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

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

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 Tugboat Daniel McAllister, Lachine Canal, Montreal 5.2 Cherokee syllabary 5.3 Citroen C4 Hatchback 5.4 Alaskan Malamute 5.5 Mount Redoubt Erupting 5.6 M1 Abrams in the Taunus 5.7 Santa Ana Cave (Spain) 5.8 Sunrise over Uluguru 5.9 Golden lion tamarin family 5.10 The Night Watch 5.11 Fission bomb assembly methods 5.12 Blood values - by molarity 5.13 Yellow-faced Honeyeater 5.14 The Devil's Swimming Pool 5.15 Mount Wellington Panoramas 5.16 Little Nemo Page 5.17 Eritrean Railway 6 Nominations older than 7 days - decision time! 7 Older nominations requiring additional input from users 8 Suspended nominations 8.1 Dublin Rail Network 9 Closing procedure 10 Nominations for delisting 10.1 Ladybird 10.2 Lightning over Oradea, Romania 10.3 Lunar Roving Vehicle 10.4 Hubble Ultra Deep Field 10.5 Thomas More 11 Delist closing procedure

To see recent changes, purge the page cache

Your comments are also appreciated on images at Picture peer review.

Current nominations

Tugboat Daniel McAllister, Lachine Canal, Montreal

Original - The tugboat Daniel McAllister, permanently moored in the Lachine Canal, Montreal

Reason

Offers a visually compelling look at the vessel and the surrounding post-industrial Lachine Canal

Articles this image appears in

en:Lachine Canal

Creator

Rene Ehrhardt

• Support as nominator --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. This image is too small to meet the Featured Picture requirements. The severely distorted perspective and unnatural HDR effect are also generally not what we look for in Featured Pictures. It's an effective shot aesthetically, though.--ragesoss (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize it was still too darned small. Well, never mind. How do I withdraw it, so as to not waste everyone's time? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Cherokee syllabary

Original - The Cherokee syllabary is a syllabary (a set of written symbols that represent or approximate syllables) invented by Sequoyah in 1819 to write the Cherokee language. By 1824, most Cherokees could already read and write in the Cherokee language. Very few changes have been applied to the syllabary since 1828. The development of Cherokee literacy was a key factor in maintaining the ethnic identity of the Cherokee population.

Reason

Clear presentation of important information

Articles this image appears in

Cherokee, Cherokee syllabary

Creator

Sakurambo

• Support as nominator --Spikebrennan (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - With obvious EV but not an image in the strict sense of the word -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Citroen C4 Hatchback

Original - 2005–2008 Citroën C4 hatchback

Reason

High quality image of Citreon C4 Hatch. Although some may not like the somewhat dark lighting of the image, I deliberately choose to photograph just before dusk so that I'd be able to capture the car with its lights on.

Articles this image appears in

Citroën C4

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 07:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - License plate? —Ceranthor 21:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed --Fir0002 22:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Question What's different about this car as opposed to this and this that it merits "dark lighting"? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • As mentioned in the nom, I wanted photograph the car with its headlights on (for something different) --Fir0002 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Did you also particularly choose for the car to be a dark colour, in the dark lighting? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Not entirely, but I'm pleased with the result. If it were a light colour such as yellow or white or even blue the darkness of the scene would be much more apparent. A black car should, by definition, look close to black even in sunlit conditions. Therefore shooting it at night doesn't detract at all from the colour rendition and so it makes good sense to photograph a black car at night IMO. --Fir0002 02:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Illustrates vehicle well. I do have one question though. Why are the Citroen logos on the wheel hubs not blurred? Does this vehicle have some kind of bearing system to keep the wheel not covers from spinning? If so the image has extra value for illustrating this feature well. --Leivick (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

They are blurred. Think of angular velocity vs. radius, and you can figure out why they don't look blurred... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good, sharp image. Muhammad(talk) 18:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan Malamute

Original - Alaskan Malamute

Edit 1 by Fir0002 - cropped out excessive dead space

Reason

I picked this up from the Commons FPC. The angle might not be the most enciclopedic, but it looks really good and I figured it's worth a try.

