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

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 http://wiki.w2n.net/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 reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s)) and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support; however, 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 picture tools: Featured picture criteria Picture peer review Featured picture candidates Nomination procedure On Wikimedia Commons Featured picture candidates archive Featured pictures thumbs Picture of the day Picture of the day archive Valued pictures Valued picture candidates Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures ← On Wikimedia Commons Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics
How to nominate Step 1 - Evaluate Submissions will be evaluated using the criteria listed on http://wiki.w2n.net/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 http://wiki.w2n.net/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 http://wiki.w2n.net/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 http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button. Step 3 - Transclude and link Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (direct link). Too complicated? If you are unable to follow the above procedure, add your image to http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Picture peer review following the simpler instructions provided there. You can mention that you would like to submit it to http://wiki.w2n.net/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. Due to problems with disruptive canvassing, all promotion of other processes in votes will be removed. Promotion does not include directing the user to a group or pages that may help improve the featured picture candidate, such as the Graphics Lab, or mentioning awards an image has gotten elsewhere (e.g. "already a featured picture on commons"). 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 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
	Big & Small
	Pseudovector diagram
	Aneilema aequinoctiale

Contents 1 How to nominate 1.1 Step 1 - Evaluate 1.2 Step 2 - Create subpage 1.3 Step 3 - Transclude and link 1.4 Too complicated? 2 How to comment 3 Editing candidates 4 Is my monitor calibrated correctly? 5 Current nominations 5.1 Grand Central Terminal video 5.2 Green Naped Lorikeet 5.3 Paper Kite (Idea leuconoe) 5.4 Black-capped Lory 5.5 Blue Streaked Lory 5.6 Coot Chick 5.7 Hubble Breakdown 5.8 Wattled Jacana at Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, Ohio, USA 5.9 Eurymela distincta 5.10 Vexi Salmi 5.11 Durvillaea antarctica 5.12 Big & Small 5.13 Mythology: Battle at Lanka, Ramayana 5.14 Cavalry at Balaklava 5.15 Small White 5.16 Magnetic Field is a Pseudovector 5.17 Sand wasp feeding on a fly 5.18 White-headed dwarf gecko 5.19 Aneilema aequinoctiale 5.20 Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco skyline 5.21 Phelsuma laticauda 6 Nominations older than 7 days - decision time! 6.1 Pine Grosbeak 7 Older nominations requiring additional input from users 8 Closing procedure 9 Nominations for delisting 10 Delist closing procedure 11 Recently closed nominations 11.1 Phelsuma dubia 11.2 Feeding Behavior of Carpilius convexus 11.3 Burnley 11.4 Platinum 11.5 Tarawera rift crater 11.6 Desargues theorem 11.7 Plover Chick 11.8 Surfing rainbow 11.9 The break of Mavericks waves 12 Suspended nominations

To see recent changes, purge the page cache

Your comments are also appreciated at Picture peer review and at Valued picture candidates.

Current nominations

http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured picture candidates/File:My School.JPG

Grand Central Terminal video

Original - Video architectural tour of Grand Central Terminal
(High-res version on Internet Archive)

Reason

I think this is a first-of-its-kind video for its subject type and manner of composition; it is a sophisticated multi-shot video architectural tour produced and edited by Gabrielm199, who is one of the Wikimedia New York City interns, for our Lights Camera Wiki initiative. Unfortunately Commons has a 100 MB limit, but until that is increased a high-res version is available on the Internet Archive under the same license.

Articles in which this image appears

Grand Central Terminal

Creator

Gabrielm199

• Support as nominator --Pharos (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note -- I just changed the video's thumbnail in the Grand Central article, using the thumb-time parameter. The new thumbnail is much more interesting. The underlying video is the same. I raise this point here, because reviewers may fail to spot the video in the GSS article, because the thumbnails are currently different. It's currently in Grand_Central_Terminal#Grand_Central_North. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Great EV and seems like acceptable quality given the file size limits. Fletcher (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but a couple comments - the panning of essentially flat elements is not that helpful. It makes me wish I just had a photo, because the video aspect isn't actually improving my understanding over a photo. Also, I think narration would be very helpful. Especially when new elements come on screen, I sometimes have little to no idea of how it fits into the overall building. (I see there is a guideline against this in the project page, but I think this is misguided - if internationalization is a concern, commentary can simply be removed and replaced by another language.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Green Naped Lorikeet

Original - Green-naped Lorikeet, T. h. haematodus, sub-species of Rainbow Lorikeet

Articles in which this image appears

Rainbow Lorikeet

Creator

Benjamint 07:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 07:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I prefer the composition of this image but what about the current FP? --Muhammad(talk) 08:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Different subspecies. Notice the plumage difference in the chest. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I have, again, cut down the number of images in this article. I think there is probably a place for a featured image of each subspecies, but illustrating less-than-one-line entries on a list? I'm not so sure. J Milburn (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Since these each have a distinct distribution, I don't see why they shouldn't also each have their own article - we've done this for the tigers, for instance. It would make a much stronger case for additional EV, which is currently lacking. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Paper Kite (Idea leuconoe)

Original - Paper Kite is known especially for its presence in butterfly greenhouses and live butterfly expositions.

