Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2005

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured picture tools

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

Older Archive
Miscellaneous Archive
2004: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2025: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


Westminster Abbey west

[edit]
The western facade of Westminster Abbey

An excellent photograph, which captures both the building and the sky well, and also illustrates its article, in addition to being one of the world's foremost examples of Gothic Revival architecture; it appears in Westminster Abbey, and was created by ChrisO.

  • Nominate and support. - Jdhowens90 20:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is cut off at the top and the bottom, there must be better pics of Westminster Abbey to nominate.
    • Comment: To my mind, it is not necessary for the entire tower to be included in the picture. What matters, and makes this picture special, is its capturing of the stunning architecture from a dynamic angle, giving a genuine impression of the awesome scale of the building, and the detail of the Gothic Revival towers.
  • Comment. Users may want to consider this past nomination. Enochlau 02:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I've seen better photos. JoJan 20:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I realise a photographer might be frustrated waiting for British weather to provide anything better than this flat grey lighting under a brooding grey sky, but even if you forgive that, this image is just too small. Sorry ~ Veledan • Talk + new 20:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I too feel there must be better photos of such an incredible building. I consider the angle haphazard, not "dynamic," and the frame very limiting. CapeCodEph 23:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Too small and an uncomfortably high amount of the building is cut off chowells 06:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 1. Size. 2. Cut off at bottom and more importantly, top. When taking pictures of soaring, vertically- imposing architecture, cutting off the peak seriously damages the composition, methinks.—encephalon 04:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel you're over-reacting a little about the top being cut off. I mean, it's just one of those little spire things, a very minor part of the structure I would think, and it's still half there anyway. Another five identical spires are also visable. It would be different if the entire left hand side tower was cut off, then I would agree with you, but as it is I don't honestly understand your reaction. However, I'll still have to oppose, as the image doesn't really grab me, and it's a little small. Raven4x4x 13:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, Raven, but I don't agree. This is my first ever oppose vote on FPC, and the cut-offs at both ends impact it a lot for me. The spire that was cut is the highest and most prominent one from this angel. Pictures of architecture should never cut off a piece of it in this manner. When you consider that this could have been so easily remedied, it's apparent that this wasn't a well-executed shot, and is not a good FP candidate. IMO, only moving to oppose if the entire left side was cut off is setting exceptionally low standards for FP. I agree with your thoughts on size.—encephalon 10:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too bad this might be too late support Richardkselby 19:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Mark 48 Torpedo testing.jpg

[edit]

Uploaded and nominated by me, but under the mistaken assumption that the Image is PD from a US NAVY server, while it appears the image is originally Non-Commercial Non-Derivatives from the Australian NAVY. Details on Image:Mark 48 Torpedo testing.jpg. Delist because of inadequate license. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hijab

[edit]
Original version
A flyless version edited by Veledan. I've also lifted the level of shadow a smidgen

I nominated this article because right when I saw it I was in a state of "awww" (because I thought that it was really cute); the article it is in is the Hijab article, the person who created the image is Christian Briggs.

Voting hasn't started yet. I'll unstrike when voting is enabled. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot it was new, changed to comment. --Wulf 20:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quite alright, just wanted to be fair to nominator. It illustrates the Hijab. And obviously a fly on the top of her head. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

∞ 04:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Plenty of votes either way, but no consensus. Raven4x4x 06:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

La Donna Velata

[edit]
La Donna Velata (Woman with a veil)

My second Raphael nomination. It is used in his article, as well as oil painting. Beautiful artwork, well brushed.

  • I support this image of course. The only thing that made me hesitate to add my vote is that we would only want a limited number of pics on FP from any particular artist, and this isn't one of Raphael's best-known ones. But given the fact that we're probably not going to be able to use the School of Athens nom below (or in fact any decent pics of his frescoes taken since the various rounds of cleaning in the last 20 years), I think we should snag this one for FP! Come on people, don't let the chance go by :-) ~ Veledan • Talk + new 17:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't know if its the image or the painting itself, but looks too grainy to me. I also think its extremely dull. --ScottyBoy900Q[[User

Rafael

[edit]

He is a great artist, i believe this is his lover for she is another picture of him which i cant remember the name and she is dressed very intimately. Or should i say not dressed. I love the way he used color and he put in every single detail like the loose string of hair coming out of her head. Its one of my favorite paintings and i don't even like renaissance art. It is oil on canvas and it is displayed at the Galleria Palatina in Florence, Italy. I say good on him.

The School of Athens

[edit]

Well, I'm not smart enough to remember who uploaded the image, but it is a famous painting by Raphael (the painter, not the Ninja Turtle). It's only around 500 years old, so I'm not sure of the Public Domain status. It is used in Raphael Rooms and a few other pages.

p.s. having re-read my comments, I want to make it clear that I'm not implying anything but good faith on the part of the person who took the trouble to upload this great image and made the effort to justify its presence on Wikipedia. This is always worthy of praise, even if it turns out that the effort suffers from a misunderstanding of a technicality. ~ Veledan • Talk + new 17:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got the image from a google image search for "school of athens". Doing the same search, and looking for the dimensions of this picture, it seems one link at least is here, with the image itself here. I'm not sure if this is the original source or not, as there's no other information at that site. For all I know, they might have pulled it from Wikipedia. I uploaded the pic thinking that as a (really) old 2d painting, it is public domain. Of the 10-12 pictures I could find on google image search, this was the clearest (others had more resolution, but were blurry, etc.). Hope that helps. If it's decided that it isn't public domain, I'm sure a shout out to wikipedians could dig up a high-resolution, clear, appropriately copyrighted version. --jacobolus (t) 20:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted The rules require four or more supporting votes. If the copyright issue was to be sorted out I'm sure this would attract more votes if resubmitted. Raven4x4x 06:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Berkelah falls

[edit]

Berkelah falls

Very nice panoramic picture of the waterfalls; appears in Berkelah falls.

Page removed due to deletion of image Raven4x4x 11:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TMA

[edit]
Caption goes here

Looks interesting. Used in Trans Maldivian Airways. Image was created by Nattu

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Mary Lake

[edit]
Saint Mary Lake
File:Saint Mary Lake and Wildgoose Island-2.jpg
Levels Adjustment Layer in Photoshop
File:Saint Mary Lake and Wildgoose Island-3.jpg
Levels Lake 3 16bit Mode

This article appears in Saint Mary Lake, and illustrates it well. I know all of the sizists out there are going to complain, but even at this small size, it is quite stunning. Besides, in the past, FPC never had to be very big.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freud Couch

[edit]

This image, featured at the bottom of the Sigmund Freud article and created by Konstantin Binder for the Wikimedia commons is a real gorgeous one which immediately found its way to my desktop background. Konstantin writes about it in his blog (in German!) for those hungry for background info on the image itself. The couch itself is on display at the London Freud Museum.

So, is that a support, neutral or oppose vote? We can't count it as it is because I can't figure out your opinion. Raven4x4x 01:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yumgthang Valley

[edit]
Yumgthang Valley in north Sikkim

Absolutely beautiful and almost unreal picture of the Himalayas. Used in the India article, among others. Photo taken by User:Nichalp.

Not promoted 5/6 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

European Hornet

[edit]
European Hornet

I am nominating this because it vividly demonstrates what a hornet is and what it looks like. You can make out every detail of her body, from the hair on her abdomen to the dimples on her ugly face, from the teeth on her legs to the veins in her wings. And the picture itself is fairly large to boot. The hornet was alive at the time this picture was taken. I took this. I used an Olympus C-5050 Zoom in super macro mode. Through careful use of lighting and perspective, I used a single piece of unfolded white foam board as both the floor and the background. The light itself was a 100W equivalent 6500K compact flourescent.