Articles this image appears in

Alaskan Malamute

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator --Diego_pmc ^Talk 07:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support the original Love the dog!!!! (as well as the wonderful picture, of course) --Caspian blue 07:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  The species is originally from a "wild wild snowy environment", and the cropped version diminishes its surrounding.--Caspian blue 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  Umm unless it's a bird then I doubt the large tract of sky I cropped out diminishes much from its surrounding! The component of land I cropped out is quite minor - I mostly cropped the sky --Fir0002 23:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose original too much dead space. Support Edit 1 good lighting and interesting subject. That said I agree that the angle isn't particularly good for EV --Fir0002 07:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I really feel like there should be more coordination between the projects. I mean the original is a QI and about to become a FP on Commons, then on en.wp another version of the image is selected—it can get quite messy. (Just mentioned, I'm not against the edit.) Diego_pmc ^Talk 08:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment FP here on Wikipedia, and QI or FP on Commons are entirely different entities. There is, and should be, no connection. On Commons, a "pretty" image can be featured, here, the main consideration is its enc. We're building an encyclopedia, not a poster collection... (Just as an example: "Sunrise over Uluguru", below, is a QI on Commons, but I can't imagine it becoming a FP here.) --Janke | Talk 08:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I know the difference between WP and Com's scopes, but that was not my point. Diego_pmc ^Talk 08:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• So, what is your point? ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think he concerns about "stealing a thunder" from the original creator as supporting the edited version. I feel the edited version is a bit confined. --Caspian blue 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Forget it. I think that in cases where the image is suitable for featured status on both projects, there should be some kind of coordination so that there wouldn't be a separate version of the image for each project. Of course that doesn't apply to all cases. Diego_pmc ^Talk 09:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose edit The original is much better IMO. --Lošmi (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose all purely because of the angle. Apart from that, it's an excellent picture. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose all per Spikebrennan. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support unedited version The extra space around it is not something that distracts. I kinda prefer it as it makes the image a bit less busy. Furthermore, I think the angle is not really a problem for it's intended use. Fransw (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The chill-factor is a bit lost with edit --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit. I think the angle adds to the picture, IMO. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support both, as at commons. —Ceranthor 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose both Bad angle. Looking up at the dog feels rather strange, and having the dog from almost precisely the front makes it hard to see its body plan. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose both. Good photos, but low enc due to angle. Does this breed have a curved tail like some "northern" dogs? No answer... --Janke | Talk 09:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose both per Calliopejen1. Good postcard photo, but not good for an encyclopedia. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Mount Redoubt Erupting

Original - Mount Redoubt of Alaska eruption column on April 21, 1990. This eruption caused lahars, large mudflows that result from lava mixing with snow and ice. For this particular eruption, sudden melting of snow and ice by the summit by pyroclastic flows and dome collapses caused these mudflows which flowed down the north flank of the mountain.

Edit 1 - full size, 2,980 × 1,996 pixels, slight level correction, but still grainy.

Reason

Another totally irreplaceable image of a volcano erupting (see Image:MtCleveland ISS013-E-24184.jpg) which I found. Since few people are willing to go near a volcano while it's erupting, let alone try and take pictures of it, is incredibly rare. This one isn't great quality, but it has a really, really good view of the eruption column, which has huge EV. It is small, at only 1,024 × 689pix, but the EV totally surpasses that.