Reason

Nice quality and focus

Articles in which this image appears

Idea leuconoe

Creator

Pro2

• Support as nominator --Rehratep (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. At this time, the image is used only in a gallery, and so it's encyclopedic value is not clear. I admit the image quality is excellent, but we are not going to be able to promote the image now. Perhaps if the article was a good bit longer, this could be one of two infobox pictures. I am not certain that it would work as the only image used inline, though it certainly seems to be the best image in the article, in technical terms. J Milburn (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Black-capped Lory

Original - Black-capped Lory, Lorius lory, is a colorful parrot

Reason

High IQ and also captures the the fun-loving and playful feel of lorikeets. (yes, I know: anthropomorphism ;-))

Articles in which this image appears

Black-capped Lory, Lorius

Creator

Benjamint 02:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 02:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, good shot with interesting (but still encyclopaedic) pose.Bbut it would be nice to note where the photo was taken - I am assuming a zoo but which? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Jurong Bird Park. Benjamint 22:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Blue Streaked Lory

Original - The Blue-streaked Lory, Eos reticulata, is also known as the Blue-necked Lory. It a medium size parrot (31 cm), primarily red with blue streaks from eye through ear coverts, brown-black tail, and black variegation on wing coverts

Articles in which this image appears

Blue-streaked Lory

Creator

Benjamint 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Coot Chick

Original - Australian Coot is a member of the rail family. Chick pictured standing on floating lily pads

Reason

Good IQ. Also shows the partially webbed feet that no other image on the page currently does.

Articles

Eurasian Coot

Creator

Benjamint 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I may be seeing this wrongly, but apart from the 400px or so of focus on head everything else is OOF --Muhammad(talk) 01:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, lovely. Despite seeing coots an awful lot, I've never actually seen a chick this young. Article is brutally over-illustrated, but this image certainly has a place there. I'm gonna go and cut it down. J Milburn (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hubble Breakdown

Original - Exploded diagram of the Hubble Space Telescope, showing the equipment used in the telescope.

Alt—random capitals replaced with lower-case

Reason

This I thought was an interesting breakdown on the internal design of the Hubble Telescope, with finely drwan sections and nice labels for the material. As an svg file it can be resized easily and it definitely adds to the article by showing the equipment that goes into the telescope that makes it such a wonderful astronomer tool. As such, I submit this for FP consideration.

Articles in which this image appears

Hubble Space Telescope

Creator

AndrewBuck

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 01:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's definitely an interesting diagram but I don't think it has the visual flair necessary (would benefit from colour/shading), and at least in Firefox, the line thickness is slightly too large IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: For a start, you would need to remove all the random capitals. So far as I am aware, at leas the majority labels are not proper nouns. J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Alt added: Most capitals replaced with lower-case, also hyphenated low- and high-gain, fixed one typo, and added : where it seemed headings were being used (e.g. in the repeated "Optical telescope assembly"). Maedin\^talk 09:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe "Fix head star tracker" should be "Fixed-head star tracker"—see here. Deor (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I did wonder about that one. Now corrected. Maedin\^talk 06:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wattled Jacana at Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, Ohio, USA

Original - Wattled Jacana (Jacana jacana) at Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, Ohio, USA

Reason

good image

Articles in which this image appears

Wattled Jacana

Creator

Ozan Kilic

• Support as nominator --Snowman (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Decent composition, very large, sharp enough. J Milburn (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose The upper parts of the legs seem very fuzzy, as are parts of the feet (DOF problem I imagine), and feet are of extreme interest in this family. Also, I find the EV really hampered by the dull background. These are birds of bright sunny marshes, not dark zoos. Given how common these types of birds are and how approachable in the wild they are, and the open environment they live in it is not a huge ask for a photo of a wild bird with some contextualising habitat. To be clear, being in the wild is not essential for a FP, but the captive background should not be so jarring. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• The caption and image description say that this bird is in a zoo. The focus is on the leg nearest the camera, which is better than it being on the leg farthest from the camera. Snowman (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm aware of the first point, but it still detracts from the image. Even if that were not an issue the legs still are. Neither leg is in good focus, even if the closer one is better, and the feet are not well focused on either. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Eurymela distincta

Original - Eurymela distincta, Meehan Range, Tasmania, Australia

Reason

It would appear to be pointing at something.

Articles in which this image appears

Leafhopper

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Is this a stuidio shot? What's going on with the background? J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. The leafhopper article is already spammed with photographs. Why not create an article for the species or genus (or wait until someone else does)? I have lots of leafhopper photos that I could dump into leafhopper as well, but I would feel like I was not really contributing anything to the encyclopedia. Kaldari (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment -- there's quite a few dustspots in the background which could be fixed. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above - plenty of high-res images in article, no additional EV demonstrated. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Vexi Salmi

Original - Finn Vexi Salmi is a popular lyricist who has become popular through the successes of the platinum-selling music artists for whom he writes

Reason

Engaging, high-quality, high-resolution portrait of a very popular man in Finland. Thanks to Jafeluv for helping me with the Finnish to expand Salmi's article from an unreferenced stub.

Articles in which this image appears

Vexi Salmi

Creator

Teemu Rajala

• Commons nomination statement: This portrait was nominated at Commons last year and the Finnish nominator, Samulili, had this to say: "I find it hard to explain the greatness of this image but I will try my best... This man, Vexi Salmi, is one of the most popular, if not the most popular, lyricist in Finnish music. His lyrics have spoken to millions of Finns through platinum selling artists such as Irwin Goodman, Jari Sillanpää, Katri Helena etc. He does not write music for the younger generation but rather to the baby boomers of his age, the rural generation urbanized in the 70s, dancing their waltz and Finnish tango. His lyrics are not only of love but also of social phenomena and critical double entendre. In this picture he is shown against the rural background (forest) leaning against a pine. His habitus and expression tell of a personality who amicably casts his critical gaze on the things he sees happening around him (cf.). More than that, and what makes the image even better, is that you could label the image "the Finnish middle-aged man", so archetypal he looks in his gray suit. I have never been able to judge the technical quality of any image professionally (althought this looks very good) but the greatness of this image lies not in its technical achievements but the cultural connotations is captures." (link)
• Support as nominator —Maedin\^talk 07:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Absolutely agree with the original nominator (except maybe their definition of "middle age"). Salmi is an icon in Finland, despite being strictly a behind-the-scenes man and not a performer. It's a high quality photo, already featured in Commons, and captures the man and his background very effectively. Jafeluv (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Good composition and high resolution. Snowman (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, very nice. J Milburn (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Commons FPC. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. High quality portrait. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Pile on support per above --Muhammad(talk) 01:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support –Ppntori (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Durvillaea antarctica

Original - This cross-section of a dried bull kelp blade shows the walls of the honeycomb structure within. Durvillaea antarctica is the only seaweed with this feature, which provides it with buoyancy and resilience against the pounding waves.

