unbalanced to me. I also find the shadows detract too much from the detail. Sorry. --jjron 10:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks! Just needed to know!!!--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 10:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I took this shot to try and improve on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Onion. I cut an onion in half to show the cross section, and did not use such a shallow DoF.

• Nominate and support. - Andrew c 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• This is pretty good, but try it again with just a little bit softer lighting, as the reflections from your light source are blown. Maybe even underexpose it slightly and bump the midtones in post-processing. howcheng {chat} 16:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. What about the new file? (edit: I just noticed the crop is a little poor, with more black space on the bottom than top, I'll change that later)--Andrew c 18:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ping* Anyone?--Andrew c 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, the crop's bad. I must say I honestly don't like the black b/g anyway, perhaps others wouldn't mind. Do you notice how the parts of the onions in shadow disappear into the b/g, especially at smaller sizes? Also I find it a little too busy, i.e., too many onions (from memory the FP nom didn't have so many?). Just my opinion. --jjron 13:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I kinda like the white background better, but that's getting a little picky. This is definetly superior to the previous one on other counts. The softer light is better too. I would have turned the bruised place on the rightmost one away, it's distracting from the rest.Spyforthemoon 20:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I took this picture on a visit to Telluride. I like it because it shows the huge mountain in the middle which grabs your attention, but also other details. The waterfall is one the of the highest in Colorado and above it sits a large house. To the left of the waterfall and house is a criscrossing pattern which is a road that leads to the house and a trail. Zoom in on the high resolution and you can see all these things well and even follow the river running from the waterfall. I also like the snowcapped peaks in the backround. Overall the best part of the picture is how the sheer rock wall cascades into green broken up rock.

I put it in the Telluride, CO article but could probably put it soemwhere else.

• Nominate and support. - Jackbauerinvc 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Get someone to clone out the time marking in the bottom right before you do anything else. NauticaShades 18:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ive searched it on google and best ive found is a 20 dollar program. Any free tool? And would the full Adobe photoshop do it? - jackbauerinvc
  • Sure Photoshop does it. If you want a freebie, I assume something like 'The Gimp' would have clone tools (haven't really used it so can't say for sure). However, cloning this will take a deft hand as the background behind it is quite busy (for heavens sake turn the date stamp off on your camera, assuming this is your picture). It definitely would have no chance as long as the date is there. --jjron 10:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The GIMP certainly has a clone tool, and many other sophisticated options. Cloning seems a bit like doctoring, though. For an encyclopedia, I would expect either a crop or a re-shoot. -- Beland 04:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Even with the timestamp, it's a spectacular photo. --WikiMarshall 08:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

Panorama of the Grand Canyon South Rim. Appears in the Grand Canyon article. Looking for comments to see if I can improve it.

• Nominate and support. - Digon3 16:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Very nice! I could only find two (maybe three) very minor issues: The picture would look nicer without the people in the right corner, which can be cropped of photoshopped; the picture has a visible stitch about 3/4 across where the left pic is out of focus, cut this is so small that I'm not concerned with it, unless you think you can do something; and last (this may just be my over-exposure to mundane settings) the color balance/contrast seems exaggerated. This may just be the way it is, but if this was artifically done, it was slightly overdone. Thegreenj 18:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (comment) I edited out two of the people, the other two are too big to edit out (for me). I made the transistion between the sharp and unsharp less obvious. The color is natural, though I had to darken two of the photographs (maybe thats why). If someone can edit out those last two people it would be great. --Digon3 21:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made an attempt at those last two people. Thegreenj 21:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been there and this picture doesn't very well do it justice- it's color range is much too bland. The Grand Canyon is supposed to be (and is very) colorful. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 01:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

• Nice Pic! (Vers. 1) Thegreenj 01:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image appears in the article Gothenburg Opera and in the article Gothenburg. See reasons below at the previous image. Image created bu Wikimedia Commons user .