Articles this image appears in

Mushroom cloud, eruption column, Mount Redoubt (Alaska)

Creator

R. Clucas (USGS)

• Support as nominator --—Ceranthor 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Source link is dead... MER-C 04:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - Pretty grainy, even for such a notable image. The caption also needs a lot of work. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support The caption could indeed be better, and if some post-processing could clear up the noise that would help alot. Overall though, it is an extremely rare image of an extremely rare and fascinating event. It definitly invites viewers to learn more about the subject. If the caption and/or the noise-issues could be corrected, I'll change it to a normal support. 82.74.125.34 (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Gah, I definitely have to remember logging in before these kinds of posts. Above weak support is mine. Fransw (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, but I can't support on EV alone. I realize the circumstances in which it was taken, but the technical quality is just too far below our FP standards in my humble opinion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Very Weak Support - although I wish you would have taken it to Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop first, it's got a big huge EV and am willing to throw a weak support behind it

  Preceding comment by me, RockManQ^{Review me} 03:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support (Edit 1) solely because of high enc. Yes, it's grainy, the cloud is cut off at left, but you can't reshoot this. Please fix repetition in caption, it needs to be corrected for redundancies, there are repeated words, so this problem of tautology should be addressed... ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• There's a higher resolution version here (exotic file type warning, though Photoshop should be able to open this one). MER-C 10:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks - I uploaded the full-size "Edit 1", no grain reduction, but a few dust spots removed and slight level correction. Be sure to check full-size version, grain causes artifacts on image page. Re. grain: This was shot in 1990, and reckoning from the few white dust spots I removed, probably on hi-speed negative film. If someone wants to downsample and reduce grain, go ahead, you have the link... ;-) --Janke | Talk 16:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

M1 Abrams in the Taunus

Original - An M1 Abrams of the 1st Armored Division participating in Exercise Ready Crucible driving through the snow-covered Taunus.

Edit 1 by Fir0002 - sharpening

Reason

A detailed shot of an imposing snow and mud-covered Abrams tank operating in a clear and apparently pristine winter environment, one not often associated with the tank in the media, but nonetheless part of the design considerations of the tank.

Articles this image appears in

M1 Abrams

Creator

Signaleer

• Support as nominator --Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 1 Diego_pmc ^Talk 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The perspective at 18mm is a bit to exaggerated for my liking, a view from a more side on position would have enc greater value. The amount of detail present isn't also anything to write home about. There are also blown highlights here and there, but on nothing of importance Noodle snacks (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The picture is not sharp, and I'm distracted by the too beautiful white snow background which casts some ironic image to the subject.--Caspian blue 01:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support Edit 1 The 18mm is not ideal but it's not too bad and personally I think the background alleviates this from the mundane to something quite interesting. Also I think there's quite a bit of detail in the original, although it hasn't been sharpened much in PP --Fir0002 06:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support either - I agree that the snow adds artistic merit to the picture. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support edit 1 It's good enough in this edit for a weak support. Frankly, I find it interesting. Spencer^T♦C 02:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Does not illustrate the Abrams particularly well. The snowy background isn't a problem but it doesn't add anything valuable in my mind either artistically or more importantly encyclopedicly. --Leivick (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a very good angle, loses enc. --Janke | Talk 10:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Noodle snacks. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Santa Ana Cave (Spain)

Original - Prospecting Santa Ana Cave (Cáceres, Extremadura, Spain).

Reason

A very difficult shot. It shows the depth of the prospecting in the cave (12 metres from the photo). There are 6 people, three well seen and three relatively hidden.

Articles this image appears in

Excavation (archaeology)

Creator

Mario Modesto Mata

• Support as nominator --Mario modesto (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Many tools of excavation visible. Foreground rocks on the bottom help give us some context. No major technical flaws.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This is not eligible until it is placed in at least one article Noodle snacks (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Now it is in this article: Excavation (archaeology). User:Mario modesto
    • Thanks, will have to ensure it sticks (I don't see why it wouldn't) Noodle snacks (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Diego_pmc ^Talk 21:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support The flash in the foreground seems to contrast nicely with the warmer lighting down below and the image has obvious EV Noodle snacks (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support 18mm means the photographer could have used a slower shutter speed and a smaller aperture - f/4 doesn't have sufficient DOF and sharpness IMO. I think something like 1/20s and f/6.3 could have been used - and possibly (I'm not sure on the circumstances) a tripod and an even smaller aperture (f/8 ideally) and lower ISO --Fir0002 06:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good enough picture taking in consideration the technical difficult. Shooting at slower speed may cause the workers appears blur.--Jf268 (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support High enc. Shows the working environment for archaeologists in an interesting way. --Janke | Talk 10:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support Needs a better caption. Do you have any info on what they're looking for? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sunrise over Uluguru

Original - Sunrise over some of the Uluguru Mountains

Reason

An aesthetically pleasing image illustrating the vegetation and sunrise over the mountains. Some parts are overexposed becasue I was shooting right at the sun. QI at commons.