Reason

Good EV: shows a unique feature of this species, its internal honeycomb-like structure.

Articles in which this image appears

Durvillaea antarctica

Creator

Avenue

• Support as nominator --Avenue (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Interesting. I have seen kelp so many times, but it never got to my mind to make a cross-section :)--Mbz1 (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't make it, I just noticed it. -- Avenue (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Messy composition. For example, the part in the foreground it is true shows the structure viewed from outside but it was not necessary to put it covering some of the one with the cross-section. Abisharan (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A broader view of the kelp blade (not for voting).

• This was all one solid object (it curved back on itself), so there wasn't necessarily as much freedom as you suggest. I've uploaded a broader view of it (below right). But I take your point. -- Avenue (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support. Weak because of the composition, as mentioned above, but this is a high quality shot of an interesting subject, and it certainly adds to the article. J Milburn (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support - Quality not the best, but adds plenty of value to its respective article and helps to demonstrate a feature difficult to imagine otherwise. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Big & Small

Original - Big (right) and Small are the two main characters of Big & Small, a puppet-based comedy show aimed at preschool children. Both characters are voiced by comedian Lenny Henry.

Reason

A rather charismatic picture showing the two main characters from an award-winning television programme aimed at preschool children. Not the kind of shot we see very often at all as a free image. I appreciate that this is at the lower end of our size requirements, but I do not feel that it detracts from the encyclopedic value.

Articles in which this image appears

Big & Small, Kindle Entertainment

Creator

Christos Kalohoridis/Kindle Entertainment

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment, I think we could use to know more about this image. Is it a screencap from the show? If so, was this in a year when they show was not playing in 1080i. I ask because I would like to support this since it's important to get freely licensed commercial material but, if this is a publicity shot then this is probably not high enough resolution to warrant support. gren グレン 17:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe this is a publicity shot (note we have a photographer name), and I'm afraid I can't really comment on the technicalities. J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support I think in terms of a typical scene, this is about as good as can be. It took me a while to get used to the fact that Small looks yellow in photographs, but orange in the series - cf. (sorry, 4MB image). I agree that the resolution is borderline, but can't imagine what additional EV would be gained with a bigger image. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Good to have such a picture. Agree with PLW about the resolution --Muhammad(talk) 01:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mythology: Battle at Lanka, Ramayana

Original - Battle at Lanka, Ramayana by Sahibdin. It depicts monkey army of the protagonist Rama (top left, blue figure) fighting the demon-king of the king of Lanka, Ravana in order to save Rama's kidnapped wife Sita. The painting depicts multiple events in the battle against the three-headed demon general Trisiras, in bottom left - Trisiras is beheaded by the monkey-companion of Rama - Hanuman.

Reason

First nomination had unanimous support, but did not reach quorum.

Articles in which this image appears

Ramayana, Sahibdin

Creator

Sahibdin, uploaded by Abhishekjoshi (earlier version) and TheMandarin (current high res version)

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. We really need more artwork going through FPC, and this seems like an excellent candidate. J Milburn (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support agree with the arguments. Abisharan (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support good enc.; per nom. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cavalry at Balaklava

Original - A restored lithograph that shows the 6th (Inniskilling) Dragoons and the 5th Dragoon Guards engaging the Russian cavalry in the midst of the camp of the light cavalry brigade which is being plundered by the Russian troops during the battle of Balaklava.

Reason

It has a high educational value in 6th (Inniskilling) Dragoons, 5th Dragoon Guards and is a high quality/resolution restoration.

Articles in which this image appears

6th (Inniskilling) Dragoons, 5th Dragoon Guards

Creator

William Simpson, restored by NativeForeigner

• Support as nominator --NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Excellent work again, good job. High EV. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support Can we try to also get material from some other artists? At my count, this would be the third FP from Simpson. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I'm with PLW concerning the artist, but I do think there is value for the article on the 6th Dragoons especially. Just a note- William Simpson is a dab page; you want William Simpson (artist). J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I'm restoring another crimean war lithograph by another artist, along with a picture of a renault tank in a ditch. I'm also actively looking for any material regarding korea to restore, if anyone has any ideas. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. As long as each image has separate ev we can feature them all. Think of this as the Crimean parallel to Muhammad's quest at documenting the world's fly species. :) Durova⁴¹² 04:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's a precise paralell, although I certainly appreciate what you are saying. J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
    • We also have at least five FPs of Gustave Doré engravings. Between Simpson and Doré and Muhammad we're getting excellent coverage of the Crimean War and historic literature and houseflies: it's equally good for the site to illustrate all these subjects in depth. Durova⁴¹² 17:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Small White

Original - Small White (Pieris rapae), Austin's Ferry, Tasmania, Australia, Austin's Ferry, Tasmania, Australia

Reason

Nice image of this butterfly.