Support - I don't really care that it's dead, it can't very well be expected that an image of this quality be taken of a LIVE hornet!! However, from a scientific perspective, the absence of any scale is somewhat of a drawback. On the other hand, adding any kind of scale now would likely reduce the aesthetic quality of the image, so perhaps a note in the description of this specimen's size is enough. --Deglr6328 07:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Chris 73 Talk 11:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Great pic. Ericd 14:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Enochlau 23:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Dead or alive, fantastic picture. --Cactus.man>Reply 07:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ( + ) Support Good photo, but the insect must have either been dead or very close to it - as I find it hard to believe it waited for you to set up your lighting. Not that I consider that a drawback in anyway, so good photo and glad to see it in jpeg format! --Fir0002 09:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Beautiful image with stunning detail. I'm currently using this as the wallpaper on my laptop! -- uberpenguin 21:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The white foreground looks very pixelly. Can something be done about that? As to whether it's dead or alive, it may well be alive, but the very significant axial flexion leads me to suspect it was clobbered over the head with a swatter and placed on the table for the pic. :) Yes? Or perhaps you shot it the second it was in an unusual pose (but I don't think so ;)) Count this as support if the foreground can be improved.—encephalon 04:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mean to be rude, but what the H? Very pixelly? I'm completely open to all comments and criqitues, even negative ones (perhaps especially negative ones) but I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you mean pixellated? Or do you mean image noise? Now that can be fixed, although I don't see how much if it would show up in a white area. On my monitor, the image has an almost completely smooth gradiation from the white foreground to the black background, except for some minor color noise in the black and gray areas. There is some residual noise in the foreground, but I have to load it into photoshop and completely darken the midtones to see it. It is invisible at normal brightness levels, at least on my monitor. Man, I hope nobody else is having the same problem as you. Now I'm all worried! PiccoloNamek 04:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey there. It sounds like you might be a little upset, PiccoloNamek, but don't worry please, there's no need to be. I thought I'd simply tell you what I see on my monitor; I should have described it better. The white foreground does not have a smooth gradation. It has concentric, roughly circular layers as it heads toward the back, with the width of the layers gradually decreasing until, at the gray-black region at the back, it's hardly perceptible. Maybe it's my monitor (Dell, UltraSharp Flatpanel LCD), but I don't think so because I'm not having any problems with other backgrounds of any color, and on those images where other editors point to problems (eg. Cryptic's comment about the St mary lake photos) I see precisely the same thing. The actual wasp though is perfectly sharp and clear.—encephalon 07:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If by upset you mean upset at your comment, then certainly not. If by upset you mean upset that there might be a problem I missed in my own photo, then yes indeed. You mentioned you're on an LCD monitor. I wonder if that could be it. I'm on a CRT right now and I can't see the problem you're describing at any brightness or contrast setting. I noticed that when I changed my color depth to 16-bit, I can see the exact problem that you're describing. However, the problem does not exist when I switch back to 24-bit color. What color depth are you running at? The fact that visible color banding appears when I change to 16-bit color leads me to believe this might be your problem. If not, then I don't know what to do.PiccoloNamek 08:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Yeah. Cache, buddy. It must not have loaded right for me the first time and that version got cached. Doh! My bad.:) Remarkable that it was that way in both the thumb as well as the full mag. But no matter. Full support. :)—encephalon 08:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Hornet-vespa.jpg

Reliant Astrodome

[edit]
The Reliant Astrodome with refugees from Hurricane Katrina

This image, uploaded by Rama on Commons, appears in the Hurricane Katrina article. While I'm not (even remotely) an expert on judging featured pictures, the picture just struck me, and is very powerful. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 22:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tycho's Supernova Remnant

[edit]
This cellular-looking object is Tycho's Supernova Remnant. As a huge ball of exploding plasma, it was Irving Langmuir who coined the name plasma because of its similarity to blood plasma, and Hannes Alfvén who noted its cellular nature. The filamentary blue outer shell of X-ray emitting high-speed electrons is also a characteristic of plasmas. This is a false-colour image since x-rays are invisible to the human eye.

What looks like a microscopic biological cell, is in fact a huge Supernova Remnant. But it's no coincidence; as a huge ball of exploding plasma, it was Irving Langmuir who coined the name plasma because of its similarity to blood plasma, and Hannes Alfvén who noted its cellular nature.

The image can be found on the page about plasma, was sourced from Nasa, and is credited to Credit: NASA/CXC/Rutgers/J.Warren & J.Hughes et al.

Support - I will marginally support with the caveat that the KeV-color correlation data is added to the image description page.--Deglr6328 18:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I usually love space pictures, but this one doesn't do it for me somehow. Raven4x4x 07:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Mole Antonelliana

[edit]
The Mole Antonelliana

Add your reasons for nominating it here; say what article it appears in, and who created the image.

  • A bit Average. It would have been nice to see the dome, it seems to be the most prominent feature of the Mole Antonelliana.
  • Not exactly, the dome and the tower above is what you see from the heights around Turin. In the city you will mainly see the tower. Near the Mole you can't see the building has a whole, you can barely see the dome, you look ahead and notice it's very high. Ericd 17:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose You can't really tell what the picture is meant to depict without a caption. I realize that it would be hard to get a wider shot of the building, but I think that's necessary. --Kerowyn 05:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Harbour Bridge

[edit]
A view of Sydney Harbour, with the Sydney Opera House on the left, the central business district in the image centre and Sydney Harbour Bridge on the right

Gorgeous photo, beautiful colours and high resolution

Promoted Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge night.jpg in probably the most popular nomination I've ever seen here. Not without good reason, I might add. Raven4x4x 06:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Borkum

[edit]
Borkum as photographed from a lighthouse

This is an image I found on Wikimedia Commons through the German Wikipedia, and I loved it so much I put it in the English article on Borkum. I think it's a charming and really quite fascinating image of the town and island. Also, the high angle the shot was taken from is pretty uncommon, at least from what I've seen. According to the Commons page the photographer was Peter Hudec; the uploader was Conny.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Kinabalu

[edit]
View of Mount Kinabalu from Kundasan

Fantastic photo of Mount Kinabalu taken from Kundasan; it's found in the Mount Kinabalu article and I'm using it for the Featured Picture section of the Malaysian Portal. The photo is taken and uploaded by User:Sltan.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PDP-8/I CPU

[edit]
CPU, core memory, and external bus interface of a DEC PDP-8/I

I'm nominating this image because it adds significantly to the CPU article I'm currently rewriting from scratch. It wonderfully illustrates the construction of the type of typical discrete component transistor computer that was common during the late 60s and early 70s before the advent of the Integrated circuit.

The quality of the image isn't pristeen, but it's pretty good overall and is phenominal in comparison to most other photographs of minicomputer internals. I think both the rarity of this kind of image in this high quality, and its significance to the CPU article are very strong arguments for its nomination.

The photo was taken by Robert Krten for his online PDP-8 computer museum and was released to public domain upon my request.

