Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

FPCs needing feedback

Contents 1 How to nominate 1.1 Step 1 - Evaluate 1.2 Step 2 - Create subpage 1.2.1 Step 2.5 - Transclude and link 1.3 Step 3 - Update image 1.4 Too complicated? 2 How to comment 3 Editing candidates 4 Is my monitor calibrated correctly? 5 Current nominations 5.1 Bee Fly Feeding 5.2 Water Skier on the Yarra River 5.3 Pyrite 5.4 Cinnabar on Dolomite 5.5 Laothoe populi mating pair 5.6 Oncometopia orbona 5.7 Graphocephala coccinea 5.8 Polistes africanus 5.9 Joseph Priestley caricature 5.10 General George Washington Resigning his Commission 5.11 Plantain Walk, Jamaica 5.12 Mount Rushmore, South Dakota 5.13 Charles IX of France, by François Clouet 5.14 Cyclamen 'Stirling' 5.15 Geastrum saccatum 5.16 Hans Meyer Memorial 5.17 Rainbow Lorikeet 5.18 Cirrus Sky Panorama 5.19 Island of California 5.20 Harbor Kingstown 5.21 Decora Longicorn Beetle 5.22 Pied Oystercatcher 5.23 Tadrart 5.24 Argiope sp 5.25 Guardians of Day and Night, Han Dynasty 5.26 Lofty Mount Lu, by Shen Zhou 5.27 Empress Li, Wife of Emperor Zhenzong of Song 5.28 A scholar in a meadow 5.29 360 degree view of Helvellyn, Lake District, England 5.30 Celosia spicata 5.31 Hunting of the Snark - Plates 1–10 5.32 Little Wattlebird 5.33 Rub' al Khali 5.34 Moshi panorama 5.35 Branch of Flowering White Jasmine 5.36 Wasp Mimicking Hoverfly 6 Nominations older than 7 days - decision time! 7 Recently closed nominations 7.1 Liaodi Pagoda 7.2 Calliphora hilli 7.3 Male Yellow Flower Wasp 7.4 Modern Photo of HMS Warrior (1860) 7.5 Departure Herald, Xuande Era Panoramic Painting 7.6 Portrait of Wuzhun Shifan 7.7 Leshan Giant Buddha 7.8 Han Dynasty ceramic lady 7.9 Flesh fly concentrating its food 7.10 Nankeen kestrel in midflight 8 Older nominations requiring additional input from users 9 Suspended nominations 10 Closing procedure 11 Nominations for delisting 11.1 Leucanthemum vulgare 11.2 Leaf Morphology Diagram 12 Delist closing procedure

To see recent changes, purge the page cache

Your comments are also appreciated at Picture peer review and at Valued picture candidates. Please review the list of commonly used jargon for help if needed.

[edit] Current nominations

[edit] Bee Fly Feeding

Reason

High quality macro shot of an interesting fly

Articles this image appears in

Bombyliidae

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 09:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support Good quality but EV not quite as good and I would have an angle such as this --Muhammad(talk) 11:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Water Skier on the Yarra River

Reason

High quality image, not many sports related FPs

Articles this image appears in

Waterskiing

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 04:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Question Is it possible to have a wide image with the speedboat in as well? --Muhammad(talk) 11:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pyrite

Reason

I realise posting a billion alts at the start is looked down upon. But I can't really decide which one and I don't make a habit of it. They are from the same specimen. One is essentially zoomed in.

Articles this image appears in

Pyrite

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment In my experience pyrite is usually much yellower than this - is the white balance off or is this just a particularly grey sample? Time3000 (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Grey. The white balance was referenced from the background. See http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_color_is_the_mineral_pyrite. Commons has many silvery examples eg File:Iron disulfide pyrite.jpg Noodle snacks (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Are they two photos of the same crystal? Because the first looks warmer than the second. Also I'd like to request a zoomed up version without the grey corner - IMO that corner is distracting. Move the frame left and up. --Fir0002 09:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Second could probably do with a little adjustment. I don't own the sample so it won't happen immediately if the consensus is for such a move. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cinnabar on Dolomite

Reason

Countering more geology systemic bias.

Articles this image appears in

Cinnabar

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Laothoe populi mating pair

Reason

This picture is an excellent detailed picture of the Laothoe populi moth; showing an important event (mating) and is also highly visually striking and unique because it shows both common color varients of the moth. Good composition, with moths centered on frame and taking up an appropriate portion thereof; neutral high contrast background makes features easy to distinguish. Overall a great pic.

Articles this image appears in

Laothoe populi, mating

Creator

Kateshortforbob

• Support as nominator --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support at the res I viewed, image is sharp with good DOF. Slight OOF abdomen of one moth, but still pretty good. --Muhammad(talk) 15:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oncometopia orbona

Reason

High res, sharp, good EV, good DOF.

Articles this image appears in

Oncometopia, Sharpshooter (insect)

Creator

Kaldari

• Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support good colours and EV. Focus seems a bit off and background seems artifactual. --Muhammad(talk) 22:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded an alternative. I think it has better focus and a more natural background (to address your concerns). Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I prefer the composition of the original. --Muhammad(talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support either focus v. background? A tossup. Durova²⁷³ 15:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Graphocephala coccinea

Reason

High res, sharp, good EV, pretty good DOF, good lighting and composition

Articles this image appears in

Graphocephala coccinea, Graphocephala

Creator

Kaldari

• Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Soft and very small when cropped. For this res, I would expect a much sharper image. --Muhammad(talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • After your review I cropped the image and performed some selective sharpening. Let me know if it looks any better. Kaldari (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Not much of a difference, sorry. Weak oppose --Muhammad(talk) 16:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Polistes africanus

Reason

Quality, DOF, EV

Articles this image appears in

Paper wasp, Polistinae

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 20:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Priestley caricature

Reason

Joseph Priestley, who is better known to the twenty-first century for his work in chemistry, was also notable as a religious dissenter. He was one of the founders of Unitarianism in the United Kingdom and North America. This caricature juxtaposes Priestley against Charles James Fox, a leading statesman of the era who disagreed with Priestley about religion but often agreed on other issues. Restored version of File:A Word of Comfort.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Joseph Priestley and Dissent, Joseph Priestley

Creator

William Dent

• Support as nominator --Durova²⁷³ 19:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Good EV. The devil sure has a sense of humour. Couldn't help noticing that the devil is black. --Muhammad(talk) 20:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In color caricatures from this era the Devil also turns out bright red or blue. Will keep an eye out; interesting observation. Durova²⁷³ 03:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] General George Washington Resigning his Commission

Reason

An 1824 painting by John Trumbull of then General George Washington formally resigning as Commander-in-Chief at the Maryland State House in Annapolis, December 23, 1783, shortly after the American Revolutionary War; this painting violates no FP criteria and is 3,000 × 1,962 pixels in size.

Articles this image appears in

George Washington, John Trumbull, David Humphreys (soldier), United States Capitol rotunda, User:Ian Struan, George Washington in the American Revolution, Military career of George Washington

Creator

Davepape

• Support as nominator --Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional support. A fine image of an iconic painting. It needs more detail on the description page: medium and dimensions, current location and owner, whatever details about provenance are known, etc. --ragesoss (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Plantain Walk, Jamaica

Reason

Working a bit to correct systemic bias: if promoted this will be our first FP of Jamaica. Watercolor, ink, and pencil from the British colonial period. Restored version of File:William Berryman Plantain Walk.jpg. Also compressed courtesy copy for viewers with slow connection speeds at File:William Berryman Plantain Walk2 courtesy copy.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

History of Jamaica

Creator

William Berryman

• Support as nominator --Durova^{273 featured contributions} 16:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support – A great piece of work from Durova. Hopefully, I can get my Jamaica one done soon. NW (Talk) 02:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. A wonderful composition, nicely restored. Will this really be the first FP of Jamaica? Astounding.--ragesoss (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Rushmore, South Dakota

Reason

An iconic image for an iconic monument; violates no FP criteria that I am aware of and is 2,000 × 1,333 pixels in size.