Articles in which this image appears

Whites (butterfly), Small White

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Lovely shot, good EV. Fletcher (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above --Muhammad(talk) 02:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, this is a particularly lovely shot. I personally suspect EV would be higher showing the top of the wing, but I love the shot, so I'm more than happy to support. J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Fletcher. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - very nice shot. Any idea what flower it is perched on? - I.M.S. (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Magnetic Field is a Pseudovector

Original - A loop of wire (black), carrying a current, creates a magnetic field (blue). When the wire is reflected in a mirror (dotted line), the magnetic field it generates is not reflected in the mirror: Instead, it is reflected and reversed. The position of the wire and its current are (polar) vectors, but the magnetic field is a pseudovector.¹

Reason

It is an excellent demonstration for how a pseudovector behaves differently from a vector under improper rotation. This example would be clear for anyone with a basic (year 12) understanding of magnetism. The direction of the B field is dependant on the direction the current flows through the loop. Rotating a loop about 180 degrees does not change the B field direction. Mirroring the loop on the same axis causes the current to flow in the opposite direction, inverting the B field produced.

Articles in which this image appears

Magnetic field, Pseudovector

Creator

Sbyrnes321

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Perhaps this is picky, but the field lines closest to the mirror seem like they wouldn't quite meet up inside the loop. The mirror is also closer to one side than the other. -- Avenue (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed both. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I think something's messed up. The arrows in the right side are reversed. This should follow the right hand rule and point down, no? upstateNYer 01:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Thats correct (and rather the point of the diagram). I forgot to move the arrows when re-mirroring it. Fixed now. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Except now I see that mediawiki can't render it properly :(. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Stroke-Path fixed that. Turns out that inkscape has bugs (the black arrow heads) and the renderer has bugs too. It makes things difficult. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Simple and effective. I can't see any real flaws now, although the mirror line seems a bit heavy-handed to me. The EV is especially good in magnetic field, IMO. --Avenue (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Useful in understanding the articles. Technically sound now :) Jujutacular ^T · C 22:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. If this is as accurate and useful as people say it is (I really don't feel qualified to judge; I've tried to read the article twice, it's just not happening- always hated magnetism...) I am happy to support it. I wouldn't like to see this not promoted because people like me don't understand what's going on. J Milburn (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sand wasp feeding on a fly

Original - A sand wasp (Bembix oculata) is sucking the internal fluids of a fly, using a beak-like extension of its mouth-parts. The fly did not survive the experience...

Reason

High EV and relative rarity. I believe that the educational value mitigates the less-than-optimal quality. It all happened in front of my eyes during some four or five seconds and I had very little time to point and shoot.

Articles in which this image appears

Wasp

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Unsharp and low DOF. The sucking part is hardly distinguishable in the high res. I know this is rare and may a hard to capture but if something like File:Hoverflies mating midair.jpg and File:Pegesimallus sp robberfly.jpg is possible, then surely this too can be captured with better quality. --Muhammad(talk) 04:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question and Info a macro photo with f/6.3? No, DOF will be allways to low. I think it is better to use f/20 or f/22 and perhaps using a flash. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a battle between sharpness and DOF. f/20 will make the image unsharp. What we have discovered (at FPC) is that f/11-f/13 usually gives the best of both. --Muhammad(talk) 11:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'm well aware of the challenge posed by macro photography and of the technical details, thanks :-). In the present case there were two aditional problems: the need for a high shutter speed (due to intense motion) and the very few time available for thinking, making adjustments and shoot. IMO this was much more difficult that Fir's catch of the mating flies, because this is a common occurrence (for us to see, I mean) and he had the opportunity of making several shots. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support The wasp itself is sharp enough IMO, the fly not so much, but EV is in the wasp and it behavior.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The focus in on the behaviour, so I would want the mouth thing to be sharper than it is. Currently, the picture focuses on the thorax and the near leg, which is not really the important part here. I don't think this is quite there. J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

White-headed dwarf gecko

Original - White-headed dwarf gecko in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The tail has been lost due to a self-defense mechanism known as Autotomy

Reason

Good quality and EV. As I mentioned during the nomination of a similar lizard, losing the tails among members of this genus is quite common. Probably my last lizard nomination for now.

Articles in which this image appears

White-headed dwarf gecko, Lygodactylus, Reptile

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 12:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, though I think it would be worth mentioning in the caption that the gecko has lost its tail. J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - A tail is missing -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned, this is quite common. --Muhammad(talk) 04:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support because the tail is missing. Muhammad, you might want to add info about missing tail to the caption. Say something like the missing tails will grow back.
  

Poor baby lizard is to fail

because it lost a piece of tail?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL :) --Muhammad(talk) 04:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I think we've already covered the issue of whether flaws/imperfections are acceptable. If I recall correctly, we generally agreed that the specimen should be as pristine as possible, except where the flaws had EV. I think as long as the caption (in the article(s)) mentions that losing tails is common in geckos, the image doesn't lose EV. However, if it was a random genetic flaw, it wouldn't have much EV as it wouldn't describe the species accurately. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Having said that, and having thought about it a bit more, it does make sense to me that the EV of a missing tail would be higher in a 'higher order' article. IMO, there's not as much value to having a photo showing the missing tail in a species article because it implies that this species specifically exhibits tail-dropping, whereas the truth is that many different types of gecko do this. Whereas, if this image were to be used in the gecko article as an illustration of tail-dropping, it would have higher EV. Just my two cents. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't know about other geckos, but the Lygodactylus has a high number of tail-dropping. This image appears in the Lygodactylus article but that is more of a stub than an article so... Updated the captions in the articles. --Muhammad(talk) 11:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not an expert either, but it's definitely something that can be done by a wide variety of lizards as per this: "Geckos, skinks, legless lizards and some dragons have the ability to lose their tail quickly if it is grasped by a predator, then grow a new tail.". Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I have written about reptilian defense mechanisms in the Reptile article and the image now illustrates the tail dropping there. --Muhammad(talk) 15:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support The background is somewhat psychedelic, but the colours seem okay, and the resolution on subject *just* meets the criteria. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • BTW, given that the section you created, at least in terms of images, is somewhat specific to lizards, I'd recommend sticking it in lizard. You already put another image in autotomy so we may be exhausting the EV in that category now. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- interesting subject, nice detail, good EV. The crop could be a bit tighter, and the composition could be improved at the same time, but I realise that this is simply a matter of preference. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Aneilema aequinoctiale