Well, the fans do give SOME sense of proportion, but you have a definite point... It would be really cool if I could convince the original author to take a picture of one of the flip-chip modules next to a modern microprocessor die for proportion (I'll get on that). Each of the flip chip modules (the cards that plug into the backplane that you are seeing) are 2.5×5.0" (6.4×12.7 cm). I dunno how I feel about adding a scale to the image; I think it's a less effective way of making the point. I appreciate any more input on this matter! -- uberpenguin 23:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is it in a 19" rack? If so, the scale is built in. Fg2 11:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really love historical images of scientific and technological devices but have unfortunately found [8] that unless the image is of truly exceptional quality and composition, most people just don't really care. I think here, focus and lighting will be issues.--Deglr6328 00:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was kinda worried this might be the case, but with images like this you have to take them as they come... Anyway, I figured it's worth giving the image a shot. -- uberpenguin 00:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sure, old computer parts. Perhaps the subect matter isn't interesting to you, but the image is historical and plenty of folks have an interest in the history of computing. You wouldn't reject a rare picture of some interesting historical building or antique auto on the grounds that they are 'old,' would you? -- uberpenguin 12:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Important subject that is used well in the CPU article. BlankVerse ∅ 05:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Interesting subject, but the picture is ugly --Chozan 18:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It's not the picture that's ugly, it's the PDP-8 CPU that's ugly, which is a very important distinction. The picture gives a very good idea of what they looked like—they were cramped, cluttered and butt-ugly. Featured Pictures can't just be pretty sunsets and nice macro shot of flowers. I think that it is an important subject and an interesting picture, and that's it's worthy of FP consideration. BlankVerse ∅ 12:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see what you're saying, and I can appreciate what it does for the article, but that still does not make it FP worthy. It not only has to illustrate the subject matter it's talking about, but it should do so while "being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." This picture actually makes me NOT want to read the article. If I had to read an article based on seeing a picture, this would be far from the top of my list. That's how I judge FP's. I don't mean to say its a bad picture, I just don't think its striking in any way, shape, or form. I do think there are examples of FP's that aren't the pretty sunset type pictures, I don't think there are any as ugly as this though. Just look at my voting record...I'm very picky. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Things can be strikingly ugly as well as strikingly beautiful. A VLSI microprocessor die can be exceedingly ugly if you know what to look for, or exceedingly pretty if you just happen to like things that cause optical dispersion and interference. Frankly, pictures of old tube and relay computers are pretty dang ugly looking too, but that doesn't change history, nor does it (in my opinion) detract from the picture's value to the relevant article(s). -- uberpenguin 14:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will support because, well, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't :) but I'd really like to see some explanation in the image description of what is what here. Without a more descriptive explanation I can't tell where each of the parts are in the image.--Deglr6328 00:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Looks bland and the computer doesn't look too nice either. --Bash 22:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No offense, and not meaning to sound like a broken record, but one of the requirements for featured picture is not 'is it pretty.' I'll echo BlankVerse's above sentiment that featured pictures should be more than super macro shots of flowers and pretty landscape photos. Those are nice, but come on, break out of the cliche photo box a bit... Your opinion is your own, but I think it's utterly silly to reject a picture because the subject isn't something really sleek or strange looking. -- uberpenguin 13:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

McCoy Tyner

[edit]
McCoy Tyner

Photo of McCoy Tyner from 1973. Nicely composed available light photo of notable jazz musician. The photo is taken and uploaded by User:Gisle.

This was apparently uploaded by the person who took the photograph in 1973, Gisle Hannemyr. It states Copyright (c) 1973 Gisle Hannemyr. But it also has an Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 CC tag. Is this compatible with FP guidelines?—encephalon 04:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The FP guidelines say: "GNU Free Documentation License [GFDL] or a similar license." The CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 is identical in scope to the GFDL. If it is the copyright notice that bothers you, please note that the GFDL and the CC licenses relies on the copyright-holder granting the license. A GFDL or CC-license is only valid if the image is copyrighted and the license is granted by the copyright-holder. — gisle h. 08:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted Image:Mccoy_Tyner_1973_gh.jpg Raven4x4x 08:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seashell

[edit]
Seashell on Crosby beach

Self-nomination. I think it's a pretty cool picture.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 11:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan commissioned

[edit]
Hundreds attend the commissioning ceramony for the nucleared powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan. Mrs. Reagan gave the ship's crew the traditional first order as an active unit of the Navy: "Man the ship and bring her to life."

I found this online and uploaded it for the page Ship Commissioning, then later placed it in the USS Ronald Reagan page. I think it does a good job of illustrating a ship commissioning ceramony.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 11:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber

[edit]
A B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber
File:800px-B-2 Spirit Night 2 defished.jpg
A B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber defished

I still think this picture has what it takes to be featured. Last time it was nominated the main issues were the small size of the picture, the odd angle of the plane, the person in the picture, the odd coloring of the plane and its ability to blend into the background. This version of the photo is supersized, and has been rotated to fix the slight slant of the plane. The guy is still in the picture, but there are guys in this featured picture too, and it still made the cut. As for the fact that the plane seems to blend into the background... its a stealth bomber. Thats the whole point of having the plane shaped and colored in this particular way. It makes the plane unique, and from my perspect the plane should be praised for this ability and not put down for it.