Articles this image appears in

Mount Rushmore, South Dakota

Creator

Dean Franklin

• Support as nominator --Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. My only complaint is the blown highlights. I've contacted the photographer on Flickr to ask for an unprocessed version; if he responds and shares the original, I'll give it a shot at reprocessing.--ragesoss (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The photographer sent me the original; unfortunately, it's a jpeg, but it's well-exposed. I played around with it some, but I couldn't get the same level of pop as in this version without blowing out the highlights. Someone more skilled than me might want to take a crack at it: File:Dean Franklin - 06.04.03 Mount Rushmore Monument (by-sa) - original.jpg. --ragesoss (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Charles IX of France, by François Clouet

Reason

A 1566 portrait painting of Charles IX of France (r. 1560-1574), by François Clouet (1510-1572); this image violates no FP criteria that I know of and is 1,256 × 2,355 pixels in size.

Articles this image appears in

Charles IX of France, 1550–1600 in fashion

Creator

File Upload Bot of Eloquence

• Support as nominator --Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Highly encyclopedic, but appears to have been scanned from a poor reproduction. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 16:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclamen 'Stirling'

Reason

I hear the petals are tasty. Shows the leaves so should give some of that mythical context.

Articles this image appears in

Cyclamen

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Question Has this needed a lot of highlight recovery? There are some quite heavy dark margins on the petal edges here & there. Nice pic, a bit of fringing wouldn't normally be a big issue, but the bar is high for these etc etc --mikaul^talk 12:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Has had some, but not tons. Where am I looking for the margins? Should be fixable. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not without virtues, but the composition is a little messy, with only one flower truly in focus (the front one) but others in gradually receding focus overlapping with the front flower.--ragesoss (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Geastrum saccatum

Reason

High quality and shows the important features of the species and genus including the mouth, and rays.

Articles this image appears in

Geastrum, Geastrum saccatum

Creator

User:Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Fascinatingly beautiful, in an ugly sort of way. Nice setting, good, clear illustration, a proper FP. --mikaul^talk 12:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 14:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support it has a mouth? ZooFari 15:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support.--ragesoss (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. per nom. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Great shot - very good lighting --Fir0002 11:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hans Meyer Memorial

Reason

Good quality, very good EV. The first and only image on wiki which depicts the memorial, or Han's face.

Articles this image appears in

Mount Kilimanjaro, Hans Meyer (geologist)

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 11:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Useful for the article but not the sort of image that screams "FP" to me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Diliff. Lacking another dimension or context; kind of analogous with a press cutting. Quality might be good enough for VP though. --mikaul^talk 12:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Is the underlying material copyrighted? If so, then should come with a nonfree media rationale and doesn't qualify for candidacy here. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know but it's government property at a UNESCO world heritage sight. --Muhammad(talk) 14:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Most governments retain rights over publications. Am not sure about the status in this instance. Durova²⁷³ 16:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Probably need to have freedom of panorama in Tanzania, not sure what the law is there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)\

Doesn't look good - see [1] 12.6. MER-C 02:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbow Lorikeet

Reason

High quality image of a beautiful bird

Articles this image appears in

Rainbow Lorikeet

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 07:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Nice composition and detail. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Good composition and EV. IMO requires a NR though --Muhammad(talk) 08:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Adds a lot to the article, nice photo, good EV. |→ Spaully ^τ 09:15, 2 July 2009 (GMT)
• Weak support Head detail and great colour carry it; I don't think more DOF would have made a big improvement. I find the composition a little affected, though; one of those where a centered crop would be more impressive. --mikaul^talk 12:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 14:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support An excellent shot and beautiful subject.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Per above, what a great colours. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  15:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Very beautiful picture, with vivid colors. --Carioca (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Excellent composition, great colors! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cirrus Sky Panorama

Reason

Good technicals and a good example of this type of cloud formation. Compares favourably with the exisiting FP

Articles this image appears in

Cirrus cloud

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 07:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Nice but a bit bright for me, maybe just half a stop over. Any chance of a darker version? --mikaul^talk 12:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Definitely possible to do a darker version but I prefer this one (sunny day + white clouds = this version being realistic). If there are more people wanting a darker version I'll do a reprocess/restitch... --Fir0002 03:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with Fir0002 that the brightness of the clouds seems appropriate and more realistic than a darkened version. My concern is the lack of metadata (in particular, focal length, so that angle of view can be determined, or perhaps this is stitched from multiple frames?) and the difficultly for me, as the viewer, of determining how much of the curved appearance is the actual shape of the clouds and how much of it is an artifact. I'm used to viewing distorted landscape panoramas and so understand roughly how to interpret them (for the standard kind, as a view obtained by panning one's view horizontally), but I'm not sure how to make sense of perspective in this shot.--ragesoss (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair point - this was a 5 shot portrait pano at 19mm. FOV is approx 135 degrees. I'll add that to the image description page --Fir0002 08:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Island of California

Reason

One of history's great cartographic errors: a map of California circa 1650 as an island. Restored version of File:California island Vinckeboons.jpg. See also File:California island Vinckeboons5 courtesy copy.jpg (compressed version for viewers with slower connections).

Articles this image appears in

History of California to 1899, Island of California, Origin of the name California, Maritime history of California, Johannes Vingboons

Creator

Johannes Vingboons

• Support as nominator. Not that it matters, but this is one of the toughest restorations I've ever done. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 02:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I looked at this several hours ago when Durova put this up, and though she had been saying on Skype how hard it was for the past several days, I had to say I had no idea that there was that much to do. But Durova, as always, did a marvelous job, and I hope that this will be the first of several Vinckeboons featured pictures. NW (Talk) 03:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Good restoration, and really shows how mysterious California was. Time3000 (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Just a great map, love the slick shading and deft hand. Great find. --mikaul^talk 13:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support That's awesome! Very encyclopedic and it totally reminds me of Escape from L.A. and how an earthquake separated Los Angeles from the mainland. Lol.

The above was added by User:PericlesofAthens. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support The restoration makes the map much better.--Caspian blue 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Great work Gazhiley (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Harbor Kingstown

Reason

Durova really should get credit for this nomination, but I figured since this was sitting in the restoration collection, it should be nominated. Highly encyclopedic, for one. I only added it to the articles below today because it was sitting is the aforementioned collection of images.

Articles this image appears in

Kingstown, Saint Vincent (island)

Creator

Detroit Publishing Company

• Support as nominator --ceranthor 12:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Source link is broken. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 02:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support It's ok, not the best photochrom we have and not a staggeringly good image to start with, but enough EV to carry it, I think. --mikaul^talk 13:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Very good resolution for such kind of image. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  15:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Decora Longicorn Beetle

Reason

High quality image of an interesting Australian beetle. Quite challenging to photograph without cutting off its large antennae

Articles this image appears in

Amphirhoe decora, Longhorn beetle

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, leaning oppose - Why does it seem that the head is out of focus? ceranthor 11:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Head is in focus - the back of the head/start of thorax is slightly OOF due to being on a higher focal plane. Simply a limitation of the DOF available at f/11 - which is the largest practical DOF available. --Fir0002 08:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose shallow DOF compared to your other images. The end of the insect is out of focus as well. ZooFari 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • See above - there are practical and physical limits to DOF. The angle was chosen to maximise the amount of body in focus and it was shot to the "f/11 macro standard" which has developed on FPC --Fir0002 08:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Apart from the out of focus areas, the size is pretty small compared to other insect FPs once the empty space is cropped out. --Muhammad(talk) 16:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Being a longicorn beetle its long antennae are a very important feature of the insect so can hardly be characterised as "empty space" - in that respect its is very similar to this shot --Fir0002 08:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Since the antennae lead to the image having so much empty space and since the beetle is quite big you could upload a larger resolution to compensate for that. --Muhammad(talk) 08:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • The extra 200px of background this had didn't add anything to the image so IMO its a fairly pointless gesture... --Fir0002 09:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Focus a bit off the mark. Stevage 23:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support I would have preferred a larger resolution for an insect this big. --Muhammad(talk) 11:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pied Oystercatcher