Original - Aneilema aequinoctiale flower pictured on the Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania

Not for voting Previous image in article which was replaced by nominated image

Reason

Good quality, EV

Articles in which this image appears

Aneilema, Commelinaceae

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 11:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment -- A beautiful picture, yes. But its EV is questionable as both articles are stubs and the image was forced into them. IMO this is against the spirit of FPC, where only the images with exceptional EV value for the articles they actually illustrate should be promoted. Welcome to Commons FPC... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Nobody forced the image anywhere. One article had no picture of the flower and the other had this very low resolution, and bad quality picture. Since when is replacing such an image with a superior one as this called forcing? --Muhammad(talk) 04:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Sometimes it's a good idea to put the existing image into a <gallery> environment at the bottom of the article, to allow other editors to decide what to do with it (not everybody wants to have to check the edit history to see if there are older images to be found). Alternatively, make sure the previous image is properly categorised at commons, and use {{commonscat}}. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per Muhammad. Nobody denies it is a very good image of a very beutiful flower, and IMO it adds EV to the articles it appers in--Mbz1 (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. It seems like its a bit underexposed. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support. Not wild about the image, but it seems ok. I realise this isn't a very helpful comment, so feel free to ignore it. J Milburn (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco skyline

Original - The image depicts San Francisco Bay, Golden Gate Bridge,San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge and San Francisco skyline

alt1

Reason

High EV and quality. We have few FP on San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge, but if I am not mistaking it is the first FP nominated image, which shows San Francisco and his two famous bridges in connection to each others

Articles in which this image appears

San Francisco Bay

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom --Muhammad(talk) 10:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support beautiful fog photo. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Yes, a beautiful picture. But where is SF bay? I only see the Golden Gate bridge clearly. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on now, Alves, the bay is under the fog :)--Mbz1 (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Mila, you know well what I mean... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, no I do not. There are 2 Bridges at the image Golden Gate Bridge and part of San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge, there is Fort Mason that is seen clearly, and located at the Bay. There is a shoreline. Of course it is not the whole Bay, but to say you see no Bay...

Anyway I added alternative, Here you could see Golden Gate Bridge;San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge ;Alcatraz Island (partially covered by fog) and Treasure Island They all are at the Bay.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What argument would you make to the effect that the EV is improved with the fog? Noodle snacks (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

None, absolutely none, but let's say I have an absolutely the same image, without the fog. What extra could be seen at the image? Only the water of the Bay. The fog makes the the image more atmospheric, but neither adds nor subtracts EV.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is SF we are talking about. Surely it would lack EV if there was no fog! (I once sailed under the bridge in fog so thick you could barely see the bridge from the water). The image shows SF Bay as it often is. In a pretty way. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per my above comment (even if it reminds me of the Onion story "San Francisco Photographer Shits Out Another Bridge Photo :P ! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the fog is hiding the things that would give this image EV. The bridge itself is partly concealed, and even more so in the Alt. Just as we feel entitled to use false colour images where appropriate (electron microscopy, satellite IR imagery), we're equally entitled to have the SF bay free of fog, or nocturnal animals in plain daylight. I'm afraid that fog looks pretty much the same everywhere, and ahem. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean more the same than File:Hong Kong Skyline Restitch - Dec 2007.jpg and File:Hong Kong Night Skyline.jpg? And besides the nominated image is a night shot of the fog, which has some EV on its own. It shows how street lights look in the fog, and how the fog changes the visibility. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Fog adds to the EV, per Sabine's Sunbird, and to the image itself. -- Avenue (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support original. Beautiful. upstateNYer 01:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Whilst regular fog appears to be an integral component of the harbour File:San francisco in fog with rays.jpg is doing a better job of illustrating the fog frankly. I really think that Golden Gate Bridge article really just needs a more standard (boring?) picture of the bridge without the fog etc. I wouldn't mind a bit more space below the bridge too. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Info The image is not in Golden Gate Bridge article.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support 1st picture...seeing the city background gives it more perspective of location and overview. The image need not include the entire bridge in my opinion.--MONGO 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm just going to give voice to my concern that MONGO may have arrived here by way of canvassing, seeing that he's not a regular contributor, this is the only current nomination that he's decided to comment on, and he's a friend of Mbz1 [1]. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I myself was surprised over Mongo vote, but I wonder, if you have ever heard about WP:AGF? What a stupid assumption to bring barnstar from 2007 and to talk about canvasing! I am more than disappointed in your comment and you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It is unusual for me to cast an opinion regarding images, but did land on this page after tracking Mbz1's edit history. I actually looked pretty closely at the images after downloading them and looking at them off site. I've never been to San Fran but have seen many pics of the GGB and these appear in my humble opinion to be first rate.--MONGO 03:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Very cool picture. I aspire to the skills needed to create it. BTW - Both MONGO and Mbz1 are my friends in collaboration on WP but don't hold that against Mbz1.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • And let me guess, you also just happened to pass? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Hey, Papa Lima Whiskey, have you ever heard about so called "watch list"? It is a good idea to have one, you know. If you do not how it works, please, ping me and I will explain it to you. So, here is the sequence of events. Mike has Mongo's talk page on his watch list. I left a message at Mongo's talk page here. Mike checked his watch list. Mike saw the message. Mike voted for the image. Is that clear? WP:AGF--Mbz1 (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Mbz1 - That's the second time you've had to stand up for me. Not necessary but humbling. You're explanation to PLW could have been shortened to this phrase: Collaboration is not WP:Canvassing.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Lacks EV: neither a good depiction of the bridge nor of the bay. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Avenue. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not sure why there's so much fog discussion - even without the fog this should not pass... The background is completely blurred leaving little or no visable features of the buildings behind the bridge... Which considering this FP nom is about the Bay itself to have a blurred image isn't good... The bridge itself is out of focus to the extent you cannot see clearly the wires - just a feint blurred line... There is over exposed lights to the left of the bridge on the hill and above and slightly left-of-centre of the bridge itself... The foreground is too dark to see any detail on the hill... I appreciate fog will have some effect, especially around the bridge itself, but no excuse for a blurred fuzzy picture... Gazhiley (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, right it is one " blurred fuzzy picture". One should remember that the fog was all over the place. The whole bridge was in the fog, only the density of the fog was not so high above the bridge as it was below.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Phelsuma laticauda