• Nominate and support. - Krm500 22:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• My biggest concern is the quality of the image. There is a lot of noise that appears to be JPG artifact. Also, the boat in the foreground is distracting, and something about it doesn't have that strong of a wow factor. Maybe more dramatic colors or lighting, or maybe a different perspective, or maybe some levels adjustment in photoshop could help.--Andrew c 23:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have photoshop but since I'm using a six year old computer, Photoshop is not a program I prefer to open. And it's been a long time since I used it so I was hoping that someone here could spice the picture up a little. The wow factor isn't quite there (yet..) since the image is rather grey and dull right now. The boat is no concern to me, the guest harbor is located right next to the opera and the opera house was designed as looking like a boat from the water. Since I'm a local the boat actually gives the picture another level to me, it adds to the feeling of being close to the water. I hope someone could do their best work with the image since it has potential. --Krm500 22:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as "interest" goes for a featured encyclopedic image, I consider this pretty average. I'm also not quite in favour of the boat in front of the building. My primary concern si also quality; there is a huge amount of compresison artefacts in this image... If this is the original that the camera produced, you may be out of luck (ruined picture, and change your compression settings!) but otherwise, could you upload the original? A bit of playing around with colour levels and saturation could indeed spruce up the image. Note, however, that it's typically impossible to make dramatic changes to the "interest" of an image with this sort of manipulation. See the Edit 1 version for my subtle attempt, but with your JPEG compression, there's really not much I can do - any sharpening or processing just makes the artefacts worse. Dawidl 07:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I'm not the uploader of this image so I can't give you any better quality. Maybe if the image is sized down the compresions wont be as noticeable? --Krm500 12:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

The image appears in the article Uppsala Cathedral, an article which is a part of the Wikiproject Sweden. The goal is to raise swedish related articles standard to Good quality and then FA. As a little side project I have had hopes of getting some picutes which appears in these articles fetured. The images was vreated by Wikimedia Commons user Olli hki.

• Nominate and support. - Krm500 22:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• This is a pretty good image. My technical concerns are the blown highlights, the dull color, and the cropping. The left side of the cathedral being cut off, and the beams in the forground may decrease the encyclopedic value. With some photoshopping, this may be a reasonable FA canidate. Nice image!--Andrew c 23:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a pretty good image, considering it was taken with a point-and-click, but the blown highlights take away from it. I don't think it would survive FPC. NauticaShades 18:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The asymmetry bothers me a little. -- Beland 04:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree the lighting isn't good enough to make FP. Besides that, could it be rotated so that the center window at the end is on the vertical? It feels a little seasick now.Spyforthemoon 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

A nice high-quality picture of the Hoodoo Amphitheater in Bryce Canyon National Park. It appears in the articles Hoodoo (geology) and Bryce Canyon National Park. Comments Please!

• Nominate and support. - Digon3 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Nice, but compared to the similar Image:Bryce Canyon 2 md.jpg, the colors are not nearly as vibrant. howcheng {chat} 18:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might still have a chance, though. Maybe with a good edit. NauticaShades 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this image is a lot more informative than Image:Bryce Canyon 2 md.jpg, without sacrificing much in the way of drama. The wider view and more neutral lighting make the geological elements of the scene more prominent. Image:Bryce Amphitheater from Bryce Point-2000px.jpeg offers better competition. You may get comments about a blown sky - how much can be done tweaking the crop and contrast? Spyforthemoon 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I created this image, and would like to know how good it is in the eyes of others. Personnally, I think it's a good picture because

both Safin and his coach are fairly sharp, and that I had the good luck of getting the ball in the picture. It appears in the article Marat Safin, and is the only picture of him in the article.

• Nominate and Support | AndonicO 17:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• First of all, the image doesn't really have the "wow factor" that I associate with FP. As for some technical aspects of the photo, the highlights on the white clothing look blown, and the noise level is distracting (especially at 100% on his face).--Andrew c 23:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I really don't think this is an ideal picture--the pose is awkward and unusual for tennis, and the guy immediately behind him breaks his silhouette and distracts when I'm trying to focus on Safin. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just because two people are in focus is no reason a photo should be nominated for FP. There's really nothing going on in the picture that makes it unique. Looks like a picture anyone would take with a point and shoot camera. Phaldo 16:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

This provides an interesting shot of the train in action with the Chicago skyline in the background. It was taken by User:JeremyA Although it's not super high resolution, the color balance is good and it is free of artifacts. The only article that links to the pic is the article about the station.