Reason

High quality image with great EV

Articles this image appears in

Pied Oystercatcher

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Wonderful background. ceranthor 11:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose The feet, or rather the talons, are sort of cut off from view in this picture. Other than that, it is lovely.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - A shot that managed to get every little bit of the animal would be great, but I don't think the lack of feet here is a particularly glaring omission. Matt Deres (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Good quality, sharpness and DOF. --Muhammad(talk) 16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support Overall good quality and high EV, but the composition in which the bird is centered is not satisfying in my viewpoint.--Caspian blue 02:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Just about the entire beak is blown, making it a funny orange colour. Reprocess it though and I'd probably support. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed in edit - note that as per the article it should be an orange colour! --Fir0002 09:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't mean to be an ass, but the edit is really dark. Can't you just do a highlight reduction rather than adjust the exposure outright? Noodle snacks (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Highlight reduction affects the water as well but hopefully edit 2 is more to your liking. I suppose I could do a exposure blend in PS but I suspect that will introduce haloes... --Fir0002 03:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Use tufuse or something - that doesn't usually introduce haloes. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Or better still, just brighten parts selectively. Assuming you shot it in RAW (I hope you did), you could save it as a 16 bit file and dodge as required without introducing artifacts and posterisation. Just an idea anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • The edited image is not "fixed" for the reason that NS pointed out, so I still prefer the bright original image.--Caspian blue 14:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tadrart

Reason

Looks like an excellent image with the clouds and landmark and seems high quality

Articles this image appears in

Tadrart Acacus, Orographic lift, Wave cloud

Creator

User:Pir6mon

• Support as nominator -- The Bald One ^{White cat} 22:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note This nomination was incomplete...It was transcluded to WP:FPC at 19:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Featured on commons, appears in several articles with moderate-to-high encyclopedic value. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 19:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Wow. That is a superb image. Some of the darker areas are hard to make out, but overall this is an awesome scene.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Too dark. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Shooting against the light is a bad idea photographically so it is a poor illustration for the landscape. Although the wave clouds are somewhat redeeming the composition is too landscape heavy for it to be an effective illustration of the clouds and I like File:Wave cloud.jpg much better --Fir0002 05:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - compare it to the other image in Tadrart Acacus which has an awesome composition. By comparison, the composition in this one is just "nice", with unpleasant fringing on the left of the central column, and very noisy shadows. Looks pretty good in thumbnail, but not so good at full res. No qualms about shooting into the sun, other than that it has caused those effects. Stevage 08:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fir. A lens hood would have helped. ZooFari 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support - there are issues with fringing and noise, but the problems are not huge and (IMO) are offset by the composition and atmosphere; EV is there in any case. Matt Deres (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Well, the main subject in the picture is "clouds", so I think its EV is quite good.--Caspian blue 16:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd be interested to know how you determined the clouds were the main subject given that it's not even mentioned in the caption and until today didn't appear on the image description page... --Fir0002 09:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You know, viewing and anticipating differ from people to people because people's evaluation is subjective. At first, I saw the image, all I thought of "the clouds", not the whole scenery, I also have seen "dramatic images" taken against lights by professional photographers for artistic values, so I could not agree with your opinion.--Caspian blue 13:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support but I think the caption could be improved; the clouds certainly ought to be mentioned since they contribute a lot to the EV. Time3000 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fir. It's niether one thing nor the other. I can kind of see why it was featured on commons, where the image itself is all that matters, but actually image quality isn't that hot either. --mikaul^talk 13:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed with comment (only comment). - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  15:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support - Wow, I wish i could be there. Very good, but as Fir0002 and ZooFari said, it could be not dark (just a bit) and a lens hood would be helpful. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  15:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I meant to post this yesterday, but I guess I forgot to press "Save". Would anyone with image-editing skills be willing to lighten up the dark areas just a tad? That seems to be the principle "Oppose" reason, and at full-resolution the detail is apparent, so I don't think it needs too much editing (to keep from violating the spirit of FP). -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 15:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Argiope sp

Reason

Good quality, DOF, EV and lighting considering it was taken in a pretty dark space between a rock and a stream. Wide crop shows the Web decorations, the spider and the web.

Articles this image appears in

Argiope (spider), Orb-weaver spider, Web decorations, Spiderweb

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 18:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Creepy, but beautifully illustrated.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Good shot - my only (minor) gripe is that I'd have been happier with more detail on the centre and less of the surrounding web (which is quite uninteresting) --Fir0002 05:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - very nice image - Peripitus (Talk) 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Great stuff. Matt Deres (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with PericlesofAthens.--Caspian blue 16:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support If it was a bit sharper it could have been shot of the month for me. Fascinating subject, great context with the web structure in there; lighting is ideal to illustrate the camo effect of the decoration. Superb. --mikaul^talk 13:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - High EV, detail and illustrates a very original thing. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  15:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Guardians of Day and Night, Han Dynasty

Reason

Zoomorphic Chinese guardian spirits of day and night, clothed in Chinese silk robes, paintings on ceramic tile, dated to the Han Dynasty (202 BC - 220 AD); on the left is the guardian of midnight (from 11 pm to 1 am) and on the right is the guardian of morning (from 5 to 7 am). This image violates no FP criteria that I am aware of and is 1,208 × 1,140 pixels in size.

Articles this image appears in

History of painting, Zhang Heng, Han Dynasty, Chinese painting, Asian art, List of Chinese discoveries, History of the Han Dynasty, Science and technology of the Han Dynasty, Chinese mythology

Creator

PericlesofAthens

• Support as nominator --Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Badly cropped (parts of the figures are cut off) and jpeggy. Is this a scan of an illustration from a book? Spikebrennan (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Question The cropping is unfortunate, but I'm more concerned about the copyright status. A scan from a book would probably be alright if the photographer made no attempt at originality, but I'm not sure photos of three dimensional objects like tiles are so straightforward. Can someone more knowledgeable about such things please comment? Matt Deres (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had this conversation before with User:Jappalang, and it was determined at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Han Dynasty/archive1 that this image is in fact 2-dimensional and flat. That is how the Han Dynasty article (in one way) passed its nomination for featured status. A 2-dimensional, flat image of ancient artwork is public domain. The book which this image is featured in, Robert Temple's The Genius of China (1986), provides nothing in the caption for this image to suggest that it is a raised-relief image, and only states that it is a painting on ceramic tile. The tile in the image is obviously flat, and although the etched painting lines might suggest a raised image, another verifiable source would be needed to prove this.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I was less concerned about copyright status and more concerned about the grainy halftone from the book scan. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose – scans from books need to be of incredibly good quality (both scan and original plate) to be FP-quality and this is quite a bit short of both marks, I'm afraid. --mikaul^talk 13:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's too bad. Perhaps I need to buy a different scanner?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Best scanner in the world isn't going to improve the halftoning in the book. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lofty Mount Lu, by Shen Zhou

Reason

Lofty Mount Lu, by Shen Zhou (1427-1509 AD), a Chinese painter of the Ming Dynasty, who decided to depict Mount Lu in this most famous painting of his. If you look close enough, you'll see a tiny figure of a man strolling about in the painting; like Waldo, you should try to find him! (Hint: he blends in well). Lol. This picture violates no FP criteria that I'm aware of, and is 908 × 1,806 pixels in size.

Articles this image appears in

Ming Dynasty, Shen Zhou, Shan shui, 1460s in art

Creator

Kaznov17

• Support as nominator --Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Question. Is the Chinese text legible? Is a translation available? Spikebrennan (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Hmm. I am only a 2nd-year speaker and writer of Chinese (中文 and 漢字, respectively), so I can only make out a few characters. It is especially hard to read it because I believe it is written in traditional or Literary Chinese (文言). Let me go see if I can get a translation of this. Thanks for showing interest!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Found it! Well, not a direct translation, but the gist of it at least. From this online source, quote: "This painting was produced when [Shen Zhou] was forty one to celebrate the longevity of his master Ch'en K'uan. According to the epigraph composed by himself, the main peak of Mount Lu represents his master whom he reveres. The work is a masterpiece in which Shen Chou's art is condensed." Just a note: the spelling "Shen Chou" here is Wade-Giles, not Pinyin.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Judging this against similar featured content it's really quite small. Is there any chance of a bigger version? --mikaul^talk 13:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent question. Doing a quick Google image search shows that there are other versions online, but most are either much smaller, or only a tad bit larger but of lesser quality (i.e. paler, less refined). I do believe this is the best available image of this painting on the net. It is sharp, clear, and the lighting is perfect.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your rationale but the big issue here is actual reproduction quality, not a representation of what happens to be available online. The original is almost certainly a magnificent piece, all of 2m tall and (apparently, though it's far from clear) very well painted. Here it would barely print out at the size of this thumbnail. If a work of art is to not only represent itself well, but also the encyclopedia, we need a much better reproduction than this. It's for this reason that we don't have FPs of most of the major classic western paintings, for example. Not your fault, just the way it is. --mikaul^talk 22:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support The size is okay and is beyond the requirement for FP, but I'd like to see a sharper image than the current one (or, the nominator could adjust it with Photoshop) Caspian blue 16:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi User:Caspian blue (don't forget to sign your name when voting! ~~~~). I have this "Photo Impression" thing on my computer, but I never use it and am not very good with touching up photos. I'll leave that to the pros! As I am certainly below an amateur in that department. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I added my forgotten sig and time stamp, and removed the unnecessary bold marks from your calling since I'm not a subject of the page. :) Well, until somebody fixs the problem, I stick to "Weak support".--Caspian blue 16:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Empress Li, Wife of Emperor Zhenzong of Song

Reason

The official Song Dynasty court portrait painting of the Chinese Empress Li, wife of Emperor Zhenzong of Song (r. 997-1022 AD), sitting at her throne and wearing her finest silks, a crown, and some very unique (or, dare I say, bizarre) ceremonial facial make-up; this image violates no FP criteria that I know of and is 1,755 × 2,589 pixels in size.