Original - Gold dust day gecko (Phelsuma laticauda laticauda) is a diurnal subspecies of geckos. It lives in northern Madagascar and on the Comoros. It typically inhabits various kinds of trees, and houses. The Gold dust day gecko feeds on insects, nectar, and occasionally smaller lizards.

Reason

High resolution, sharpness; full body shown; natural habitat.

Articles in which this image appears

Phelsuma laticauda, Phelsuma

Creator

Thierry Caro

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: On the same article, we also have File:Combat-de-phelsumes-sur-un-bananier.JPG- a high quality shot showing interesting behaviour, already featured on Commons. While the behavior is not explicitly discussed in the article, I feel that may also make a good FPC. J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, although the nominated image gives you much higher resolution on the individual. I wish we had more developed articles on intersexual selection or male combat, but we only have aggression and territory (animal), the latter with File:Elephant seals fighting.jpg as an FP. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support The gecko is sharp and well illustrated. IF only the image were a bit cleaner --Muhammad(talk) 03:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. As I said above, I'm not wild about the composition, but the technical quality and EV are high. J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• SupportRyan shell (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Agreement with nominator; quality full-body illustration of the species. Maedin\^talk 17:27, 12 March 2010 (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.

Pine Grosbeak

Original - The Pine Grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator) is a large member of the true finch family, Fringillidae. It is found in coniferous woods across Alaska, the western mountains of the United States, Canada, and in subarctic Fennoscandia and Siberia. Its voice is geographically variable, and includes a whistled pui pui pui or chii-vli.

Edit 1 less saturated background, reduced colour noise; slightly less brilliant colours to avoid blowing channels.

Reason

A charismatic fat little bird at the start of winter. Image meets our criteria.

Articles in which this image appears

Pine Grosbeak, Grosbeak, List of birds of Oregon, Birds of Glacier National Park (U.S.)

Creator

72426950scott (but since transferred to commons via bot)

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Background is a bit distracting but it meets the criteria. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Background has a nice colour scheme, only disturbing part is the red triangular branch above his head. Could that be softened by reducing localy the saturation? Elekhh (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • See edit 1. I can bring back the full fg colours if there is consensus to do so. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support any Ver pleasnt colors.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Nice. Prefer Edit 1. Maedin\^talk 09:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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.

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 top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured picture candidates/Image name}} to the top of the section.
3. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the March archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.

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. Add the image to Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
3. Add the image to http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Goings-on - newest on bottom.
4. Add the image to the appropriate section of http://wiki.w2n.net/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.

5. Add the image to the proper sub-page of http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured pictures - note the two sections (wikipedian / non-wikipedian) - newest on top.

   The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.

6. Add the image to http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
7. Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{FeaturedPicture|image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured_picture_candidates/image_name).
8. 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.
9. Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
10. 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}}.
11. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured picture candidates/Image name}} to the top of the section.
12. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the March archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.

Nominations for delisting

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 top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
3. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply adding the line {{http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Retained section of the archive.
4. 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 top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
3. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply adding the line {{http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} page to the bottom of the Delisted section of the archive.
4. Replace the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
5. Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured pictures and the appropriate section of http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured pictures thumbs.
6. Decrement the count at the top of http://wiki.w2n.net/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 top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
3. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply adding the line {{http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Replaced section of the archive.
4. Replace the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
5. 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 http://wiki.w2n.net/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}}.
6. 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.
7. Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of http://wiki.w2n.net/wikipedia/Featured pictures and the appropriate section of http://wiki.w2n.net/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.

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. If you wish to discuss any of these closures, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Nominations will stay here for three days following closure and subsequently be removed.

Phelsuma dubia

Original - Phelsuma dubia commonly called the Dull day gecko in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania on a palm frond

Edit1 Recovered sky

Reason

Reptilian FPs are few and lizards seem to be doing well so here's another one. The only picture in its article. Previous image in article was of lower quality and probably misidentified( or juvenile)

Articles in which this image appears

Dull day gecko, Reptile (Under camouflage in defense)