  • Nominate and Support -- I said it before, and I'll say it again: It seems that everyone has a picture of the B-2 or F-117 flying... in the blue sky... at high noon... in plain sight. Its just so...depressing. This picture, on the other hand, shows what the B-2 was really built for: Stealth. Were it not for the eriely cool runway lights playing off the B-2's belly the craft would be practically invisible. That makes this shot worthy enough, in my opinion, to be a featured picture. TomStar81 03:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I stand by my comments at the previous nomination. Stealth aircraft aren't unique because they're painted black; it's because they're shaped to avoid radar detection. In this head-on, poorly-lit night shot, you can't see the shape at all. —Cryptic (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fisheye lens was used ? Ericd 17:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although I respect their greater expertise in photography, I don't concur with some of the opposers in the previous nom. The man standing there doesn't detract from it, IMHO; he's a nice break away point from what might otherwise be a monotonous composition. The slant was easily corrected. The composition itself, the perspective, the night-time shot, all this adds to the picture in my view, because it showcases the nature of the beast. I'd support this.—encephalon 02:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also disagree with previous assertions that the man takes away from photograph. I think he gives a great sense of scale, and I second Encephalon's thoughts. CapeCodEph 04:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this a good photo. But I'm quite sure the perscpective is distorted by the use of a fisheye lens. IMO it's a step too far in "special effects" for an encyclopedia. Ericd 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgive me for my ignorance on the matter, but what exactly is a "fisheye lense"? And how does that relate to this picture? TomStar81 02:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • :o] --Deglr6328 02:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose it could have been taken with a fisheye lense; however, I'm not sure that the lense —if it was used— is responsible for distorting the plane. According to the History Channel, Secret Weapons of the Cold War, various studies on stealth technology, and an ex-soviet mathamatical theory the distortions of the plane could easily be explained as having been engineered into the bomber to help make it stealthy. With all do respect to your position the US Government still maintains a tight leash on its stealth fighters and bombers, so jumping directly to the conclusion that the lense used is somehow distorting the picture may not be factually true. TomStar81 04:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah Right, if the stealth bomber's technology is even able to distort the ground in front of it, then I am really impressed by its technology! The picture is clearly taken by a fisheye lens as can be seen on the horribly distorted straight lines in the foreground's concrete. Fisheye lenses are OK as long as there aren't any visible straight lines, but on that picture it is very disturbing. Glaurung 06:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neutral for original version. I am personally not fond of fisheye effect, and I prefer the defished version, which I support. Glaurung 09:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said anything about the camera distorting the runway, only about the plane; furthermore if your only reason for opposing the picture are the distorted runway lines I have to ask why the (this parted censored) you bothered editing the page in the first place. TomStar81 07:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Calm down please. Fisheye effect affects the whole picture, the runway and the plane, but is more visible on the runway straight lines. You can not consider the plane only. Your FPC nomination concerns the whole picture. I dont like to see features I expect to be straight being completely bent. Glaurung 08:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't mind the fisheye lens, or the person in the photo, I just wish the bomber itself was more clearly defined and contrasted from the background. Raven4x4x 06:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I DEMAND AN EXPLANATION FOR THIS FISHEYE LENS BULLSH*T! It never mattered to anybody eight weeks ago that the photo may have been taken with a fisheye lense and now all of sudden its an internation incident. What changed in eight weeks, huh? You Answer me that! TomStar81 07:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, that was me. I'm sure I was logged in. Obviously not. Raven4x4x 11:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • This page can be a bit rough. To get through, a pic usually doesn't just have to be a great pic, it has to be seen to be an important contribution to an article, and I guess the problem with this one is that (a) not enough of the plane is visible and (b) the fisheye is an intended distortion. If it fails here, it might well do better as an FPC on commons. That said, I think the photographer here knew what he was doing and the pic isn't only really attractive, it does a good job of illustrating an aspect of the plane's stealth - the face it presents to an enemy radar. There are several other, less striking, pics in the article showing more surface detail. Support ~ Veledan • Talk + new 23:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My opinion hasn't changed. Other people are just cruel. Enochlau 23:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, folks. I needed to here that. It makes me feel a little bit better. I suppose I owe you an apology for exploding like that to. Understand that I'm not a photographer, and because of that I feel left out over all this fisheye lense buisness. Worse, because I don't really understand it I feel like the photo is being discriminated against for something beyond my control. It nerve-racking to know that something your suppose to be helping is beyond your help. TomStar81 01:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the photograph is superb. Еdit 01:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIrst off I ave little photographic knowledge and have no idea what a fisheye lens is so I cannot oppose based on that.Though a new reason for opposition could come up, maybe people didn't notice that because they were focusing on other things or as stated before, new people. I still have to oppose though. I hate the lighting, the colouring just seems weird. Also some people like the person there, but for me it is the second thing to see, after the strut for the front landing gear where it is really bright, before i look at the plane itself. Your comment about the other featured picture, I would have opposed that if given the chance. It also seems to show the plane at a weird angle. And I am not just being "cruel".say1988 02:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't vote when this last came up just because I didn't feel like getting into an argument, but I have to say this is one of the coolest B2 pictures i've ever seen anywhere. I still have to oppose though. I don't like the huge foreground and the guy drives me crazy. When I look at the picture, I can't stop looking at that man instead of the plane. I wish he was more to the side so he could be cropped out, he just drives me crazy though. Those are my only complaints. And you're right TomStar81, it is something out of your control, that doesn't change the fact though that there's an incredibly annoying little man that ruins the whole picture. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Photo is colorless and taken from weird angle. JediMaster16 10:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : I've uploaded a processed image with correction of the fisheye effect. It is still not perfect, but this shows that distortion can be corrected. Glaurung 09:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is the first time that I've ever looked at the picture voting process in Wik. Seems to me that the one universal requirement is that a picture (which after all does not require one to undergo lengthy analysis in order to have strong feelings) must acheive a consensus, almost upon first glance. There truly are a lot of neat, even unique qualities to this picture. But it obviously doesn't "do it" for most people here. Am I wrong in how I'm seeing this situation? Unschool 18:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main rule is that you vote based on the above stated criteria, namely does the picture add signifigantly to the article, or articles, in which it resides. Some vote on what they feel, not what the community feels. Other people with a more photographic background vote on even higher criteria, as evidenced by Ericd when he oberved that a fisheye lense was used in this case. Normally one would only oppose if there was something wrong with the picture or the lisence; however, since featured pictures should make one think "wow!" when first seen there are some other considerations as well. The community consesus is required to promote a picture to featured status, but please don't vote on what the community thinks. You're an individual, I trust you can think for youself. Come up with your own critera and use it to measure the worth of a photograph. TomStar81 20:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, please vote on individual grounds, not on how others have voted. Otherwise, why don't we just take the first 5 votes and go home? Enochlau 23:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a related note: Unschool, could I ask you either to change your vote or to give a specific reason for opposing? In the case of the former, you need not nessicarily vote support, but the way your text is phrased at the moment sounds more a like a "comment" or a "neutral". In the case of the latter, a solid reason for opposing (ie: to dark, the person, the odd lines, etc) would help firm up the oppose vote some. TomStar81 04:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The matter of opinions reflected on this page is a matter if they look at the picture and say: "WOW! What a great picture!" This picture is interesting, but it does not particularly excite me in any way. --AllyUnion (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Looking over the comments on my "vote", I can see that I did not make myself clear. It's not that I was voting "no" because the group was voting no. Like others have stated, to be a featured picture one would think that the picture causes a "Wow" reaction, drawing one to the article. I was merely making the observation that almost no one making comments seems to be super-excited about the picture, and that perhaps it was a lost cause. Now, as to my own feelings about it? In its small representation on this page, frankly, I find it unimpressive. However, when linking up to the high resolution full-size picture, I do find it quite interesting.
I suspect that most of us who choose to spend time not only writing and editing articles on the Wik, but even commenting on these articles (and pictures), are, by and large, a group of rather large-egoed individuals. At least, I am. While I will always be humble in the face of factual information that contradicts a previously-held position of mine, when it comes to matters of opinion, I do not need nor desire to follow others. Still, having the ability to have an independent opinion does not always mean that one will have an opinion. On this particular picture, I am ambivalent, except to say that I prefer the non-fisheyed version. Unschool 06:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see the merits of your argument. In fact, looking at that picture once again, WOW, this is fantastic, I love this photo. Enochlau 14:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC) (I am being facetious, but the support votes (at least mine) here supported last time, and the excitement has... perhaps worn off? In any case, it's a subdued picture, and that's where it's beauty lies, so maybe that explains the lack of "wows" as well. Enochlau 14:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support - For what it's worth this late in the voting, I too believe the photo is well done, interesting (not distracting or misleading) in its coloration and contrast, and possesses a "Wow" factor at first glance deserving of FP status. CapeCodEph 08:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. As an Aerospace engineer in training, I can say that this image does not do any justice to the B-2 Spirit bomber. The beauty of the plane is its shape, especially when looked from the top, because of the "flat diamond" design that Skunkworks designed for the F-117 Nighthawk. The angle from which this picture is taken is pretty unflattering, because it does not show any of its special features. The fact that it was a fisheye does not have anything to do with it, it's just a bad picture. If you want a nice picture, nominate Image:Usaf.b2.spirit.750pix.jpg. Titoxd(?!?) 06:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for organizational purposes...Votes in Support:8, Oppose:7, Neutral:3 (As of 03:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC))
  • Oppose. This is a bad photograph, and it does nothing to illustrate what makes the B-2 remarkable. This plane is not built to "blend into the background" (as suggested in the nomination), but to be invisible to radar. This has to do with the shape of the plane, which is not even shown in this badly lit photograph from an awkward angle. gisle h. 15:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted This has been a heavily contested nomination, but with the lack of consensus I cannot promote the image. I know the fisheye lens has been removed, but it also seems to me that the majority of the oppose votes were due to the man, the angle or the colouring, not the fisheye lens. Raven4x4x 12:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Airlines Boeing 747

[edit]
Malaysia Airlines Boeing 747-400 taking off

I think that's a pretty good pic of a Boeing 747 taking off, the plane's angle in the image is perfect; Image is found in the Malaysia Airlines article and it was taken and uploaded by User:Arpingstone.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yarra Panorama

[edit]
A panorama of Melbourne's Yarra River by night, showing the Central Business District on the left and the Southbank entertainment district on the right.
Twilight version.