• Nominate and support. - Bcirker 02:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Unfortunately, given the angle of the shot, you see almost nothing of the station. The only thing this photo tells you is where the station is in relation to the city. howcheng {chat} 16:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I took this picture myself, and I think it's a beautiful picture (if I do say so myself), and I hope you agree. It's a beautiful area. However it's only used in the article about the school, which is an extremely short article about an extremely small school, so while it does add to that article, it's not widely visible. But I think it certainly meets and exceeds all the criteria in Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?.

• Nominate and support. - Robert 01:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• The school, which this picture is supposed to be illustrating, is just barely visible in the background. Glaurung 05:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire area is part of the school, and the actual building is far more than "barely visible." User:WindowsWizard12 02:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally well-composed, but there's too much of the dirt area at the bottom. You've also got blown highlights in the reflection of the sun in the windows. Lastly, although I'm sure it does a good job illustrating the subject, it lacks the "wow" factor that will push it to FP status. howcheng {chat} 16:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm...I could always crop out the dirt, but there isn't much i can do about the highlights, and I suppose you're right. Robert 18:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I took this photograph myself. This image has been placed on both the Ant and Honeydew (secretion) pages, as I could not find suitably representative images. The image is a bit noisy due to ISO 800, and was taken handheld at f/2.8 (hence the very shallow DOF) but I would like geenral feedback. I believe the technical shortcomings are acceptable considering the high level of magnification and lighting, and the clear depicion of honeydew.

UPDATE: Please see updated version (Edit 1, below original) which meets the minimum resolution requirements, and with minial noise processing. Problem is, with my software (GIMP), any additional noise removal starts to remove vital detail.

• Nominate and support. Dawidl 10:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Sharpness is not perfect, but enough to make an impressing picture that is focused on the important details. --Waugsberg 08:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a very nice capture, but it's too small (see WP:WIAFP). It may be possible to reduce the noise in post-processing, but I'm not an expert at that. howcheng {chat} 16:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I just moved this peer review from Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Honeydew→Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Honeydew (secretion) to reflect the necessary disambiguation of the page Honeydew (secretion). I apologize if this was not the right thing to do. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any concerns. --Iamunknown 16:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this is incredibly artistic, but I'm less sure on the encyclopedic merits. The depth of field/focus puts the droplet in focus, but not really the aphid. Combined with the backlighting ... it’s beautiful, but what is going on is a little obscured. Definitely better than no picture at all encyclopedically, but I’m not sure of its chances at FP. Spyforthemoon 20:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I think that the combined historical significance and relative good quality of this image could propel it to featured picture status. However, it has some techincal problems (slight noise, low contrast, weird pixely black parts). The problem is that I really have no editing experience, so I was wondering if anyone could do a good edit, so I can nominate it. Thanks in advance.

• Nominate and support. - NauticaShades^(talk) 16:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Image:Uss-akron-manhattan.jpg is rather similar and already an FP. -- Solipsist 14:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anything, this picture is better quality. NauticaShades^(talk) 16:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, yes and no. In a way it is quite hard to compare. This one is bigger, but it might be possible to find a larger version of the USS Akron picture if someone looked for it. This one _may_ be a little less sharp and has some odd mottling (clouds? emulsion problems? poor scanning? window reflection?) Personally I prefer the USS Akron picture, for the composition and the additional interest of the airship. Though I dare say if it were nominated today, you would have a couple of editors wibbling about blown out highlights... 8*) -- Solipsist 17:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

Came across this nicely-composed picture at Gannet. What do y'all think? (I particularly like the sharpness of the birds' heads contrasted with the out-of-focus glints on the water behind. The photographer is commons:User:Michael Haferkamp.)