Articles this image appears in

Han Chinese clothing, Society of the Song Dynasty

Creator

Stout256

• Support as nominator --Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! This is technically not the first support I've ever gotten for a FPC, but the first one was eventually withdrawn from another nomination (due to stitching errors). I'm glad you liked the image! Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't lose hope. Most FPC regulars probably have a majority of their FPC noms fail to be promoted. There's a learning curve. Your batch of nominations certainly have EV, but we're sticklers for the other technical stuff as well. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support another book scan, more visible halftone... like the other portrait down the page a bit, it's a really good subject and just needs half-decent repro to blow me away. The original work is pretty much life-size at 1.5m high, so instead I'm left longing for the wealth of missing detail. --mikaul^talk 13:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's understandable, but Google images apparently does not have anything better to offer than this nominated version here. Until someone takes a masterpiece photograph of this painting, this is perhaps the best image of it available online.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The scan just doesn't reproduce the level of detail of the original, and the halftoning also detracts. As Spikebrennan says, though, don't give up!. --ragesoss (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently I'm not too good at judging these things. I'm afraid that anything I propose will just get swatted down! Especially these paintings; all of them seem to have at least one defect or drawback which is unacceptable to reviewers here.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A scholar in a meadow

Reason

An 11th-century Chinese painting of the Song Dynasty, painted by an anonymous artist, of a scholar in a meadow (possibly depicting the 4th-century poet Tao Yuanming); this image violates no FP mandatory criteria that I know of and is 1,256 x 2,070 pixels in size.

Articles this image appears in

11th century, Song Dynasty, Society of the Song Dynasty, Culture of the Song Dynasty

Creator

File upload bot of Eloquence

• Support as nominator --Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Resolution is not sufficient to reproduce all the important detail of the subject.--ragesoss (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 360 degree view of Helvellyn, Lake District, England

Reason

It's a complete 360 degree view of the mountain range in the north-west of the Lake District, taken from a classic and interesting arête on the approach to the summit. It's very high resolution and detailed, and taken on about as lovely a day as is possible in England. :-)

Articles this image appears in

Helvellyn

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Title? ceranthor 13:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, missed that line. Fixed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support It looks heavenly. A near perfect panoramic image.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Good. How do you manage to get such a good coloured and exposed sky? --Muhammad(talk) 18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • With a circular polarising filter, a really clear, crisp day, and some messing around with the exposure of the individual frames so that they blended properly. ;-) It's still not perfect, but I'm happy enough with it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Question How do you avoid banding using a polariser over such a wide angle of view? Do you rotate the filter as you go around? 124.187.249.231 (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I did rotate it as I went around, yeah. Otherwise you get banding, as you say. There will still be inconsistencies in the sky with this method, but I fixed them with adjustments in lightroom on each individual frame as needed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support Not really a fan of 360° panoramas. IMHO, two separate cuts (one of the valley, one of the lake) would work better and be much more useful. Presumably you were standing on a ridge, with the lake on one side, and the valley on the other, but you really don't get that sense from the 360° view. OTOH, the resolution and sharpness are awesome, so anyone could crop it and get a good result. Meh, I'm probably being too picky. Stevage 09:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I know what you mean, but as long as the viewer understands that what they're looking at is a much wider view than human eyes can see (even if it's more difficult to visualise spacially), I don't know if two separate images could really match it for EV. A 360 degree view shows the interrelatedness of the whole scene, for want of a better word. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Fwiw, I did a quick crop test here showing just the valley, and as expected, I find it a much more satisfying image to look at. It's sort of the difference between looking at a photo and looking at a CAT scan. Yes, the CAT scan technically contains more information, but the photo is more pleasant to look at. (Just as an aside, I take quite a lot of panoramas, but I've never had one more than about 180° that I particularly liked. You always end up with boring bits, or stuff you'd rather crop out, though you're exceptionally lucky on both fronts here.) Stevage 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I had the same first impression but quickly remembered two things: first, a 360 pano never looks good in 2 dimensions. You need a proper image viewer to do it real justice but, if it's a good capture, simply scrolling horizontally should be just like being at the scene yourself, turning full-circle to take in the view. The second thing was recalling being there myself as a hugely intimidated schoolkid, a 10kg lump of quartzite in my rucksack, braced against a howling gale, taking in the same view, albeit with much less visibility. Nah, this is an awesome capture. Support although personally I'd crop 350px off the top. --mikaul^talk 13:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC).
• Question At the very top of the image, approximately two fifths of the way from the left side there are some odd streaks of white and greenish blue. I'm assuming they're various reflections of sunbeams (off the filter?) - is there a way to remove them? I love these landscape shots and vote to Support, but would prefer not to have those distractions if they're an artifact of the apparatus. Matt Deres (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Sun rays? --Muhammad(talk) 18:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Lens flare, surely. I thought about mentioning it too. Could be cloned, or just cropped. Stevage 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, lens flare. I think I'll just crop it out, as I agree with Mick that it wouldn't hurt to crop the sky slightly which would also make the top of the clouds look less stretched. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't have access to a graphics program right now to check, but I'd be careful about cropping too much. It's true the clouds look a little off, but the ratio of sky to land right now looks very good. Is cloning or retouching a possibility or not feasible? Matt Deres (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Must have been quite a bit of burning and dodging if you used a polariser. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Not so much dodging and burning as applying graduated filter local adjustments using Lightroom to the frames. Then Smartblend did the rest. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Awesome! what a great detail. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  15:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support Nice image and scenery and unbelievably good weather (in England), but the switching stitched work is a bit unnatural.--Caspian blue 16:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Switching? You mean stitching? In what sense is it unnatural? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm..typo, so I fix it. It is hard to describe it in English for me. That is basically agreeing with Stevage's opinion.--Caspian blue 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Brilliant clarity - I've spent enough time up in the Lakes in my life to know that clarity like this doesn't happen too often... Any chance you are planning a trip up Melbreak anytime soon? The view up the Buttermeer valley, and towards the coast in the other direction is breathtaking... Gazhiley (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It does look pretty spectacular. Haven't got any plans to visit again anytime soon as it's a good 6 hour drive from London, but I'd like to go back in Autumn. I'll keep that peak in mind. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Celosia spicata

Reason

Good quality, EV and DOF. Leaves and flowers together increase the EV

Articles this image appears in

Celosia

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 20:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support I can't imagine a better version of this. Well done.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - wish you got could get the stem in focus, though. :) ceranthor 12:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems to be an atypical species of Celosia which according to the article are characterised by "woolly flower heads" - this appears absent in your shot. Thus the EV doesn't seem terrible high for the article. Also the bar being high for flower shots I'd have expected a focus stack to make the stem in focus - DOF at f/9 is just too shallow. The spider + web is also a distraction. --Fir0002 03:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The woolyflower heads I think appear in the mature phase of the flower as I had seen them growing as well. The one depicted here is probably an immature one yet to develop the cockscombs. IMO spider and web part of the view. If it's how it appeared IRL, why should it be a problem? --Muhammad(talk) 07:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Also compared to this recently promoted FP, the DOF is ok --Muhammad(talk) 17:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Per Fir0002, the chosen angle combined with the limited focus depth, plus a composition that feels unbalanced to me, tips the balanced in light of the high standards we expect of flowers.--ragesoss (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hunting of the Snark - Plates 1–10