Another Diliff spectacular. At full magnification is ever so slightly less sharp than it perhaps could be (cf. the similar Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge night.jpg), but this seems to me to be of such a minor degree it's hardly an issue. The figures might be a problem. I thought I'd put it up for you experts to decide. Appears in Yarra River, illustrates it very well.

NOTE. I've just discovered a second Diliff work on the Yarra, this one taken at twilight (looks like late twilight to me): Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg. It looks as good IMHO, and I think both deserve FP noms. When voting, perhaps editors could state their preferences for "Night" and/or "Twilight"; is a separate nom necessary?—encephalon 07:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Yarra Panorama.jpg Promoted Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg It looks like both of them were popular. Raven4x4x 08:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eiderstedt marshland

[edit]
Marshland in Eiderstedt, Schleswig-Holstein

I'm nominating this image because of the way it feels. I like the clouds hanging overhead, I like the color of the grass, and I love the bikepath cutting through the plant life at that angle. The man on the bike and the hills or trees on the horizon give it a sense of scale. I think this is really quite a marvelous landscape shot. Photographed and uploaded by Jan van der Crabben (Jvdc).

  • Nominate and support. - Branddobbe 06:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the colors, but the picture is small, and the horizon does not look like it's really horizontal. Phils 14:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why it matters if the horizon is horizontal. -Branddobbe 19:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree horizontal isnt too important, but a lot of people don't. I can understand why they would want a horizontally aligned picture in an encyclopedia as it can throw off the slope of things, especially pictures with structures. So I advise you try to correct the hoizontal before voting, along with the size if possible.
  • Oppose - Small size and mostly washed out sky are big drawbacks.... --Deglr6328 23:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I like it, but it's bordering on small. Enochlau 06:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • supportRichardkselby 00:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Boring and hardly striking. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - JediMaster16 07:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A fine landscape - First, I live in a large European city, and when I'm not travelling, I forget places like this even exist. Second, what kind of lanscape has such curiously thin stone paths running into the horizon - to me this is exotic. Third, compositionally interesting, with the perspective lines (including the clouds) converging on the bike-path, and the natural grassy expanse on the right providing contrast to the man-made on the left. More contrast in the color of the grass, and the color of the clouds, and in the size of the figures in relation to the landscape. Fourth, this image made me discover the Featured picture candidates section. - Tdiew 11:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the photographer and will just comment on what is said without voting. If you look closely, the picture is horizontal. Take something rectangular, align it onto the edge of the photo on your screen, and you'll see that it's 99% horizontal. Or, go into photoshop and draw a line. The non-horizontal-ness is an optical illusion due to a) a slight spherical effect from the lens and b) the footpath, which is angling away to the left -- the eye likes to think that it's straight and "adjusts" the horizon accordingly. As I scanned this from a slide, I don't have a bigger version of this right now, but could get one once I hae moved into my new flat and have my slides back. Thamis 13:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted although it was very very close. If Thamis can get a larger version of the image it would probably pass if it was nominated again. Raven4x4x 23:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HassanIIMosque

[edit]

Nice light reflection from the marble floor in the second largest mosque in the world; Hassan II Mosque, author: Lsorin

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St Vitus stained glass

[edit]
Stained glass adorns the interior of St. Vitus Cathedral, Prague, Czech Republic.

Breathtaking study of the cathedral. Perfect alignment. Beautiful light and shadow work. Crystal clear. I'm simply left speechless by this guy's talent.

Promoted Image:St Vitus stained glass.jpg Yet another featured picture for Diliff. Again, it's well deserved. Raven4x4x 09:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stintino Beach

[edit]
The beach near Stintino, Sassari in Sardinia
Cropped version by Raven4x4x

See how it's beautiful when greenish mediterranean vegetation meets the various blue colors of this uncontaminated sea in Sardinia, Italy. This photo was taken on June 2005.


San Francisco Baker Beach

[edit]
Baker Beach in San Francisco

I was looking for a picture of Baker Beach when I found this panorama. The over exposed area in the center is very dramatic.


The Meissner Effect

[edit]

[[:Image:Meissner effect.jpg|thumb|The Meissner effect of superconductors.]]

An image of the Meissner effect (levitation of a magnet due to the complete expulsion of all external magnetic fields) in a high temperature superconductor. This image has its problems, its a scan so the dynamic range leaves a bit to be desired, there is still a bit of speckle and dust left even after having been cleaned up, some may object to the centering, and focus is just off at the subject. However, the very striking and unusual nature of the phenomenon, the large size of the image, the clear bubbly liquid nitrogen and wispy nitrogen/freezing water vapor and the nice vibrant contrasty colors make up for it I think.--Deglr6328 22:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Corn Cobs

[edit]
Varieties of corn

Selfnom - I had noticed the corn article looked a little drab, and that there were great looking varieties at my local market.

Promoted Image:Corncobs.jpg Raven4x4x 13:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletal muscle

[edit]
A top-down view of skeletal muscle

Two previously failed noms - 1 and 2 - both times the major objection was the bodybuilder in the upper-right corner. That has now been replaced, and I think it's FP material now.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfiretopanga.jpg

[edit]
Wildfire view from top of Topanga canyon.

I poked recent changes, and saw this stunning picture of one of the 2005 California wildfires. I like it because of the way it completely blocks out the sun, and that nearly opaque wall of smoke approaching. Nerval took this picture.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bentley badge and hood ornament-BW.jpg

[edit]
A Bentley badge and hood ornament atop a 1960 S-2 4-Door Saloon
color version

I really like the way this looks. The black and white makes it look dramatic and reduces the glare off of the hood, but I provide both for your judgement (please specify which you are voting for). The color version was nominated here (the B&W version was introduced only at the end). The picture was taken by User:Rdsmith4.

Promoted Image:Bentley badge and hood ornament-BW.jpg Raven4x4x 02:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Airport_traffic_pattern.jpg

[edit]
A typical airport traffic pattern.

Image created by ericg for traffic pattern. Clear, attractive, and nicely illustrates the concept.