• Nominate and support. —Steve Summit (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Very well composed. Unfortunately, I'm reasonably sure that it wouldn't make it. It's very grainy and blurry. Also unfortunately, the grain/blur is too great to be fixed. Some people might also find the blown highlights in the background water distracting. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Quite nice, but I'm not sure that the backlighting is ideal for this subject. See also Image:Two Gannets edit 2.jpg. -- Solipsist 14:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I wanted to place this map here for review while I finish rewriting this article (current draft here) as the current article uses an outdated definition. I created the image myself to illustrate the rewrite and I think it currently fits the criteria for becoming a Featured Picture, eventualy. Feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really nothing to say about this map? I could not be that good already, could it? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I'm not an expert on the expectations of maps for FP, but I think that this is quite good. As I said, I'm really clueless about quality standards for maps, so my comment might not be much help (sorry). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would put the legend on the map... you have plenty of space and since you have all of the names you might as well have the densities. Other than that, the only problem I see is that... well, SVG images like this are becoming ubiquitous... and... this same map could be done for every other country... so while I do think it is very good... its goodness is fully dependent on it being one of the first of its kind. gren グレン 21:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do other people get the dithering problem on the low-res version, or is it only my display? Other than that, I second the idea of putting the legend in the picture.Spyforthemoon 20:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I'll put up a new version with the legend soon. I haven't seen the dithering problem on my display, so it may be an issue with the colour-depth you've selected. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I think the image fulfill all the criteria to be featured: It is of high quality and resolution, it is pleasing to the eye and so on.

• Nominate and support. - JKleo 06:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• wow - looks real nice.. I am not a pro but it sure does look nice..--Agods 12:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not too bad, It needs a good edit. Right now, I'm currently neutral on its chances at FP-ship, it's nice but it has some problems that might hold it back. Some issues for the image right now are the graininess, blown highlights, and lack of shadow detail. I'm most worried about the composition, the subject is that little tiny thing way off in the distance and most of the shot is taken up by other stuff. It can be cropped to a certain extent, but cropping can't solve all of the compositional problems I'd like eliminated while keeping above the resolution guidelines. I'm also concerned about the encyclopedic value of the image: all it really tells me about Mt Erebus is that it's snowy, surrounded by lots more snow, and vaguely cone-shaped (however, I'm not really sure what else a photo could illustrate about a mountain). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it could illustrate that Mount Erebus has a lava lake in his crater for instance!

Seconder:

This picture show the Bryce Canyon Hoodoos at sunset. I think it is a great example of hoodoos. It is a featured picture in the commons and in the Bryce Canyon and Hoodoos articles.

• Nominate and support. - Digon3 23:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• The nomination process is pretty much the same (see instructions). You create a subpage and add it to the FPC page. However, I'm not so impressed by this pic. This might show a few hoodoos in greater detail, but I think Image:Bryce Canyon Hoodoo Row.jpg and Image:Bryce Canyon 2 md.jpg are far more effective in conveying the idea. howcheng {chat} 23:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

I took this image when I saw the the current Habanero featured picture was on it's way to being delisted. I am posting it here for advice on if it has a chance on the FPC. It is used in the article Habanero where it replaced the old overexposed one.

• Nominate and support. - HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• There is not enough depth of field for the entire subject to be in focus. Beige reflections from the background on the bottom of the pepper are distracting. More uniform lighting would be good. If possible, use a completely unblemished specimen. --Dgies 05:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

feature worthy, IMO... all in one picture... egads (did i just say egads??? i think i dont deserve electricity.) -- Cannibalicious!

im not sure if this should be featured - it has everything going for it but size. nothing else like it on the wiki, far as i can tell =) -- Cannibalicious!

This is a picture I took of a bonfire - I think it would be a good featured picture. Thanks

• Nominate and support. - Madmatt52 03:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Comment No background visible means there's no sense of scale. I can barely tell which way is up or what is on fire. Subject is also cut off at the top. I realize its hard to photograph fire at night, but you need to provide some setting or else it is just orange smudges on a black background. Might work better if you photographed at dusk. Compression artifacts aside, this is a much better photo, IMHO. --Dgies 06:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

This is a self-made photograph of an unidentified species of Swallow (though I'm not even really sure that it's not a Swift, just guessing) in flight. I don't quite consider this of "Featured Picture" quality, but I was hoping for some help as to what kind of bird this is (please see the image page itself for more details regarding location/circumstances), so it can be placed on the relevant page.

This is a 100 crop of the original, so I can't scale it bigger than the current 1100px, but considering the nature of the picture (a very fast, low-flying bird) I though this should be of acceptable quality, since a quick browse through the Swallow page(s) didn't show any in flight. If anybody thinks it's FP quality, all the better.