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 09:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support Blurring on tail and distracting background (white bits) - I thought I was viewing some form of optical illusion picture until I read the details as I just didn't see the animal... Still support though as once you know what ur looking for it is a good picture of an animal I had never seen so good ev... Gazhiley (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Composition is interesting and eye catching. It's the sort of composition that you tend to see in wildlife photography competitions. Shame you didn't get it more straight-on, so that everything was in focus. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this is slightly but significantly below our standards, and if it were from any photographer that isn't an FPC regular, we almost certainly wouldn't promote it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Sorry. I love the picture, I just don't think it's really FPC material because of the distracting background. I, too, didn't actually realise I was looking at a lizard for a few seconds. J Milburn (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree the lizard is difficult to see at first but I think it's more camouflage in the setting than the background --Muhammad(talk) 17:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Try defocussing your eyes and looking at the thumbnail- you see a series of white triangles. They look like the focus of the picture. This feels much more BBC than Wikipedia- I suppose that's a compliment, but I'm not certain it's something we should be featuring. However, I realise how inconsistent that sounds, so consider my oppose withdrawn. I am neutral. J Milburn (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Prefer edit slightly EV-wise, but still neutral, as I am not certain I can assess this properly. J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose because of the very light triangles. Camouflage per se is not bad. If the whole photo were occupied by a lizard-colored tree trunk or something like that, that would be fine. But here, the eyes are drawn to the triangles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support I absolutely love the image!--Mbz1 (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Edit1 uploaded I recovered the sky colour from the white triangles. I hope the blue triangles are not distracting. --Muhammad(talk) 10:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The composition is beautiful and I would gladly support the picture in Commons FP. But here we should restrict focus our assessment on EV, and the light, sharpness and angle are not the best -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not promoted —Maedin\^talk 12:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Feeding Behavior of Carpilius convexus

Original - Carpilius convexus consuming Heterocentrotus trigonarius

Reason

High resolution, high EV, high quality, underwater image taken in the wild

Articles in which this image appears

Crab

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. While it's at an early stage of the attack, it is quite clear what's going on. I'm happy with the quality, although if anyone can put in an improved edit, I might support that, too. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, interesting one. The article is a little lacking, but this is still a high quality shot documenting important behaviour of a crab. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Well done on the species ID, by the way. I've taken the liberty of making a few small changes to the caption. J Milburn (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I always found amusing the euphemism comsuming for what we commonly call eating or devouring. Good EV, though! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent illustration of behaviour. --Avenue (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Promoted File:Carpilius convexus is consuming Heterocentrotus trigonarius in Hawaii.jpg —Maedin\^talk 12:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Burnley

Original - A panoramic image showing the town of Burnley from Crown point road. To the far top left of the image is the imposing Pendle Hill, with the Yorkshire Dales visible in the top central background. The left of the image shows the town centre of Burnley and Turf Moor can be seen in the very centre of the picture. To the right the areas of Brunshaw and Pike Hill can be seen. Also two of the 'Burnley Future Schools' sites can be seen, one behind the football stadium and the other in the foreground to the right of the image.

Reason

a large, detailed and very wide pano showing the town of burnley as well as a host of features in the surrounding geography. Suggested to try here from Peer Review

Articles in which this image appears

Burnley

Creator

Childzy ¤ Talk 18:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as nominator --Childzy ¤ Talk 18:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- high res, good EV, nice detail. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support That picture looks raght gud n all quality laik... Proof if needed that life ain't no longer grim oop in that ther north... Gazhiley (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Nice to see something local :) J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I like this pano too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Yep - --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Something should be urgently done about the blue haze in the background. This is not supposed to illustrate the weather conditions, but the town, so there's no excuse. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• But surely if the blue haze is in the background then it is not a problem? I don't see much of a haze over the town itself. The large hills in the background are quite far away, so I don't see the blue haze as being particularly unnatural or undesireable. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Big is not necessarily beautiful or valuable. Sorry, but I can't see a specific reason for promoting this picture other than the size and detail. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the level of detail in this is exactly the reason to nominate it... Each to their own tho... Gazhiley (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • It's a great illustration of Burnley? Is that not reason enough to nominate? Yeah, Burnley perhaps isn't the most exciting of places to many eyes, but this seems like a solid panorama to me. Shows the environment, the kind of housing, gives a feel for the modern town. If I was to criticise, I would say it doesn't speak much about the history of the city, but that's not what it set out to do. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
      • To compare, take a look at today's POTD. It's a view of what I take to be a fairly typical settlement for the area, but looking at it tells me so much- I've never been anywhere like that, I'm transported into a different world. Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and, equally, many people will have never been anywhere like Burnley, and what they imagine it to look like may be completely wrong. J Milburn (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Great panoramic picture. -- BigDom 09:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Promoted File:Burnley Pano.jpg —Maedin\^talk 12:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Platinum

Original - Native Platinum nugget, locality Konder mine Yakutia, Russia. Size ca. 35mm•23mm•14mm, weight ca. 112g = 3.6 oz. Collection: M.R.

Edit 1 Cleaned background

Reason

I don't think that too many people have such a thing floating around the house.

Articles in which this image appears

Platinum, Native metal, Sakha (Yakutia) Republic

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks to me like most of the overexposed areas at the centre of the specimen have been crudely painted over with a grey brush. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  "grey areas are fixed (false layer)". Platinum is a high glossy metal. I think it is Ok if we see a small "overexposed" areas. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- looks much better now. Detail is excellent, EV is very high, small amount of overexposure not a huge problem. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• As anyone who has studied GCSE science will tell you, one of the properties of a metal is that it shines. It would be misleading not to see some shine. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral as creator (otherwise alternatively Support) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Shine's fine. The upper front corner seems a little unsharp, but the high EV and excellent detail elsewhere outweigh that for me. -- Avenue (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Prefer original. It seems more natural, and I don't feel the nugget needs to "pop out" more. -- Avenue (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Nice quality and rare object --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'd prefer the background to be whiter but this good as well --Muhammad(talk) 14:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Prefer edit 1, IMO the white setting allows the nugget to pop out more --Muhammad(talk) 16:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Edit 1 Uploaded Made background white. --Muhammad(talk) 16:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Maybe a VP, but not a FP. I don't see anything exceptional in this image except the value of the object. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

  A VP is only possible on commons, not on en:wikipedia, de:Wikipedia, pl:Wikipedia, .... The value of an object is one of the FP criteria also the high resolution, the DOF and the rare object. Of course your opinion is though accepted. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