Articles this image appears in

Uluguru Mountains

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, the glare and the straw in the middle just kills it for me. Enc is low - just two hillsides and a overexposed mountain, where all detail is lost. --Janke | Talk 21:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - overexposed.--Caspian blue 01:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - glare —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.219.216 (talk • contribs) 2008-12-02T02:37:55

Golden lion tamarin family

The Golden Lion Tamarin.

Reason

Very good picture of a very rare golden lion tamarin family.

Articles this image appears in

Golden Lion Tamarin, List of mammals in Brazil

Creator

Steve from washington, dc, usa on Flickr

• Support as nominator—Preceding unsigned comment added by Almighty11 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - too small, a little oversharpened. I also fixed your nomination since you deleted half the code for this nom page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Vanderdecken. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Great subject, but lacking in quality. I don't believe that saturation reflects reality, and a better framing would include the whole tail in the centre (another standard complaint). Definitely a good image to have, but not as an FP. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose too much image processed --Caspian blue 01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Night Watch

Original - Made during the peak of Rembrandt's career, the Night Watch combined the effective use of light and shadow, tremendous dimensions, and the illusion of movement to create one of the Dutch Golden Age's most famous artworks. It currently rests in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.

Reason

This picture is a crystal-clear shot of one of the best Baroque paintings.

Articles this image appears in

Amsterdam, History of painting, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, 17th century, Dutch Golden Age, Night Watch (painting), Portrait painting, 1642 in art, Dutch Golden Age painting, Rembrandt, Dutch art, Frans Banning Cocq, and Western painting

Creator

QWerk

• Support as nominator —Animum (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. There is a minor problem with the reflections off the paint, but all in all, it's a very good scan that looks as though the colours are accurate (I think I've seen either this painting or a historical copy of it, in real life). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, it looks kind of fuzzy to me... and... the crop looks really tight... any pictures of it in the frame to compare? gren グレン 06:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Info Having seen this painting numerous times in real life, I can testify that this is the right color scheme. Further more it is a masterpiece of the Baroque-era, not the Renaissance-era. Last but not least, the crop looks tight because the edges of the painting were cut of some 300 years ago. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Hehe, thanks. I'm afraid art history isn't my forte. —Animum (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support one of my all time favorite painting, quality reproduction. --Leivick (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - good quality. RockManQ^{Review me} 03:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fission bomb assembly methods

Original - Schematic representation of the two methods with which to assemble a fission bomb

Reason

It is a drawing of the two methods of assembly for a fission bomb. It is well labelled and to the best of my knowledge accurate as well as being clear and easy to understand and in a format (svg) that can be easily scaled as needed for any needed uses as well as being under a PD license making it acceptable for that.

Articles this image appears in

* Nuclear weapon, Trinity (nuclear test), Talk:Nuclear weapon design, History of nuclear weapons, Timeline of the Manhattan Project, Gun-type fission weapon, Plutonium in the environment

Creator

Fastfission

• Support as nominator --Cat-five - talk 01:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great EV: I myself have found this image useful on a number of occasions. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 12:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• I can only wonder what you're up to…--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• It is amazing how much mischief wikipedia can help you get up to Noodle snacks (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Clean yet informative diagram.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support I can remember this diagram from when I was doing my own reading up on fission bombs. It is simple, informative and doesn't fall into the trap of over complicating matters. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - LOL I'm pretty sure this exact picture was in one of my Physics textbooks... Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent example of FP-quality information graphics. Bonus points for using Myriad and not falling prey to the temptation of gradients ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Neat and readable. Spencer^T♦C 02:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Blood values - by molarity

Original - Reference ranges for some blood tests, sorted by molarity.