Plate I - Illustration of the opening of Fit the First of Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark. (Original scan)	Plate II - Illustration of the crew, as seen in Fit the First. (Original scan)	Plate III - End of Fit the First. (Original scan)	Plate IV - The Bellman's Map: Fit the Second. (Original scan)
Plate V - Fit the Third: "But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day, If your Snark be a Boojum! For then You will softly and suddenly vanish away, And never be met with again!" (Original scan)	Plate VI - Fit the Fifth: They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care; They persued it with forks and hope; They threatened its life with a railway-share; They charmed it with smiles and soap. (Original scan)	Plate VII - Fit the Fifth: The Beaver brought paper, portfolio, pens, And ink in unfailing supplies: While strange creepy creatures came out of their dens, And watched them with wondering eyes. ( Original scan)	Plate VIII - Fit the Sixth: The Barrister's Dream. (Original scan)
Plate IX - Fit the Seventh: The Banker's Fate. After being attacked by a Bandersnatch: He was black in the face, and they scarcely could trace The least likeness to what he had been: While so great was his fright that his waistcoat turned white-- A wonderful thing to be seen! (Original scan)	Plate X - Fit the Tenth In the midst of the word he was trying to say In the midst of his laughter and glee, He had softly and suddenly vanished away-- For the Snark was a Boojum, you see. (Original scan)

Reason

These engravings were created with Lewis Carroll's assistance and approval, which makes them have very high encyclopedic value for the poem. They are all restored images. See above for the rest. This is a featured picture set nomination.

Articles this image appears in

The Hunting of the Snark

Creator

Henry Holiday, image uploaded and retouched by Commons:User:Adam Cuerden at Commons This credit was missed, so I'm adding it.Caspian blue 00:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support as nominator --Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment please state clearly in the nomination that these are restored images and provide links to the corresponding unrestored filenames. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 02:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question Is this a nomination for a Featured Picture Set? Please make that clear in the nom.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. :) Durova^{273 featured contributions} 16:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• The arrangement of the images is not good for viewers, l would you reduce the image sizes a bit and rearrange them for better looking? But overall those are interesting and good in shape.--Caspian blue 05:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• The images are currently arranged in order, as the set would also follow in the order (as intended as illustrations for the poem). What size would you suggest that they be changed to? The current size fits within my browser with extra space (2 per line). Is this different for other browsers? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe a gallery would be more helpful. This takes up a lot of space. wadester16 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Discussions on the format moved to the talk page since I have no reason to bear Ottava Rima's incivility.--Caspian blue 01:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Just to let you know, Featured Sets usually don't go over well. I'm not saying this because I don't want to close a set, just giving you the historical heads up. You may be better off doing these one by one. Dropping 10 in one nom, when it's sometimes hard to get enough votes on one image, probably won't work well. Theoretically, a reviewer must devote 10 times as much time into reviewing this than a regular nom. Sometimes it's just too much. (BTW, while I appreciate the humor in Plate IV, I feel it has little chance of passing...) Oh, and by a gallery, I meant <gallery>...</gallery> wadester16 03:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• They are a set and only have historical value as a set. And if Plate IV doesn't past, then the set is disrupted. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Just offering my 2¢. Note we have many engravings from novels that appear alone; typically they give the best overview of the piece of writing. But it's your decision. wadester16 04:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Put into gallery. I couldn't get the poetry to work - it doesn't like HTML line breaks - but the text is still there for someone else to clean up. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The poetry part was the reason why it wasn't converted to gallery, by the way. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Durova²⁷³ 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• There, I've fixed the damn thing so the poetry displays. However, I don't really feel like coming back to FPC yet, so I'm not going to vote. Unless this entire page gets filled with even more arguing and idiocy over picture arrangement - It runs for a week, people. Endless manipulation of the gallery format, at the cost of actual reviews, is neither useful, nor helpful. - in which case, I shall vote to have all of you hit in the face with a pie. Every day. For the rest of your lives. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks much better; thanks. Oh, and I prefer blueberry. wadester16 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Delightful set.--ragesoss (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Little Wattlebird

Reason

High quality image with good EV - shows bird in its natural environment

Articles this image appears in

Little Wattlebird

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 00:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis that File:Anthochaera chrysoptera.jpg has higher enc (food) and better lighting. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that a potential food source adds any EV, but at any rate the eucalypt in this photo fulfils this role anyway: File:Little wattlebird looking for food.jpg (I think it's eating the white scale). I suppose lighting is a bit subjective but not sure what your concerns are here..? If you want it lighter or darker that's easily done. Uses morning sunlight which seems pretty aesthetic to me (eg this uses pretty similar lighting). --Fir0002 09:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - A lot of messy objects. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  02:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Anything more specific? wadester16 04:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a wild bird - this is its habitat. They don't naturally sit on isolated branches waiting for their photo to be taken, they try blend in. --Fir0002 09:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • There are some leaves in the foreground left part hindering, and the contrast between the color of the tree´s branches and sheets and the bird´s body color is somewhat weird (well... maybe not much). - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  15:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Again I'd like to point that argument really has no place on en.wikipedia where EV is very highly weighted. It's simply a reality that certain animals do not naturally expose themselves but blend in with their environment. A quick look through the mammal FPs gives plenty of examples where part of the animals is obstructed because of the environment [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Also not sure what you mean by the tree's "sheets" or any potential contrast issues? --Fir0002 07:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Not that my own image is unobstructed. But there are plenty at http://images.google.com.au/images?q=little%20wattlebird&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=w. Plus the one you threw out of the article was unobstructed. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Those other examples are less obstructed (better than this image in my opinion). - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  14:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Unfortunate that a few of the leaves are overlapping the bird, but as Fir said, that's the environment and if it were in a clearer setting, there would be those who'd complain that it was too sterile. No win situation on FPC sometimes. Fir, when are we going to see 5D Mk2 shots?? :-) or slightly higher res images for that matter. Not all of your photos are commercially attractive, so you could potentially upload higher res without jeopardising sales. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A 5D shot has already appeared by accident but I've got 9 months or so of 20D photos to get through before I start uploading Mk II :) That said I'm planning to upload a Mk II shot on a particular date as I've hinted previously... --Fir0002 05:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The resolution benefits of the 5D Mk II are largely wasted when you upload at 1600x1067 though, but that portrait is nice and crisp, it must be said. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rub' al Khali

Reason

Aesthetically pleasing view of a remote region of the planet. High quality, high res, px-level detail.

Articles this image appears in

Rub' al Khali, Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer, Erg (landform)

Creator

NASA, uploaded by Elipongo at commons.

• Support as nominator -- de Bivort 21:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support It isn't clear what the lighter coloured areas are though. Please update the caption to inform us. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Needs scale (or, at a bare minimum, some kind of description in the caption as to how large these features are, or the size of the area covered by the photo). Spikebrennan (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Good quality and enc. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 14:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Fascinating at full resolution.--ragesoss (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Moshi panorama

Reason

Good quality, colours and EV. The only image in the Moshi article which shows the townscape. Background Mt Kilimanjaro also adds a sense of location. FWIW, even the inhabitants of Moshi had not seen such a view prior to this.

Articles this image appears in

Moshi, Mount Kilimanjaro

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 20:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support lovely panorama with high EV. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak SupportSupport Edit 1. The foreground seems a bit overexposed and there is a fairly clear line where (I assume) you've darkened the background. I can sympathise as it looks like the background/sky could have been hazy/overexposed without it, but I think it would benefit from having a more subtle transition and darker foreground. Nice view with good EV though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've got an edit ready and have spent the last four hours uploading it but it's not yet done. --Muhammad(talk) 11:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Edit Uploaded --Muhammad(talk) 16:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Good improvement, looks much better now. How awful that it takes 4+ hours to upload 1.6mb though. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It took much longer and ultimately failed. I had to restart the upload some time later :( --Muhammad(talk) 19:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Not terribly keen with the projection used on the buildings - too much of a curve/lean developing at the edges. I've uploaded a rough edit to show how I'd have liked the projection to look - but you'd really need to apply the warping to the original to maintain quality... --Fir0002 08:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Outstanding resolution and angle of choice (support for the second variation (edit1), the others no). - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  14:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 1. It's a great image, I just wish a little more of foreground was included.--ragesoss (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Branch of Flowering White Jasmine

Reason

This album leaf painting of ink and color on silk is attributed to the early 12th century Song Dynasty Chinese artist Zhao Chang. It is now located in the Shanghai Museum in China. As far as I know, it violates no FP mandatory criteria and it is at a safe size of 2,024 × 1,961 pixels.

