Brilliant. Support. Ludraman | Talk 21:20, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Neutral. I'd prefer more detail and sparkle. I do like the subject framing. - Bevo 21:29, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, the picture is really too small to see any details. Chmouel 13:28, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, I'm afraid. The weather means the contrast is poor, so it's really tough to see the island or the buildings. Also (sorry to be hypercritical, but) Tiburon makes for kind of a dull background. A shot from Tiburon (having the city skyline in the background) or from Treasure Island (having the golden gate in the background) would show the island's context better. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:08, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - the island is lost in the background - Gaz 14:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - not strong enough with the distracting background. Get closer and use a wider angle lens to loose the mountains in the background. NickP 07:13, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
Outstanding. I seldom see color composition done this well, the sun must have been done just right. Nominated by Hephaestos|§ 21:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agree, clearly featured picture quality Sam Spade 21:35, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Alas, I wish I could take photos that well, but I found it on a public domain site. :) I will also agree with the nomination. RadicalBender 04:29, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
On what site was it included? - Bevo 18:04, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I reduced it because it was a very large file. On most photos (and I'm not sure what the Wikipedia standard is, if there is one), I reduce to about 650 or 750 px wide in order to try to keep the files under 100 Kb (when the wiki nags me for the file being too large). This one was an exception because I couldn't get it under 100K, but, again, I was just trying to keep it smallish in physical size. I'm otherwise not opposed to having a larger version if others agree. RadicalBender 20:04, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, since the original is only slightly larger than the version now being used (now = 115227, the original = 158,853) I'll do a replacement. - Bevo 20:28, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. Is it OK to replace the image currently stored in the Wikipedia archive with a copy of the one at the source? (see pdphoto site URL above) - Bevo 19:54, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Incredible photo, but I have to wonder what's the point of featuring public domain photos that weren't taken specifically for Wikipedia. -Spencer195 01:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Spencer195 on this. There are ?millions? of PD images out there. Where do we stop? Support this one BTW - Gaz 08:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
We are featuring Wikipedia's best, and only secondarily the photography talents of Wikipedians. The only sort of photo that I'd like to not see in the gallery is the "fair use" ones. And, any photo in the gallery must be a part of at least one Wikipedia article. - Bevo 13:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
From Music of Armenia. These men were performing outside of a 9th century church in northern Armenia, so I took a photo. The two on the right are playing 'Duduks'. I especially like the rightmost man's cheeks.
Oppose. No offense, but I don't see anything particularly feature-worthy here. →Raul654 19:47, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Maybe not striking enough to be a featured photo, but good for an amateur photographer.
P.S - The streetlamp is really distracting. I think if you could get rid of the streetlamp and had taken it from a better angle (maybe more towards the front of the building), it would definitely be a good candidate for a featured photo. Other than that, it's accurate, informative, and adds to the article. (Maybe you might also want to add photos of the inside of the hotels as well)
P.P.S - Actually, the more I look at that photo, the more I'm beginning to like it. Very clean appearance, and very accurate. I'm not sure if the streetlamp should or shouldn't be there, since an accurate representation of real life would include the streetlamp, although it detracts from the visual appeal of the photo. I think it's just the weird angle of the photo that holds it back. - Spencer195 01:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
For the curious, here it is without the streetlight. - Hephaestos|§ 07:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wow, great Photoshop job. :) -Spencer195 03:24, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
IMHO You should keep the streetlight, it make the picture more "something else" rather than just building shoot from the street. (still i don't think it's a picture that merite the featured) | Chmouel 02:28, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, but only on the "add significantly" clause - striking photo WITH the streetlamp, great composition - Gaz 14:03, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. I do wish that article had at least one straightforward photo of the church so I could better appreciate the two photos it currently contains. - Bevo 13:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. This building look beautiful i should get to Nice someday to see that Chmouel 19:00, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support - I read the description and viewed the image - I know which spoke more words - Gaz 14:08, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, the fact that the bottom of the church is cut off leaves me wondering what I'm missing, and the perspective/angle of the tower detracts from the image. Otherwise striking. fabiform | talk 11:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm proud to be nominated. Sadly, it's nearly impossible to get a full pic of the Church there's to much urban artefacts around. I hope to get something good with a long telephoto from the hills over Nice but this may take a long time as I have to be at the right place with the right film and the right lens on a very clear day at the end of the afternoon. Ericd 13:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It does a lot to the article. It's hard to judge diagrams, to get the 'brilliant' feeling about them, but I think this one is a very good illustration, at least. I'd be interested in more comments. — Sverdrup 21:02, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, reluctantly. Solid and valuable work, but I don't think it meets any of the requirements in the first sentence of this page. Perhaps a featured diagrams section is in order, emphasizing technical merit? Lupin 10:07, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not promoted. 