  • Nominate and support. - — ceejayoz ★ 23:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear, unfortunately low resolution compared to other FP diagrams. Phoenix2 23:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My first thought was to oppose because I had to read the article to determine that upwind, crosswind, downwind etc were in reference to "legs" of the trip regardless of wind direction. However, alongside the information in the article, this picture adds significantly to its effectiveness, and quite well done. CapeCodEph 07:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I say it every time a diagram/chart comes up for nomination. I just don't like them. Not for FP's anyway. Maybe we need a Featured Diagram kind of thing. I just don't see diagrams as striking or anywhere near as beautiful as some of our FP's. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevertheless, diagrams are able to become FPs on wikipedia because they "add significantly" to an article. Indeed, they may not be as striking as beautiful landscapes, but until a featured diagram category is available, opposing valid FP candidates on the grounds of "just don't like them" seems in poor taste. CapeCodEph 07:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the idea of having a new section or page for featured diagrams, but I don't see how that would help you. If you don't like diagrams, wouldn't you then vote against them on the "Featured Diagram Candidates" page? I you don't want to see them, I'm sure you can easily avert your eyes from the respective nominations. Wikipedia:Featured pictures already has its own "drawings and diagrams" section. Or is this related to the featuring of pictures on the Main Page? If so, it is not at all clear that featured diagrams would not be shown on the Main Page. In any case, we could already choose to treat drawings differently on the Main Page or the POTD using the existing tools. So, please explain how separating diagrams to a different page or section here would address whatever problem you have with them.--Eloquence* 13:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • See the discussion on the Talk page for more about this topic. The way I look at it is like this...To me, graphs/charts/diagrams are in a totally different category as pictures. I don't think that ANY of the FP's that are charts stand up as equal to any of the other images that have been deemed FP's. Now I know people don't like this stance as a FP is really only supposed to illustrate its topic, but that's kind of the reason I think a Featured Diagrams index would be a good idea. I wouldn't necessarily vote no against a chart if I knew all it was being compared to was other charts. I just think comparing a chart to a picture is ridiculous as they are not the same thing. I certainly feel that they need an opportunity to be featured though, just not as featured pictures. It's possible for charts/diagrams to be interesting and captivating and thoroughly illustrate their topic, but as far as FP's are concerned, I think we need to take into account its artistic, striking, captivating value as well as how well it illustrates its topic. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Would you take someone's FPC vote seriously if they voted "oppose" on every butterfly photo because they don't like 'em? — ceejayoz ★ 19:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, if it was a bad photo. I'm not trying to cause a problem here...I'm simply stating that I don't think charts/diagrams meet the requirements of being FP's, and i'll continue to vote as such until I see one I feel is deserving. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is a most delightful contribution... and I love those shadows! Enochlau 15:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. comment: Scotty, ceejayoz was asking if you'd take someone seriously who rejected butterfly photos purely because they were butterflies, quality being completely ignored. You responded 'if it was a bad photo' - which isn't an answer to the question. ericg ✈ 22:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah...I see what you mean. That's a totally different story though. There's a big difference in voting no because you simply don't like a particular image, and voting no because you don't think that image meets the proper criteria.--ScottyBoy900Q∞ 22:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A simple diagram to show a simple concept that may be hard to understand for some folks, especially those not familiar with the subject. bjelleklang 23:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but why not PNG? —jiy (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very nice image; I like how everything is nice and clean. --Bash 00:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

discussion

[edit]
      • Comment: I think the point here is that diagrams do meet the proper criteria. ericg ✈ 23:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure...some might. No one's refuting that. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • And, as I asked you before, which of these criteria does this one not meet? — ceejayoz ★ 12:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Specifically...the requirement that it be pleasing to the eye, but also those are not the only criteria it needs to meet. Conveniently since I made this suggestion, the definition of what a FP is located on the WP:FP page has been changed, but still includes these criteris: that it be particularly beautiful, shocking, and/or impressive. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • You seem to have omitted the bits about it including diagrams, and including informational stuff too. The criteria on that page certainly don't state that they must be all of "beautiful, shocking, impressive and informational". — ceejayoz ★ 15:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ah, but that's not what you asked...I didn't omit anything. You asked what I had specifically wrong with THIS image and I don't feel it meets any of the criteris i listed in my last post. And the way it reads now...it does make it seem that the image needs to meet all of those criteria. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Will you be voting Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Yarra_Panorama and Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Corn_cobs down, then, on the basis that they are not shocking? How many currently featured pictures fulfill all of those criteria? — ceejayoz ★ 16:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Are you saying you consider them to be not shocking? I believe I voted "yes" for them because I feel they adequately fulfill the requirements. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 18:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'd say it takes a rather large stretch of the definition of "shocking" to find a photo of ears of corn "shocking", yes. If ears of corn are shocking, anything is. — ceejayoz ★ 18:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, by the definition provided on the FP page, you must seem to find something particularly "shocking" about a diagram of little planes flying around or you wouldn't be voting to support it. I wouldn't be so hung up on that one word...when put together with the rest of the definition, thats what makes a FP worthy of its status. (Perhaps if we want to continue this discussion we should move it off this page? It's starting to not so much reflect this one individual candidate)--ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, by the definition provided on the FP page, you must seem to find something particularly "shocking"
                  No, you're still misreading me. I'm the one who believes that the criteria are "one of", not "all of the above", not you. Thusly, I'm fine with the corn photo. You, however, are arguing that a picture must fulfill all of those criteria, in which case your support vote for the corn photo seems inappropriate. — ceejayoz ★ 23:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • My vote in support seems inappropriate because I think it meets all the criteria???...yeah...that makes a lot of sense. And I certainly DO think it should meet ALL of the criteria. If it didn't there would be hundreds upon hundreds of FP's as some would certainly meet one criteria and not another. They would also be worthless as there would be so many of them. Using the word and to me indicates they should have to be all of those things. If i'm misreading you, try to explain your position a little better please. You're the one who seems to be focusing on the word "shocking," I see all of the qualities listed above in those candidates not only that one. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Your position seems to be that it must fulfil all of those criteia. My objection is that I find it difficult to apply "shocking" to a photo of corn, yet it is certainly still featured picture quality. — ceejayoz ★ 03:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm not sure why you aren't understanding this point ScottyBoy. You feel that a featured picture should meet all of the criteria: "beautiful, shocking, impressive and informative". We are just wondering how Image:Corncobs.jpg, which you supported for featured picture, meets the 'shocking' criteria. That's all we are asking: for you to explain to us how you think the corn photo is shocking. Raven4x4x 04:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't know why you people are so focused on the 'shocking' factor. As I mentioned in my last post, its not me who keeps bringing up the word shocking. I never pointed that factor out as the most important reason i like that picture. Also, as a whole, i think the image collectively meets all of the criteria. It's an awesome photograph. It's colorful, vibrant, balanced, and...surprisingly beautiful (which if you look up the definition of shocking, surprising is a key part of the definition). If you would like to continue the discussion of that candidate, I suggest we discuss it under that image instead of this one. The issue brought up here was the one of being a diagram, so let's get back to that so this image isn't bogged down with talk of corn. See the discussion here for that issue. Lets try to keep the talk on the voting page geared towards the images. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Airport traffic pattern.jpg Raven4x4x 05:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Anole Close-up

[edit]
Carolina Anole Close up

My reasons for nominating this are the same as the reason I nominated the photograph of the hornet: sheer, vivid detail. You can see all of the individual scales on his skin, around his eyes, even the expression in his eye. If you look closely enough, you can even see part of his tympanic membrane. Also of note are the cyan-colored scales near the eye. The lizard was perched on the end of my finger when I took the photograph. I realize there is already a featured picture with one of these creatures in it, but this one is pretty good too, ne? This is the kind of picture that when someone loads up and article and looks upon it for the first time, they say "Oh, look at that!". And is that what we want here?

  • Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 04:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see one problem. The full-size image is slightly blurry. It doesn't appear to be motion blur. I chalk it up to a natural artifact of the demosaicing algorithms used to construct bayer filter CCD images. Here is a much smoother, (albiet smaller) resampled version:
Resampled Version, Half-size
Resized to 2000 wide and unsharpened

Promoted Image:P1010027.jpg.JPG

Saint Marys Hospital

[edit]
Saint Marys Hospital.

I've had a couple failed nominations here before, but I've been taking some photographs for the Mayo Clinic articles and this one turned out especially well.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Janitzio

[edit]
Statue of Jose Maria Morelos on top of Janitzio Island, Michoacan, Mexico

This is a photo I took of the Morelos statue in Janitzio, Michoacan, Mexico in January 2001. It illustrates the incredibly striking blue sky in Mexico at that time against the statue as well as the size of the statue contrasting the two people below.