Reason

It's sister (Image:Reference ranges for blood tests - by mass.png) got featured status. I've given references to all the values in the main article (reference ranges for blood tests).

Articles this image appears in

Reference ranges for blood tests

Creator

User:Mikael Häggström

• Support as nominator --Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment: Zinc is misspelled. Rmhermen (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Added it to the list for the next update. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yellow-faced Honeyeater

Original - Yellow-faced Honeyeater, Lichenostomus chrysops

Alternative

Reason

High quality illustration of the species. Probably the only good shot I managed to get of a wild bird with my 200mm + 1.4TC before I bought my 400mm.

Articles this image appears in

Yellow-faced Honeyeater, Honeyeater

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 05:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support original. Seems to tick all the boxes. The only negatives are the small branches obscuring the feet and partly crossing the tail, and the shallow DOF, but focus is spot on. BTW are the dates right - you say you in the nom you took these before you bought your 400mm, but the dates on the image pages say it was taken Nov 08, and you've nominated a number of other images during this year taken with the 400mm? --jjron (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite right - got confused with the current month! --Fir0002 09:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support original Essentially per jjron and I agree that the only negatives on this are the brances with the tail, other than that I think it's a spectacular shot. Cat-five - talk 01:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support original I know first hand how difficult wild birding with 280mm generally is. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• SupportAn excellent image of a difficult subject, with encyclopedic value too. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 12:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support original per above. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support either. Visually, I actually prefer the alternative (reminds me of Charley Harper's work :), but I guess the original has more encyclopedic value since the subject is clearer. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support both well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Devil's Swimming Pool

Original - Tourists swimming in the Devil's Swimming Pool, located at the edge of the Victoria Falls. The Waterfall is located at the border of Zimbabwe and Zambia in Africa.

Reason

High-res image displaying one of nature's most amazing natural occurrences - a natural swimming pool at the edge of a waterfall. The photo also contains some educational merit when focusing on the creation of certain natural anomalies such as this.

Articles this image appears in

Victoria Falls

Creator

Ian Restall

• Support as nominator --Tha prez (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I like the idea, but to me this just doesn't quite nail it. It looks a bit tourist snapshotty as its taken, with the swimmers as the central feature looking to be posing for the picture (good for their photo album, but not so good for WP), and unfortunately they are poorly lit as well. As this is used to illustrate Victoria Falls, I'd think it should be taken from further back or more wide angle to give more context to the falls while showing swimmers in the pool without having them posed for the shot. I wonder if the creator has any alternative versions? --jjron (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Uploader has not contributed since March. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment If anybody fancies a retake, I think the correct way to depict this is with an 2/3 underwater perspective, from the river towards the falls, and a person standing in the pool, fall-side, for scale. Apparently, conditions are usually good for this in December. The pool can be reached from the tip of Livingstone Island, which is on the Zambian side. Somebody is going to suggest a different composition, but I think the one I mentioned should definitely be tried. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Excellent idea, but not the best quality. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 19:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per jjron, though I regret doing it. I love this image and its context. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Snopes.com clearly shows there's better ways to photograph this subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • None of which are available under appropriate Creative Commons licenses, unfortunately. And I doubt snopes got permission to display those pictures... Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose this unique location can definitely be photographed much better both in terms of encyclopedic value and technical quality. --Leivick (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mount Wellington Panoramas

Original 1 - Greater Hobart area from Mt. Wellington, Tasmania

Original 2 - Greater Hobart area from Mt. Wellington, Tasmania

Reason

I'm submitting these two as a set as they are complementary and used in one article each. One or the other (or both) might fail, or they could be promoted as a "featured set", which has been done a few times before. The first image offers better context for the location but the second offers greater detail for the greater hobart area, a crop which is clearer in articles and a levels adjustment which combats the haze better. I waited weeks to get a particularly haze free day. The two images are seperately stitched with different lenses and not crops of the same thing.