1 Support, 1 Oppose, 1 Neutral - not enough votes - Bevo 18:55, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Second. Lovely clear view far into the distance. fabiform | talk 06:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Champs Elysees can look even better than this, for example in spring or summer season. It's a very nice picture, but it doesn't add a lot to the article. — Sverdrup 14:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Definitely support. LUDRAMAN | T 17:32, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This was added to W:FP without going through due process. If User:Securiger wishs to move it to nominations then others may wish to vote for it. - Gaz 11:51, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. What can I say, I was tired, and last time I looked at W:FP it didn't have voting. Anyway, I've moved it up here and hereby nominate Lunkwill's picture. I should point out that I am nominating it for educational brilliance rather than beauty; the beauty of this picture is the clear exposition it makes of a certain obscure point in cryptography, and unless you already know the point you may need to look at block cipher modes of operation. If you do know the point but have only previously heard it explained in terms of probability theory, this picture is so striking it almost makes you gasp. Securiger 11:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. In this case I guess I still need those "thousand words..." Bevo 17:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not promoted. 1 Support, 1 Oppose, 1 Neutral - not enough votes - Bevo 18:55, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
picture I took of the Gutenberg Bible owned by the US Library of Congress. →Raul654 12:11, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
Interesting subject, very poor technical quality. It does not show the true beauty of a Gutenberg bible, one of the most beautiful books ever printed. I've seen the one at the Yale University rare book collection. NickP 05:16, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
Nothing striking LUDRAMAN | T 17:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not promoted. 1 Support, 2 Oppose - not enough votes - Bevo 18:55, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Support. Great photo that fits the article very well. - Bevo 13:51, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. Fits the article perfectly, and very nice composition (it's a shame you missed the top of the cross, but worse things happen at sea). I do think it benefits from a little more saturation (digital cameras should come with a special "British Isles Climate" mode). I've prepared a comparison here User:Finlay McWalter/crosses -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:53, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yeah it's a shame that i missed the top of the cross (it was really windy there) but strangely this doen't show too much on the thumbail. If you want to play some collage you can get the almost same picture from here and add the top of the cross. The new saturation look good for me, but maybe you may want to do the change on the original big picture available from my website (but please don't put the high resolution on wikipedia crop it like the old one). Cheers and Thanks, Chmouel 00:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - it's a striking (if somewhat nauseating) image, and crystal clear, but it's really hard to figure out what's going on. In contrast, the other sundew picture (Image:Regialeaf.jpg), while poorer technically, really goes to the crux of the matter. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:16, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - Subject is too confusing and not explicit enough (nice color thought) | Chmouel 02:24, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - ditto to Chmouel's thoughts - we need a single plant - Gaz 13:48, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - Too confusing. As one who takes photos like this all the time, there has to be a very strong pattern to the repetition in order for it to work.— NickP 12:05, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with NickP. It is pretty, but not a composition to write home about. Tannin
Maybe if you could improve the contrast and remove the cloth behind the skeleton. Also, you should put the skeleton in front of a plain wall so the design on the wall doesn't distract from the subject matter. -Spencer195 03:28, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Contrast increased. →Raul654 03:43, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
Object, is that your jacket hanging behind him? Sam Spade 03:39, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's the cover. The only way to get it out of the picture is to unhook the skeleton and lift it off the stand. The skeleton is heavy and delicate (from age), so I didn't lift it. →Raul654 03:40, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Good topic, and helpful to understand the article, but not particularily outstanding. Agree with Spencer195 on the cloth and the background. Good resolution, though. -- chris_73 05:53, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - for the same reasons as above. If you can't remove the cover, can you get some friends to hold up a backdrop to hide it? - Gaz 13:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - Not a great image. You could completely edit out the background with an image editing program! Then it would be a much stronger image, worth considering.— NickP 12:05, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Too high JPEG compression causes artifacts in the background. Even if this isn't featured I would appreciate it if you could re-upload it with lower JPEG compression (can be set in the "Save as" dialog of most image programs).—Eloquence 07:41, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. The cover really is very distracting. This looks like Superman's corpse. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:50, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Taken and nominated by Yann (with help from Gaz 12:27, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC))
(Yann added this directly to W:FP so I moved it here rather than just reverting it.)