Articles this image appears in

Song Dynasty, Jasmine, Culture of the Song Dynasty, List of sovereign states in 1000

Creator

File upload bot of User:Eloquence

• Support as nominator --Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Beautiful image, but not sharp enough for FP and the cropping is also unsatisfactory in my viewpoint. Sorry.--Caspian blue

??? Cropping? You are aware that this image is supposed to be rounded, as it is a leaf-album painting (a popular style in China during the 12th to 13th century).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wasp Mimicking Hoverfly

Reason

High quality image of an interesting hoverfly

Articles this image appears in

Ceriana (fly), Mimicry

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 00:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Is there someone who might supply a species ID? Not essential but would be good. |→ Spaully ^τ 18:18, 28 June 2009 (GMT)
  • Unfortunately that's as good as I can get from a photo --Fir0002 23:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I only found one (dodgily) attributed photo in looking for evidence of Ceriana ornata, which doesn't exist according to the WP article, so I don't know which is right. |→ Spaully ^τ 23:49, 28 June 2009 (GMT)
• Suport. Illustrative and good photo. |→ Spaully ^τ 23:49, 28 June 2009 (GMT)
• Support - Very unusual, high EV, excellent focus and hard to take. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  02:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Nice one, I wish the wings were slow enough so that they wouldn't be blurred! ceranthor 13:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed to weak per the gleam evident on the abdomen and thorax. ceranthor 21:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

lol, may I ask what made you deem that "gleam" was undesirable? Don't you think real life objects exhibit reflective properties? :P --Fir0002 08:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support I share the same sentiment about the wings, but I wouldn't hold that against the nomination. An excellent photo.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Acceptable that the wings may be out of focus but IMO the abdomen and thorax should be well focused for a FP. --Muhammad(talk) 18:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The angle (slightly from behind) combined with the foreground out-of-focus wing make this a somewhat uncomfortable composition, in my view.--ragesoss (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!

Nominations in this category are older than seven days and are soon to be closed. Votes will still be accepted until closing of the nomination. Please close nominations from the bottom up.

[edit] Recently closed nominations

Nominations in this category have already been closed and are here for the purposes of closure review by FPC contributors. Please do not add any further comments or votes regarding the original nomination. Nominations will stay here for two days following closure and subsequently be removed.

[edit] Liaodi Pagoda

Reason

The Liaodi Pagoda of Dingzhou, Hebei, built in 1055 AD during the Song Dynasty, is the tallest premodern Chinese pagoda. Ten centuries after its completion, it still stands at a height of 84 m (275 ft). This is an excellent picture of the pagoda, taken at a perfectly bright and sunny time of day. As far as I know it violates no FP mandatory criteria and is 2,736 × 3,648 pixels in size for those who just won't settle for smaller pictures.

Articles this image appears in

Liaodi Pagoda, Architecture of the Song Dynasty, Hebei

Creator

Zeus1234

• Support as nominator --Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It looks over exposed to me... Time3000 (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Perfectly adequate photo, but the composition is a bit dull. So, not exciting enough to be FP basically. Stevage 15:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Artifacts and blown highlights. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per above except I'm less worried about the composition. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --wadester16 04:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Calliphora hilli

Reason

The surface is my boot. It landed there whilst I was photographing a headless moth.

Articles this image appears in

Calliphora

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Question How big was the fly? Why is the image res small compared to your other images. --Muhammad(talk) 10:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It was cropped a bit. I seem to have misplaced the raw, so this may be as big as it gets. It is 16 pixels narrower than all of fir's images, and 9 pixels shorter, just to put it in perspective. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support I was just wondering why the resolution was small since these flies tend to be around 1-2cm. I moved the image to the taxobox --Muhammad(talk) 19:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Question Why is the WB so warm? Sunset or filter? Seems warmer than the headless moth shot... --Fir0002 00:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The moth was in the shade. This was in the fairly low sun. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit 1 Assuming WB was naturally caused by low sunlight then it's a decent picture. However I'm not that keen on the boot foreground and the DOF/sharpness seems somehow lacking. From an empirical guess at the focus plane and the DOF at f/11 it does seem that the mouthparts should have been in focus...? --Fir0002 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Where do you have such low sunlight at 14.33 ? Richard Bartz (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  I think the most plausible explanation is that the time was set wrong on the camera. MER-C 11:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Even still, anyone can post an edit. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support (of either one) per Fir0002. The boot forground detracts modestly from a very attractive shot.--ragesoss (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted No quorum. --wadester16 04:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Male Yellow Flower Wasp

Reason

High quality and good EV

Articles this image appears in

Tiphiidae

+ Agriomyia ZooFari 05:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 03:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Support while sharpness is somewhat there, the ID is too broad and should be narrowed to at least the genus. The face, which is an important factor of an insect, is obscured, but I can't blame you, they are obviously pollinators. Bug or insect? = EV. ZooFari 01:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I only provided the common name "Yellow Flower Wasp" - added better ID info --Fir0002 04:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see. There is no genus page for that ID. I'll create one right now... ZooFari 04:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Obscured head reminds me of this --Muhammad(talk) 19:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm personally I find them quite different because here a composition choice meant that part of the head was obscured whereas in your example it appears the head is OOF as a result of photographer error. At any rate I've got an alt with more of the head visible --Fir0002 23:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Is the alternative the same species? They look totally different. ZooFari 00:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if they're the same species (although they could be as I'm sure there is natural variation between specimens) but they are in the same genus --Fir0002 09:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - For the original, very illustrative, excellent detail, color balance and resolution. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  02:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The second one has shallow DOF. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  16:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support both, high EV.--Caspian blue 05:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support either with preference for alternative given the head is not as obscured. Good macro - DOF and detail is good. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support alternative, neutral original --Muhammad(talk) 18:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Supprt Alt1 - the two bugs look quite distinct from one another; are we sure of the ID? Matt Deres (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Alt only, the original has the head obscured and dodgy white balance. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Male yellow flower wasp02.jpg --wadester16 04:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Photo of HMS Warrior (1860)

Reason

Self nom. The subject of the photo is of considerable significance. The second ironclad propper to be built and and the oldest to survive. I don't think the photo breaches any mandatory FP criteria. The angle of the sun in this case was such that it doesn't suffer the blown-out highlights issue that File:HMS Warrior (1860)2008.jpg suffers from. The resolution exceeds FP requirements and is high enough to show the detail of the rigging. I also think the angle works better than the view more to the side such as File:HMS warrior1860june2009fromside.jpg

Articles this image appears in

HMS Warrior (1860)

Creator

Geni

• Support as nominator --©Geni 13:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support Slightly blured especially around flags, but otherwise a very good picture for a historic ship. Gazhiley (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a good, but not remarkable, photo of a highly accessible ship (it's part of a major tourist attraction which is a couple of hours train trip from London). The modern craft in the foreground and the clouds behind the rigging are distracting and I imagine that they're not there all the time. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The boats in the forground are always there.see commons:Category:HMS Warrior (1860) for photos taken over a number of years showing this.©Geni 12:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I just checked my photos of Warrior from my visit to the ship in April 2006 and they were there at that time as well. On the other hand, there must be times where there are at least less boats present (Saturday afternoons in summer perhaps?). Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry to oppose but this image isn't particularly striking - I prefer File:HMS Warrior (1860)2008.jpg in that respect. While there are no blown highlighs the hull is so dark as to lose much of the detail. The multiple boats around it is unfortunate, though probably unavoidable as you say. Images are held to a very high standard when they are reproducible and I feel this falls foul of that. |→ Spaully ^τ 13:21, 28 June 2009 (GMT)

Not promoted --wadester16 18:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Departure Herald, Xuande Era Panoramic Painting

Reason

HOLY SHIT, BATMAN! Pardon my French, good sirs, but this painting is simply bad ass to the max. It reminds me of these two featured pictures of Chinese panoramas here and here. This Ming Dynasty panoramic Chinese painting shows the Xuande Emperor's (r. 1425-1435 AD) very lavish procession through the countryside, complete with armed cavalry, tall military banners, large sedan chairs being carried by teams of men, and gigantic carriages driven by teams of elephants and horses. It is 24,894 × 870 pixels in size, for those who like incredibly lengthy images.