Articles this image appears in

Hobart, Mount Wellington (Tasmania)

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I detect some apparent stitching signs in the sky in both images. In number one, a very faint vertical band, about 3/4 of the way to the right. In number 2, a set of horizontal smears that span the sky top to bottom, around the first(?) stitch from the left. Both are interesting and well-composed as thumbnails, but the intermediate level of detail in the city in both shots leaves me unsatisfied when viewing them large. --ragesoss (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Haze was the primary limiting factor sharpness wise. I spent some time adjusting levels etc to minimize the effect. I picked one of the rare days with good weather on the mountain and relatively low haze levels before going up. Short of using an infared camera I think it'd be difficult to get a considerably sharper shot. Bear in mind too that these are quite considerably bigger than the minimum size. Thanks for spotting the wierd artifact(s), I've uploaded a pair of fixes, let me know if there is anything else. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Both of those new version are improvements to my eye. In number 2, I detect one poor stitch, a vertical band in the sky about 3/5th of the way right, a little bit left of the the right-most bridge.--ragesoss (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Another fix for number two uploaded. Let me know if there is any more Noodle snacks (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
        • That mostly took care of it. I can still detect the stitch in that same spot in the sky, but it's so faint now that I don't think it's worth worrying about.--ragesoss (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support both, per my first comment.--ragesoss (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support both--Caspian blue 04:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support Original 2, Neutral Original 1. It's already been said but the haze really is a bit of a killer and I think (although I've never been to Hobart) the haze would be reduced if you took the shot in January/February and an hour or two before sunset or just after dawn. Also I think a UV filter or a circular polarizer might have been helpful. As for "Original 1" I don't think its particularly illustrative of Mount Wellington as you can't actually see it and if you were wanting to place it in context of Hobart a view such as this would seem a better option --Fir0002 06:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I was using a UV filter, I have a polariser but opted not to use it because the degree of polarisation in the sky varies considerably with angle so you tend to get wierd effects both in the sky and on the water. As previously stated I have been waiting around for considerable time for a low haze day.
    • Fair enough about the polarizer, but if you're shooting no more than 100 degrees you can often get away with it. Regardless I was thinking you might be able to do something along the lines of this (although maybe an hour earlier) as it seems the haze is not as bad about that time on a summer day. That said after looking through flickr for a bit your pano is a lot better than most images in terms of haze so I'm switching to full support. --Fir0002 09:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
      • The field of view on 1 is around 165 degrees, so I'd expect the polariser effect to be obvious. My argument for 1's EV would be the geology and vegetation from the top. I have no idea if you realised or not but the flickr photograph you linked to was the Mount Wellington in New Zealand. I have seen a similar pink sunset here before though. I suspect that you'd loose visible detail in the surrounding hills and other unlit areas in particular though. It would also be a battle to pick a day that doesn't have clouds on top at that time of day. On an ancillary note if you ever come to Tasmania there is a wide variety of easily found grasshoppers and other insects on the summit. I haven't tried too hard to photograph them as my macro gear isn't particularly suited to insects in the wild due to poor working distance as a result of the physical length of my macro setup. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Little Nemo Page

Original - Full Little Nemo in Slumberland strip

Reason

A full page from the very important comics "Little Nemo in Slumberland" by McCay. Shows well the imagine used by the artist for themes, the use of flat colors and panel layout. "Little Nemo in Slumberland" was the first comics strip to enter the collection of the Louvre. Very encyclopedic.