Bam.PiccoloNamek 05:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cloned Out

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crepuscular Rays

[edit]
Jacob's Ladder style crepuscular rays
"Normal" Crepuscular Rays

This image appears in the article Crepuscular rays and I believe it does a wonderful job of showing exactly what Jacob's Ladder style Crepuscular rays look like. It is both scientifically accurate and artistically pleasing. I took this a long time ago with my mom's old Olympus D-460 zoom. I believe it was 3 or 4 pictures assembled together in Panorama Factory.

I'd like to add the other image to this page, but those aren't Jacob's Ladder rays. JL rays come down from holes in the clouds, not out from behind them. Perhaps I should withdraw this nomination... I wonder, would it be OK to move this page to "Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crepuscular Rays"? That way I could put the other pic up for consideration. As for color, well, there was no color. The entire sky was covered in nimbostratus clouds except for that one area. :(PiccoloNamek 03:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I could re-upload the same picture under a different name and just have the old one deleted. And done.PiccoloNamek 06:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
About the exposure. This is actually a high dynamic range image, a combination of 5 differently exposed images in this case. I had to adjust the final output so that the darks were dark enough, but not black, and so that the lights were bright enough, but not blown out. I also used a "Digital Velvia" action on it in the end.PiccoloNamek 09:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both. Second is better, but first is a feature qualityas well. You may want to nominate other pictures from that article, all are stunning. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both. While this would be a fine subject for BW photography, the first picture doesn't convey it at all to me. And the second one, in my opinion, does not show the crispness that I am looking for. Not crispness of photography--that's fine--but rather, it doesn't show the sharpness of the phenomenon to the extent that I expect. There have got to be better shots out there. Unschool 02:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Crepuscular rays color.jpg Congratulations! Raven4x4x 09:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beyonce at the Brit Awards

[edit]
File:Bkbrits.jpg
Beyonce at the 2004 Brit Awards

She could be the first celebrity to be in the featured picture. I don't think any celebrity has ever been a Featured Picture before and this could be the opportunity. This photo is to show that an American Artist talents are recognised internationally as this photo shows a good example of her getting an Award from a foreign country. (The Brit Awards is in the UK).


Yellow hard hat

[edit]
A yellow hard hat
Wow! An Amazing Hard Hat of Lightning!

This is a fine, if unassuming, image uploaded by Chris 73 for use in the hard hat article; it is also currently used to illustrate job stubs.

comment: This is precisely why I nominated it. As you stated, this is a great picture and illustrates its article wonderfully. The "wow" factor seems like a bit of a jaded judgement though, since it deprecates the subject (...of hard hats). For instance, would you vote against the (already featured) picture of a Nikon lens because lenses generally lack that certain je ne sais quoi? --Anetode
Although I understand that the FP criteria does not demand that pictures contain a "wow" factor, there must be something that sets this image apart from an ordinary picture. For a photograph of an object, I would suppose that there must be something in the photograph itself that is beautiful or extraordinary or "wow"-ing; otherwise, every clear picture of an apple, a tree or a table will get promoted as an FP. I think this is slightly distinguished from the Nikon camera lens picture you linked to; the camera lens picture contains interesting details in the numbers, whereas this picture of a hard hat unfortunately does not enlighten me further than that a hard hat is a) a hat b) hard and c) can come in yellow. Enochlau 11:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I concur with Botnotbod. Enochlau 07:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think that an image needs to engage the reader and somehow interest the reader and compel them to read on about the subject matter which is depicted. This can be achieved many ways, the "wow" factor, artistic composition, shocking or titillating subject, historical rarity, etc. With skill, you can even make what would ordinarily be a boring thing (camera lens, as noted above) into something substantially more intriguing and even evocative of the function with which it is involved, in that particular case it is the use of interesting lighting techniques. This, is...well....just a hardhat. It illustrates the subject at hand satisfactorily but goes no further than that and that is why I can't support it for FP. --Deglr6328 08:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's just a hard hat. Alr 19:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. From the user that created it's page on the stockxchng site "The sale of the images is prohibited. It is prohibited the use of the images in works promoting intolerance, hate or racism.". The sites license is ambigious, and uploaders are not forced to view it. Thus the image is unfree. I have a nice white hardhat and could easily make a compariable picture, but it wouldn't be as striking as the yellow one. --Gmaxwell 05:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also from the users page: "Nearly all my images are without restrictions.
You can include them in your personal or commercial works.
The sale of the images (for example: the inclusion in a commercial stock photos collection) is prohibited."
I have sent an e-mail to the artist asking for clarification concerning the licensing of this image, the image is possibly unfree. --Anetode 06:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • excerpted: At http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=profile&l=brokenarts you state that: Nearly all my images are without restrictions.You can include them in your personal or commercial works. The sale of the images (for example: the inclusion in a commercial stock photos collection) is prohibited. It is prohibited the use of the images in works promoting intolerance, hate or racism.
      • This policy is a little confusing, would you consider Wikipedia's use of this image to be consistent with your policy concerning commercial works?
      • Received reply:
      • From: broken-arts.com <broken-arts.com>
      • To: <anetode>
      • Date: Oct 22, 2005 4:38 AM
      • Subject: Re: Use of "Protection helmet" image
      • Wikipedia id ALWAYS consistent with my policy. :)
      • Davide Guglielmo (brokenarts) --Anetode 12:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination, as per Gmaxwell. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-22 06:35


Blue-crowned Motmot back

[edit]
Blue-crowned Motmot in Tobago — back view
Levels, plus a little saturation
Half size

I'm nominating two photos of a motmot taken by myself. They're illustrating the articles Motmot and Blue-crowned Motmot. I hope it's not rude to nominate both. I think having both illustrates the articles better than either on its own, and I can't decide which I prefer. But of course, you can discuss them individually, or combine them into one nomination if that's more appropriate.

  • Thank you very much for brightening up the colours, Fir0002. I think it's a definite improvement. But could you explain your comment about reducing the size to lessen the blur? I agree that it has a very slight lack of crispness at full size which is not visible at smaller sizes. But I assumed that it was better to upload the full-size version, which could then be scaled at viewing time, rather than make the original smaller. Am I wrong? -- Stephen Turner 07:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Stephen, glad to help. Personally I'd resize an image to make the blur less visible (if you have a look at Carolina Anole Close-up nomination you can see what I mean by resizing the image to reduce blur) but I don't know what others think. As you said the lack of crispness is not visible on a lower res, and it can sometimes spoil an image if you see it at full res and it's not perfectly in focus. Just my opinion though --Fir0002 11:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you say they haven't much "wow" factor, but if you take into consideration how hard it is to get a photo of a wildbird (I'm assuming this one is wild?) I think it is acceptable. --Fir0002 21:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a wild bird, but it's a bit of a cheat too. It's beside a hotel where they feed the birds once a day. The funny thing is, feeding time hasn't yet started, but a few birds have started gathering in anticipation. Somehow they know what's going to happen. Stephen Turner 09:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blue-crowned Motmot front

[edit]
Blue-crowned Motmot in Tobago — front view
Edited version
Half size

See description above.

Comment- Not too sure about this one (or the one beneath for that matter). They're good pictures, but the size has made them out of focus. The colors don't show up too nicely either. I don't know if this is how these birds really look, but I don't think it's anything spectacular. Cliffhanger407 18:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 00:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Army Plaza

[edit]
High above Brooklyn...
Lightened and monochromed... no, I don't really know what I'm doing :)
File:Grand Army Plaza Herald edited.jpg
Fiddling around...
Horizontal, see?
Horizontal, Non-cropped

This is a close-up view of the quadriga high atop the Soldiers' and Sailors' Memorial Arch at Grand Army Plaza in Brooklyn, New York City. Access to the top of the Arch is pretty rare, so I took advantage of a recent opportunity with Open House New York. I've never submitted anything here before, so advice would be helpful; this is the first photo I've taken that seems roughly in the FP league. I am utterly ignorant of photo-editing software, so the current image has lost some quality with rotation; if I could e-mail someone the original (eh, it's good enough, we can just edit the existing image) to process it properly, that would be great. I realize there are some "imperfections" with the photo, but I think that, particularly in high res, it really shows off the energy of the horses and the sublimity of the heralding Victory, aspects which cannot be appreciated from a street-level view.