Articles this image appears in

Xuande Emperor, Ming Dynasty Tombs

Creator

An anonymous Chinese painter(s) of the Ming Dynasty period

• Support as nominator --Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Superb. I'd love to see this in more detail but there are understandable limitations here. A shame there are some breaks in the silk but this is a very good digitisation. Great find. --mikaul^talk 11:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to say, Spencer is quite right about the stitching errors. That'll teach me to review noms after bedtime :o/ For those interested, it seems to involve both sides of a single frame about 1600px from the right. A real shame as that's just carelessness on the part of the archivist and would be easy to fix from the original files. --mikaul^talk 23:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Obvious stitching errors, and a strange line of pixels running along the top. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 17:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In addition, current usage (how small it is) in Xuande Emperor, where it has the most EV, is really not-so-good. Perhaps scrolling and a larger height would be better? Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 17:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the issue of it being too small in the Xuande Emperor article by giving it its own section where it can be displayed as a larger image. As for stitching errors and the line of pixels at the top, let me see what I can do. I will contact someone who is good with image manipulation.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I removed the brown line per request. I'm not too sure that the vertical lines are stitching errors, they might as well be in the original painting, depending on the material and how it was stored. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Trialsanderrors! You may have saved this nomination (yet again).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the vertical lines are indeed stitching errors. If you look closely, in one case, the branches of a tree do not line up correctly. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 14:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well that sucks. Too bad. It's a beautiful painting.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --wadester16 18:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait of Wuzhun Shifan

Reason

Wuzhun Shifan (1178–1249 AD) was a Chinese Zen (Chan 禪) Buddhist monk who lived during the Chinese Song Dynasty period. One of his many disciples was the Japanese monk Enni, who brought his teachings to Japan. Wuzhun's portrait is now housed at Tōfuku-ji in Kyoto, Japan. This classic portrait painting in the chan style shows Wuzhun seated in his monastic robes while holding a whisk. This image violates no mandatory FP criteria that I know of and is 1,576 × 1,937 pixels in size.

Articles this image appears in

History of painting, 13th century, Song Dynasty, Eastern art history, Portrait painting, Buddhist art, Culture of the Song Dynasty, Wuzhun Shifan, 1230s in art

Creator

Anonymous painter of the 13th century

• Support as nominator --Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support Lovely portrait but a poor reproduction. It's such a good example but marred by what appears to be upsampling..? Viewed at under 1000px it's ok, just not very detailed. I don't hold out much hope for its FP chances, sorry to say. A better scan would pass easily. --mikaul^talk 11:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --wadester16 18:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Leshan Giant Buddha

Reason

The Leshan Giant Buddha is an 8th-century Tang-dynasty (618-907 AD) rock sculpture carved into the cliff face at Leshan, Sichuan province, China. Since its completion in 803 AD, it remains the largest stone-carved image of the Buddha in the world. This image violates no mandatory criteria for FP status that I know of, and is 1,024 × 768 pixels in size.

Articles this image appears in

Sculpture, 8th century, Tang Dynasty, Sichuan, Buddhism in China, Stone carving, Leshan Giant Buddha, Leshan, China, Dan Cruickshank's Adventures in Architecture

Creator

Ariel Steiner (with image improvement by Karelj)

• Support as nominator --Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Great subject, not so great photo. Looks to have been taken at a less-than-ideal time of day and is of very borderline resolution: 1000px is an absolute minimum and shots like this generally need to be much bigger to qualify. --mikaul^talk 11:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately the 2.0 licensed images that are available at Flickr really stink. You may be surprised to find out that this is one of the better ones available! There are better pics of the Leshan Buddha at Flickr, but none of them have a Creative Commons free license.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per mikaul. reproducible shots like this need to be higher quality. Cacophony (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The file has just been updated to the original, slightly higher resolution after a request.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! It is now 1,600 × 1,200 pixels in size. I hope the reviewers will reconsider.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Regretful oppose very valuable image, but I can not support with the blown out sky and purple fringing at the top of the image. Regards. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I've seen a few Giant Buddha in my own time, so I think something similar is repeatable. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Maybe VP, not sure it would pass there either, to be honest. ceranthor 13:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --wadester16 18:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Han Dynasty ceramic lady

Reason

This Chinese grey ceramic tomb figurine from the Han Dynasty (202 BC - 220 AD) period, showing a female servant in silk clothes with arms held in front in a respectful gesture, is illustrative of the fine facial details carved into many Han-era ceramic figures. As far as I know it violates no mandatory criteria for FP status, and is 945 x 1,418 in pixel size.

Articles this image appears in

Society and culture of the Han Dynasty, Domestic worker

Creator

Andrew Eick at Flickr

• Support as nominator --Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• OpposeDoesn't do it for me, I'm afraid. Looks like a poorly-presented museum piece; out of original context so reduces EV; white balance appears to be off; bottom of the figure is missing; not particularly sharp or detailed. --mikaul^talk 12:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mikaul, esp. the crop at the bottom, which I find very distracting. Matt Deres (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Cut off. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted --wadester16 18:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Flesh fly concentrating its food

Reason

High quality image of interesting behaviour. True the DOF doesn't cover the whole of the body, but the relevant areas (the head) are in sharp focus.

Articles this image appears in

Digestion, Regurgitation (digestion)

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 05:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment good quality macro as usual, but a few concerns. The reason for the bubble blowing you mention is not confirmed and is just a theory. Also, we already have an insect bubble blowing FP though your seems more interesting. --Muhammad(talk) 07:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well I don't know because I'm no expert but the guy from the Australian Museum seemed pretty sure of it, and it does make sense. The other likely theory is that it's just fun to do :) I don't think the second FP is much an issue because there are many subjects which have two FP's - eg White-faced Heron - and the other image isn't even used in the articles this image is used in. --Fir0002 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I will support if the caption and the articles are slightly modified to show that the concentration of the food may be the reason for bubble blowing, among other reasons. --Muhammad(talk) 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Made some changes, let me know what you think --Fir0002 03:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Support ok I guess --Muhammad(talk) 10:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support Undoubted EV (whatever he's up to – doesn't anyone speak Sarcophagidic?) although I have to say it's a touch over-sharpened for my taste. --mikaul^talk 12:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Assuming the caption change as been done. The lighting is too harsh or its over sharpened but the bubble blowing makes up for it. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Personally, I don't see what long, elaborate captions have to do with FPC. This is a great photo of an interesting phenomenon - whether or not we can explain the phenomenon is beside the point. I note that the quality of this pic is slightly lower than some of the other macro images we've had, but we have to make an effort not to raise the bar. This was good enough a few years ago, and it's still good enough. Stevage 06:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Good quality, EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Flesh fly concentrating food.jpg --wadester16 05:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nankeen kestrel in midflight

Reason

Good shot of a difficult target - lighting is pretty good considering I'm looking up at it. These kestrels are so frustrating because unlike most other birds they don't fly off at full speed when they see you, instead they gracefully glide away higher and higher and you keep thinking that maybe he'll come back ;)

Articles this image appears in

Nankeen Kestrel

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 11:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Very nice composition and I know it must have been a difficult shot but I find the bird unsharp. --Muhammad(talk) 20:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the sharpness is quite acceptable, particularly given it's pretty much a 1:1 crop off the original. For instance it doesn't seem any worse than this fairly recent bird FP, and certainly no worse then some of the 1:1 crops you've had featured recently (eg File:Darkling beetle.jpg, File:Homoneura_sp_wb2.jpg)... --Fir0002 03:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - pretty much what Muhammad said. Definitely a good shot, but slightly short of FP for me, in quality. I do appreciate the difficulty though - if you want a laugh, here's my best bird shot. Stevage 03:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support The sharpness seems fine to me - slightly noisy perhaps, but not beyond the bounds of acceptability at what must have been a short shutter speed. Time3000 (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I don't know about the sharpness criticism - it does appear soft but I think that is due to the lighting from above coming through the tips of feathers. Anyway, I think it meets all the criteria and is a nice image. |→ Spaully ^τ 09:24, 24 June 2009 (GMT)
• Weak support It's good, particularly in illustrating the wings. Good job recovering the shadows and a tough shot, so lack of fine detail is kind of forgivable. Borderline support. --mikaul^talk 12:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• weak support A wee bit grainy, but still a dynamic and illustrative shot. I can only assume you were balancing a small rodent from your forehead for this. Do we have a barnstar that covers exposing your eyes to attacks from diving raptors? Matt Deres (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Lacks necessary detail for strong EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per above comment. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  14:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Nankeen kestrel midflight.jpg Sorry for not closing this sooner; I've been busy. Because it stayed open for a couple more days, it got two more opposes. While I respect these !votes, I have to say it's my fault that they're there. I don't discount them, but based on the other votes, difficulty, timing, and (let's face it) shear luck of this wonderful image, I am promoting it. EV is high as it's a bird of prey soaring, legs pulled in, and looking straight at the camera; one is hard-pressed to get something this good again at reasonable quality. Issues? My talk → --wadester16 18:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Older nominations requiring additional input from users

These (delist) nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.