Oppose - I don't see how this adds significantly to the article. Now if someone has a shot with people taking to the wall with sledgehammers... - Gaz 12:36, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Striking shot - Nominated by Gaz 13:17, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
'Tis good, alright. LUDRAMAN | T 16:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I like it. Striking is the right word. Isomorphic 07:59, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. It is a striking image, but it doesn't say "Police Station" to me at all - infact, it says "Ministry of Fear" instead. If it were a bit more "police-y" (if, for example, it had a woodentop in it) then it would suit the article better. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The local woodentops don't seem to like having their pictures taken, for some reason... ;-) -- ChrisO 18:18, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. Nice picture - and that is what Scotland Yard looks like. Secretlondon 17:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
added to Featured pictures by a new user, User:Dynabee, without going through due process, moved here by fabiform | talk 11:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
sorry, did not mean to offend. I was not aware of the protocol. Dynabee 13:01, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose Support - I STILL find the wing and reflections distracting - Gaz 12:30, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support - the mountain is big enough and the distractions white enough to still get the striking view through. — Sverdrup 14:07, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just about support. LUDRAMAN | T 17:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not quite great. Oppose with regrets. NickP 07:13, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Great picture. →Raul654 21:47, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Any artifacts of the circumstances of the opportunity to have that vantage point add to the perspective of the viewer (I feel I'm in the glider myself), and that adds to the total brilliance of that picture. - Bevo 15:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
So where does this leave us? - I see no consensus here - Gaz 12:42, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Right. Without further votes this one seems left at the tipping point, and that's not good enough. Now, if I could convince you to flip your vote! <grin> - Bevo 14:20, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's larger than Wiki conventions suggest for inclusion in articles, so how would size otherwise impact the way it would add significantly to the article? - Bevo 19:27, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
We have auto-resizing. When I click on a picture I want to see a significant level of detail. Furthermore, the future print edition should be taken into account.—Eloquence
Oppose - Poor composition, awkward pose, in captivity - Gaz 10:40, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
An excellent scientific diagram, drawn by JWSchmidt for Cell growth. Attractive, good use of colour to convey what goes where in this rather complex business. Nominated by User:Finlay McWalter
From Wild Turkey. Quite a striking beast. Nominated and taken by Lupin 19:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) Update I put a GIMPed version in brighter colours up here instead.
Oppose. Fish almost seems to get lost in the background at first glance. RADICALBENDER★ 16:17, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. It sure looks better when expanded to full size, but I'm distracted by that second fish behind the one in focus. - Bevo 22:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Too dark. Maybe fixable. Oppose as is.--Eloquence* 22:34, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose as is - Composition OK, but too dark - Gaz 12:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't see enough details and also I don't see the complete plant. Showing just the part that is visible only every 11 years without tying it to the part of the plant that is easily recognizable as Aloe is confusing. - Bevo 18:16, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I uploaded a lighter picture. Yann 18:31, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Statue of Che Guevara at the site of his death in Bolivia
From Che Guevara. This statue is just a few meters away from the exact place where Che was executed. Credit for the photo goes to a co-worker of mine called Augusto Starita -- Pilaf 02:19, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Mhmmmmmmmmmmmm........yes. LUDRAMAN | T 19:28, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Second. the picture look more impressive than the place in real :) | Chmouel 09:59, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm... No - is it not possible to back up a bit and get a better angle? - Gaz 12:28, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
IMO, the alternative picture is better than the one nominated. - Bevo 15:49, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Support. I was going to complain that the colours and the reverential angle give it an inappropriately religious look, but in the context of the article I suppose images of Guevara have an iconic role for some, and so the photo is entirely appropriate. Moreover, its unintentional similarity to Jeff Koons' Michael Jackson sculpture gives it an ironic postmodernism (no, really). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:50, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Of all the images on the article, I think this adds to the article the least. fabiform | talk 12:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Support. i think that because it doesnt show alot, leaves a lot to your imagination, such as what he's looking at exactly...--Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:17, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)
A landscape of Ypres uploaded by User:Gsl for Trench warfare. It's a breathtaking picture, with excellent composition, and shows both the human aspect of the subject and shattered landscape.
What Gaz says below has helped me to formulate my thoughts. I've seen many photos of trenches. I see soldiers packed together and focus on them. This photo mentally drags me out of the trenches to the land outside that the trenches were dug to defend... and the destruction that the fighting has wrought. fabiform | talk 00:50, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Trench warfare has plenty of images of trenches. This makes a perfect "headline" photo for the article and deserves to be featured in its own right. (but I'm biased - they are Aussies) - Support - Gaz 23:50, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Support. Added it also to Passchendaele. - Bevo 14:42, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The alternative image is not used by the article. Did you intend this image as a nomination? (It seems to me a good thing to do, to replace the one similar image in that article with your alternative image). - Bevo 23:58, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've replaced the similar image in the article with my one. - MykReeve 01:23, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - Missing a sense of symmetry which would "make" this shot. MykReeve, are you nominating your shot? - Gaz 03:03, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Not promoted. Withdrawn by nominator. - Bevo 19:40, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