UPDATE: Thank you, Bryoman, for aiding identification, I'll place it in the appropriate page. It was in the vicinity of palms, yes :-)

• Nominate and support. - Dawidl 06:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I think it might be some kind of swift. Try consulting List of birds of South Africa -- Sturgeonman 14:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

• Yes, a swift - it's an African Palm-swift. This is the only South African all-brown swift with such a long tail. (What looks like a single very narrow tail is actually the two streamers of a deeply FORKED tail, held together.) I hope you saw it in the vicinity of palms! - This species is very closely associated with palms - wild or cultivated. - Bryoman 23:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently uploaded the big original version of Spirit's orginal photograph. You may recognize parts of it as a cut version was widely publicised. I have already put it in Spirit rover, but I'm sure it could be found other homes. Any suggestions?

• Nominate and support. - NauticaShades 08:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Mars exploration would be a good spot. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

Made by me with QuteMol, added halo-fog to contrast. I tried to best angle the molecule to make all atoms visible, as a flat-plane view would hide many facets of Hydrogen atoms (15). Resized it with Photoshop. C₁₁H₁₅NO₂). The MDMA article doesn't really need another image, but maybe another chemistry subject does. Maybe even the QuteMol page?

• Nominate and support. - x1987x^(talk) 01:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Seconder:

I have allways thought this was an interesting picture. I took it on the outskirts of Pnomh Penh in Cambodia in 1991 during the U.N peace keeping operation. Local kids used the abandoned tank as a climbing frame. Unfortunately I have no idea what sort of tank this is,who left it there and why, or what (if anything) has happened to it since. I wondered if anyone else could add these details and if Wikipedia could find a use for the picture. Dave59 17:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: New Edit Available NauticaShades^(talk) 15:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one seems to be objecting, so I'll replace all instances of this picture with the edit. If there are any objection, I'll undo it. NauticaShades^(talk) 17:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be a good picture to illustrate an article on military debris or debris of war (if those are the correct terms), but we don't seem to have such an article. Demining operations tend to be well known, but some of the same organisations that do mine clearance also clear debris. A web search suggests that the HALO Trust is one organisation that does the clearance of military debris in Cambodia, so it might be appropriate on that page. There should be some other more high profile pages that would be appropriate too.... actually the debris article could use an illustration as well as a section on military debris. -- Solipsist 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OK well I've added a 'war debris' section to debris, which is a start. As for the tank, it looks like it might be a M41 Walker Bulldog. Don't ask me how I worked that one out. I really know almost nothing about the Cambodian Civil War and have no familiarity with tanks of that era. -- Solipsist 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Dave59 09:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have a very limited familiarity with tanks and from everything I can determine, it does appear to be the M41 Walker Bulldog. I've added a short note to that effect on the image page. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 04:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The colours on this picture are bland and/or off. The saturation needs to be punched up and possible the curves changed. Also, the name gives no idea of what is in the picture. - Zepheus (ツィヒアス) 23:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The concept is cute but technically it's not a great picture, the lighting or colors are off, not enough contrast between the boy and the tank. --woggly 11:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zepheus and woggly, you seem to think that someone wants to nominate this for FPC, but this is far from the case. This section of peer review is for finding articles to put pictures in. Besides, a good edit could fix may of the problems you just listed. NauticaShades^(talk) 10:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, although my editing skills are rather bad, I have uplaoaded my attempt at improving this photograph. What do you all think? NauticaShades^(talk) 18:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate to rain on this parade, but it's too blurry to make it through FPC. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you realize that this section of Peer Review has nothing to do with FPC, and focuses on finding articles for certain pictures. NauticaShades^(talk) 13:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry. I have been told that this section was for FPC. I apologize fo any confusion (though I'm quite confused myself). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really unusual photo which I would like to see in an article - not sure what though. --Fir0002 08:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it taken? InvictaHOG 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swifts Creek --Fir0002 10:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cloud looks like Cirrocumulus with Cumulus clouds in the background. -- Bidgee 11:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent picture, could potentially add to any section about clouds or unusual weather. Bcirker 02:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine just to leave it on the Commons for someone to enjoy for the sake of an image, in and of itself.--HereToHelp 19:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]