[edit] Suspended nominations

This section is for Featured Picture (delisting) candidacies whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.

[edit] Closing procedure

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for two days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} to the bottom of the section.
3. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the July archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
4. Remove the {{FPC}} tag from the image and any other suggested versions. If any of those images were on Commons, be sure to tag the description pages with {{db-f2}}.

When promoted, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~

   • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:

   Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for two days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} to the bottom of the section.
3. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the July archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
4. Add the image to Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
5. Add the image to Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom.
6. Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.

   Don't forget to update the count too.

7. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian) - newest on bottom.

   The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Photographer". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the photographer (or organization) does not have an article, use an external link where appropriate. Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Photographer". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.

8. Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
9. Update the picture's tag, replacing {{FPC}} with {{FeaturedPicture|image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/image_name), and remove {{FPC}} from alternatives of the promoted image. If the alternatives were on Commons, be sure to tag the description page with {{db-f2}}.
10. If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
11. Notify the nominator by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on the nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
12. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.

[edit] Nominations for delisting

Shortcut: WP:FPCD Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Please leave a note on the talk pages of the original creator/uploader and/or FPC nominator to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture. For delisting, if an image is listed here for about seven days with four or more opinions to delist or replace (including the nominator), and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Note, however, that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s. Use the tool below to nominate for delisting. Please use Keep, Delist, or Delist and Replace to summarise your opinion.

[edit] Leucanthemum vulgare

Reason

The current featured image has several technical problems, as illustrated at right. The replacement image is of similar resolution, includes the stem and leaf for additional EV, and doesn't have a distracting background.

Previous nomination/s

Can't find the original nomination. Please add if you can find it.
Original nom. --jjron (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominator

Kaldari (talk)

• Delist and replace (2nd choice: Delist and replace with original) — Kaldari (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support for delist and replace. While the new image is better than the original in technical quality I prefer the background of the original - more natural, flowers don't often have burgundy backdrops. On balance I think the new image should replace the old. |→ Spaully ^τ 16:22, 22 June 2009 (GMT)
  • Now the original has turned up it satisfies both points - having a more natural background and without the problems of its' edit. Weak support for Replace with original, though it is somewhat soft in parts, presumably why someone tried to sharpen it. I agree a natural background is not absolutely necessary, but definitely preferred. |→ Spaully ^τ 07:54, 25 June 2009 (GMT)
  • I changed the background to black (which I admit is only slightly better than burgundy). For cultivated flowers, I don't think a natural background is always necessary, but generally I prefer them as well. Kaldari (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist - An image with such technical problems should be removed from FP, and about the replacement, I´m not sure if I want to vote for replace it into FP, but it´s very good anyway. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  06:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Have located the original nom, but I don't think you've notified the creator of this delist nom as per requirements. --jjron (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that and reminding me to notify the creator. I didn't even remember that I was the person that nominated the original one! Kaldari (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Replace with Original What is wrong using my original source image? (It is a FP on Commons and 2 other Wikipedias) The current FP is a modified version. The original does not suffer from the various masking problems and oversharpening, it has a more natural background, and has higher spatial resolution than the proposed replacement. I like mine because it actually shows the detail in the white petals, something that is not as evident in the alternate version (because of the slight overexposure). With problems #1, #2, and #3 eliminated, I don't see how the background noise (#4) matters relative to the flower itself, but that's just my opinion. -- RM 23:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Replace with Original per RM. Lighting swings it for me, sharpness is fine as it is, plus I think the setting is just plain nicer than black. FWIW I don't see overexposure on the other, just harsher lighting. --mikaul^talk 12:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The whites and bright yellows are clustered at the high end of the histogram. They're not clipping, but you don't have quite as much detail (thus "slight"). -- RM 23:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • From what I remember, the reason I pushed the curves petals on the FP edit was to make the flower look more like it would to the eye. On the original the petals appear somewhat grey, maybe due to the metering being fooled by the white petals but pure white petals should look white in an image. I didn't bring down the white point so there shouldn't be any more clipping than was present in the original, all i did was push the curve slightly. I am certainly embarassed about the masking mess, which I would have fixed if it had been noticed in the original nom. Mfield (Oi!) 16:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and don't replace all the versions and proposed replacements are below the bar for flower FPs now, certainly for such a common species and with focus stacking being more routine. A new nom should be sharper all over than all of them, have an appropriate background, and be better exposed than the original. Mfield (Oi!) 04:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That may be your opinion and even be common practice, but it is not what the rules state. It is among "best examples of a given subject'" and is of "high technical standard". There may be many images of different species that are far superior, but requiring focus stacking on this one is not appropriate. If another one comes along that is superior, then by all means delist. -- RM 20:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree. This expectation that macro images can't be promoted unless they're focus stacked is unreasonable. Kaldari (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Well naturally it is my opinion, this is a discussion after all. I never said that there is an expectation that macro images should be focus stacked, I certainly never said it was required, I meant that with focus stacking being more common and relatively easier now, expectations have been raised somewhat to what is possible. There is a valid expectation that images should have adequate DOF to fully cover the important parts of the subject, and the petals of a flower should be sharp if they can be fitted within DOF. If parts of the petals are out of focus then the image could have been shot at a smaller aperture, had the original been shot at f11 or higher instead of f8 then the petals could have been sharper as they are in the proposed replacement image, which unfortunately has a less appealing background. The rules are a guideline, we do have an established expectation that images of exceptionally common subjects should be held to a technically higher standard than trickier or rarer subjects. Mfield (Oi!) 16:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Leaf Morphology Diagram

Reason

Today, diagrams are typically requested to be in SVG format before discussion takes place. Since there's already an SVG, I propose replacement. I expect this to be mainly a procedural move.

Previous nomination/s

Original nomination from 2006

Previous nominator(s) informed

Y [8]

Nominator

wadester16

• Delist and replace — wadester16 06:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist & replace the SVG should be brighter, the borders should be removed, a web-friendly font should be used, and coloration of leaves should all be equal. ZooFari 06:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• comment no reason to insist on svg when high resolution png is available. In my opinion, svg is an inferior format that renders with inconsistent geometry, speed, and reliability across platforms. Also, a non serifed font for the small text would look better. de Bivort 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, there should be no problem rendering if the SVG is compressed correctly (and not worry about inconsistent geometry). Speed is not an issue, as the file size never changes when changing resolution. The only con is that a browser may not support it, or an extension may be required to open it. ZooFari 05:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In principle you are right, but every browser system that is remotely up to date renders high resolution pngs quickly and without the need for extensions. de Bivort 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Debivort, I think the png vs svg debate was solved a long time ago. The svg version is nice enough that it could be a poster, that's obviously the one we want.-Ravedave (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Would like to support replacement SVG, but unfortunately it doesn't use web-safe fonts. I also agree with ZooFari that the outside border should be removed. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Replace - if websafe font is used. -Ravedave (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, it doesn't :-( Unlike the small captions, the titles were converted to from "text" to "path", which is required in order for Wikimedia to render it. Conversion to path is really unwise, as it makes a huge file size boost. ZooFari 05:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - "Alternate", "Opposite", "Whorled" etc are leaf arrangements or phyllotaxy or phyllotaxis, not leaf shapes. Also mis-spellings should be checked and corrected - e.g. "flabellate" not "flabelate" Rotational (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Is this an issue in the png as well? wadester16 19:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Arrangement and ordering is poor, e.g. "doubly serrate" being put before "serrate"

[edit] Delist closing procedure

Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s.

If consensus is to KEEP featured picture status, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the Retained section of the archive.
3. Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.

If consensus is to DELIST, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the Delisted section of the archive.
3. Replace the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
4. Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
5. Decrement the count at the top of Wikipedia:Featured pictures.

If consensus is to REPLACE, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
   • Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.

2. Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the Replaced section of the archive.
3. Replace the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
4. Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{FeaturedPicture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
5. Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
6. Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.