Articles this image appears in

Little Nemo, Comic strip

Creator

Winsor McCay

• Support as nominator --PYMontpetit (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'd love to support this, but there are just too many blocky JPG artifacts - all the original crispness is gone. A better, less compressed scan, please! --Janke | Talk 23:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Janke. Unacceptable reproduction quality.--ragesoss (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that it looks like jpeg artefacts, but it is not. Those are due to the low quality newspaper. Keep in mind that those strips where published before 1920 and all the recent reprints of those are from scanned newpaper. PYMontpetit (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

With a file size of 550 Kb for an image size of 1,720 × 2,380 pixels, there are jpg artifacts! ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Glad I'm not the only Little Nemo enthusiast around here. I love that old style of graphic design. Pity about the scan quality-- is this from a reprint in a book, or from newsprint? Spikebrennan (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Question - Why are the colors dramatically different in this version than the previous version of the image? Also, does anyone know how much was changed in the restoration for the book? We may run into copyright problems if the images were edited significantly. Kaldari (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Eritrean Railway

Original - Eritrean Railway, showing mountainous terrain traversed between Arbaroba and Asmara. Photo taken on 4 November 2008.

Edit1 by jjron. Adjusted levels, reduced highlights, and sharpened.

Reason

Self nom. After discussion at Picture Peer Review, and with User:jjron, I have decided to nominate this image. I believe it has good composition, and well represents the mountainous terrain traversed by this remarkable railway. jjron has made some digital tweaks to improve the contrast, which can be seen in this image.

Edit 2 of original, by Papa Lima Whiskey. Reduced fade, a touch of white balance. No sharpening.

Edit 3 by Fir0002. Downsampled as well as sharpening/levels

Articles this image appears in

Eritrean Railway

Creator

Tivedshambo

• Support as nominator -- —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 12:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Loved it at PPR, and it's still (somehow, ;)) quite good. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 13:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support because of high enc, and because it just looks so cute - like a model railroad! Technically, it could be sharper, but we can't always get all we want... --Janke | Talk 15:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Question What does this illustrate about Eritrean railways? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a photo of a steam train crossing one of the many viaducts on the Eritrean Railway. The line runs from sea level at the port of Massawa, climbing severe gradients to a height of over 7,000 feet (2,100 m) at the Eritrean capital, Asmara. Whilst a railway like this is not unique, it is certainly very unusual. This photograph helps to show the terrain the line runs through, and give some indication of how high the line climbs. Hope this answers your question! —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 16:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support either, preference to Edit1. As per my comments at PPR; no it's not technically perfect, especially with sharpness, but to me the minor technical flaws are not deal breakers, given the good composition and EV, and its illustration of places and things somewhat under-represented in FPs. The edit just adds a bit more 'punch' (hope you don't mind me adding it for consideration). --jjron (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support original the sharpness is just about acceptable. I can't support edit 1, sorry - the sharpening doesn't really add any detail and just emphasises the noise. Time3000 (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support either edit Levels adjustment makes a bigger difference than any adjustment in sharpening etc. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support edited images -Great shot! Very good composition and high educational value although if the image has more clear tone, it would've been perfect. How did you take it, just from a higher road?--Caspian blue 01:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The image is now geocoded, so you can see for yourself, but the most likely candidate is a higher road. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was from the beside the public road from Asmara from Massawa. —  Tivedshambo  _{(t/c) (logged on as Pek)} 07:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I quite like this scene - makes me want to go photograph Puffing Billy - but unfortunately the technical quality is rather poor --Fir0002 06:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 3 --Fir0002 06:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I tried a downsample too when I first did my edit. As I commented at PPR "A downsize to about 1600px wide helps and still easily makes the FPC size limits, but consequently makes the central feature, the train, a bit insignificant in size." That's why I eventually decided the bigger version was better despite the technical concerns that get more 'hidden' when downsized. --jjron (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit 3, weak support others Definitely captivates my interest. Not to many FP's from Eritrea. Spencer^T♦C 02:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support edit 3 Down sampling was a good idea as were the adjustments to contrast ect. Unusual subject matter overrides minor technical problems. --Leivick (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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.

Older nominations requiring additional input from users

These 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.

Suspended nominations

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

Dublin Rail Network

Original - Map of the Greater Dublin Rail Network - showing Suburban Rail, Luas and proposed Metro and