Apologies, I didn't spot the winking smiley - Adrian Pingstone 20:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice :)... it does beg the question, though, of the real value of another Big Beautiful Blue sky background. Some of the other changes you made are quite legit, and I would appreciate someone uploading a high-res alternate version with the "imperfections" corrected.--Pharos 02:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it a bit (enhanced, adjusted the contrast...) in a different file. It's... Thelb4! 18:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great potential here. I personally think the featureless sky is the perfect backdrop to the statue. I'd support the lightened and monochromed version if it were made horozontal, like it is in Piccolo's blue sky version. encephalon 11:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great. Can someone make a good horizontal version? (I don't have the software or know-how.) Thanks.--Pharos 16:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand, how is PiccoloNamek's "blue sky" version horizontal? Like all the rest of the Grand Army Plaza pics here it's in vertical format (often called portrait format). The format couldn't be changed or there would be huge areas of white (or blue) either side of the pic. What do you mean by horizontal? - Adrian Pingstone 17:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He means make the horizon horizontal. And I did just that. I used the measure tool to determine the proper angle and then rotated it in photoshop. Unfortunately, parts of it were cropped off, but this is really unavoidable. I also did a custom desaturation and sharpening job, I think it looks much more striking now.PiccoloNamek 18:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice job, but I wish the margin, particularly on the left, wasn't slightly cut off. Given that this is a free-standing piece on a white background, couldn't you just widen the area a bit before you rotate it? Either that, or copy the marginal area before and paste it, rotated and enhanced appropriately, into the final image. Isn't this possible? I would argue we don't even need the hardly visible 'ground' base if that's what's getting in the way.--Pharos 18:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Arizona Burns

[edit]
USS Arizona burns after being struck during the Japanese air raid on Pearl Harbor. December 7th
File:USSArizonaPearlHarborReloaded.jpg
Version 2: A supersized pictured of Arizona

Another iconic image from World War II: USS Arizona burning after the air raid at Pearl Habor. Aside from its apperance on the USS Arizona page it also appears on the pages Attack on Pearl Harbor, Pacific War, U.S. History from 1930 to '49, and 1941.

Not promoted Raven4x4x 11:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maly Szyszak

[edit]
Mountain of Mały Szyszak, Karkonosze range, Poland.

Beautiful winter mountain scenery. Photo by pl:Wikipedysta:Jojo, used in article about Mały Szyszak mountain. Featured Picture on Polish Wikipedia.

Promoted Image:Maly Szyszak.jpg Raven4x4x 00:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok Sunset

[edit]
A spectacular sunset in Bangkok, showing the skytrain and modern skyline, taken from the corner of Thanon Silom.

Good representation of life in a busy city. Brilliant colors, good composition. I'm surprised this isn't already a featured picture.

Promoted Image:Bangkok skytrain sunset.jpg Raven4x4x 04:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Astronaut and Earth

[edit]
1984 un-tethered EVA by astronaut Bruce McCandless utilizing a cold nitrogen-propelled hand-controlled manned maneuvering unit.
edited version
diliff's subtle edit - 2000x2000px, slight noise reduction, slight sharpening and slight contrast enhancement

An astronaut floats serenely above Earth in peaceful solitude. IMNSHO this is one of the most awe inspiring and beautiful images in the entire history of human spaceflight. What else needs to be said? :o).

  • Nominate and support. - Deglr6328 05:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's... well... not striking and a bit boring. Also, there's too much of the Earth, so there's less room for the astronaut. It's... Thelb4! 10:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ( + ) Support. The photo quality is good, and I like how the background is divided between space and Earth. Not striking...I wonder. Have we got used to this by now? I am sure it would have been striking few decades ago.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, absolutely astonishing. Halibutt 23:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I find it fascinating, and I would have no qualms about supporting, although from an artistic point of view, I think the fact that the dividing line is in the middle is a little odd (rule of thirds). What do others think? Enochlau 07:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't care in the least whether it's 'artistically correct' or whatever, I just care that it looks good. Raven4x4x 08:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. What Raven said. :-O=== Great pic. Artistically correct my rear end, it just looks good, and that's what being an FP is about. It's just fascinating. Vanderdecken ℘ζξ 10:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. How could you not support this though? A classic photo. And I would say it is close to artistically and technically perfect. Its 'cover of National Geographic' quality to me. Diliff 12:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I always liked this photo as well. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 01:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh - anyone can float in space. It's not floating that's the hard part. Only kidding. Support. I have to admit it doesn't entirely float my boat because it does strike me as something I feel I've seen many times before - it's iconic. However I think such pictures look great associated with encyclopedias and will undoubtedly help draw in younger, less jaded, readers. --bodnotbod 07:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT. Directly above me is a poster of this exact photograph. Need I say more? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-22 06:36
  • Oppose. Seen it a million times before. Lets find original contributions for the Featured Article page, to encourage wikipedians who are driven to contibute to this project.—Gaff ταλκ 07:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the fact that a particular image was not actually taken by the uploader is reasonable grounds for opposing. Many images, like this one, are impossible for us to take!--Deglr6328 16:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obviously, the solution is a special outreach program to astronauts. We can launch gift bags into orbit to encourage them them to be bold. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-22 16:59
  • It's too beautiful to say no, I support it. — Sverdrup 09:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ( + ) Support Edit. Original was way too hugh file size for my pathetic dial up connection, so have dropped the quality a bit and reduced the 7 meg file to 2 meg, plus some levels adjustments.
    • This edit is really pixelated. You might just reduce the size of the image to 2000x? or 1500x?, that'll drop the filesize down enough without having to lose any quality to pixelation. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 09:08
    • Also the Earth now looks VERY unnaturally blue.--Deglr6328 17:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imagine being that guy! I'd literally die of fright! Anyway, supportez-vous. Oops, I forgot to sign. Kid Apathy 13:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either version. Its an old school photo, but its still awesome. TomStar81 00:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support original, oppose edit. The Edit almost blows out the entire astronaut, quite a loss in details, I think the original exposure was just fine. As for the 7meg vs. 2meg, mediawiki scales down the image for you, why would you want to ruin the full experience for broadband users? No one forces you to download the fullsize version. Then again only weak support for the original. Yeah, it was a striking pic 20 years ago, but it it is sort of worn-out now, plus I think FPC sould be more of an encouragement to original wikipedia contributors, not pros who shoot these pictures anyways. --Dschwen 06:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just added a second edit. You're completely right, the edit by User:Fir0002 is pretty bad. It has merely bumped up the luminosity and colour noise and made the photo look very washed out and unrealistic. I think my edit is a good balance. I've increased the contrast slightly (but only slightly - I double checked and there are no highlights blown), reduced the size to 2000x2000 (as the original at 3072x3072 was quite soft in the first place and there is no appreciable loss of detail in scaling down slightly), sharpened slightly and recompressed to ~700kb. I think this is the one that should be used. All the features of the original while using up 10 times less space. Diliff 14:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bruce McCandless II during EVA in 1984.jpg Raven4x4x 12:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/October-2005&oldid=766565142"