  • But there is already a VPC page on Wikipedia! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

    Ups, thank you. I did not know it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Request: Would voters comment on edit 1, please? Maedin\^talk 10:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Edit 1 increased the overexposure in many areas of the nugget itself, ultimately leading to a loss of detail. I realise that the nature of the subject means that some overexposure is inevitable, but nonetheless I prefer the first version. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Apart from the grey background, I did not touch anything else. The nugget is unmodified --Muhammad(talk)`

Comparison of overexposed areas between original and edit 1

• It looks different to me when you compare both images at 100%: see the comparison I uploaded. As discussed above, the overexposure isn't itself problem: but when more areas become overexposed, and more white bits join together to form contiguous areas, then detail is lost. I wouldn't oppose Edit 1, but I prefer the original since fine detail on the platinum itself is more important to me than the shade of the background. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• It was additional my new edit over the edit from Muhammad. I made it also somewhat brighter. But the main: we are voting here for the original image! NOT for others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Didn't notice that, so my apologies for the confusion. I still prefer the original to both versions of Edit 1: I've already stated the reasons why I dislike Edit 1 in its current form, and Muhammad's first version has problems with the detail along the top edge of the platinum. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Prefer original. And how about we take this opportunity to declare "uploading over the top" as a bad idea (tm)? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• info only the original is here a featured picture candidate. All the edits are legal, but not a FP candidate. :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you stop jabbering on about things that are completely against the established practice at FPC? Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Promoted File:Platinum-nugget.jpg —Maedin\^talk 12:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Tarawera rift crater

Original - In 1886, Mount Tarawera split open along its length in New Zealand's largest historic eruption. Here the resulting rift is about 500 m (1600 ft) wide.

Reason

Helps show not only the size of Tarawera's 1886 eruption, but also the type of rock produced. The scoria comes in a beautiful range of colours, both in the fissure walls and on the crater floor. Revegetation is proceeding slowly due to the subalpine climate and unstable ground.

Articles in which this image appears

Mount Tarawera, Taupo Volcanic Zone

Creator

Avenue

• Support as nominator --Avenue (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I wonder if you might have been better up on one of the ridges, but then you'd loose foreground information about the rock type. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Rare view of craterWai Hong (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Peripitus (Talk) 05:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm sorry, I think the quality is too poor. It's not sharp overall, and particularly blurry on the right side. Maedin\^talk 18:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Maedin. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Promoted File:Inside the Tarawera rift.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Desargues theorem

Original - Perspective triangles. When produced, corresponding sides of the triangles meet at collinear points along the axis of perspectivity. The lines which run through corresponding vertices on the triangles meet at a point called the center of perspectivity. Desargues' theorem guarantees that the truth of the first condition is necessary and sufficient for the truth of the second.

ALT

Reason

Its easier to make sense of than "In a projective space, two triangles are in perspective axially if and only if they are in perspective centrally".

Articles in which this image appears

Desargues' theorem, Perspective (geometry)

Creator

DynaBlast

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Not much to say here, but I didn't understand before I looked at the image, and did understand afterwards. The image quality is good. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support The lead at Desargues' theorem would be extremely difficult to understand without this image. Very valuable. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose original. The lines Aa and Bb are shown as meeting somewhat to the right of the point labeled the center of perspectivity, and below the line Cc. This flaw is visible even at the nominal size, and is more obvious in the larger renditions linked on the file description page. I agree the diagram has high EV, and the flaw is small enough that it shouldn't hinder understanding, but I think a diagram should be free of visible defects to become an FP. -- Avenue (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm really not seeing that. To me the lines all go through the exact same point. Perhaps it's confusing because the lines are dashed? Jujutacular ^T · C 17:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, he's right, and I'm surprised I didn't spot it. Look at the dashed lines- they cross (on dashes) around 4mm to the right and 2mm below the center of the dot representing the center of perspectivity (at least, it does on my screen, sorry for the not-so-technical explanation). This should really be fixed. As such, oppose until this is fixed or an explanation is forthcoming. J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I see it now. I've made an alternate to account for this. Let me know if I need to make any alterations to it. I Support ALT Jujutacular ^T · C 23:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'd prefer the default size of the alt to be a little bigger. J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Now defaults at 578×430. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing this. Is there any chance of making the lines a bit thicker (like the original)? It lets you see the diagram at article size clearly. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Lines are a bit thicker now. Jujutacular ^T · C 13:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• On reflection, I have another concern. It seems like the axis of perspectivity is parallel to the line Cc, but I don't believe this is a requirement for perspective triangles, and showing them as parallel could mislead readers into believing this is a necessary condition. I don't believe showing them as parallel makes the diagram significantly easier to follow, either, so I would prefer for those lines not to be parallel. -- Avenue (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• This occurred to me too, but I personally do feel that it makes the diagram easier to follow. I certainly see where you are coming from, but I remember when I did this kind of thing at school, making one of the lines completely horizontal, if possible, did make the issue a little simpler. J Milburn (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• One of the lines being horizontal is okay. What he's saying is making two of the lines horizontal implies a relationship where there needn't be one. I've made an adjustment for this, thank you again Avenue. Jujutacular ^T · C 15:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you! Fast work. -- Avenue (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good now IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ALT. Not only have the technical fixes been made, but I think the ALT is a little prettier. J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ALT. This version addresses my concerns. High EV, makes the article much easier to follow. -- Avenue (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Promoted File:Desargues theorem alt.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Plover Chick

Original - Masked Lapwing (Vanellus miles), young birds crouch and lie still as a form of camouflage

Articles in which this image appears

Masked Lapwing

Creator

Benjamint 06:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 06:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Not a hard photo to take, apart of course from getting the crap swooped out of you. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Is it a new trend to not provide a reason? --Elekhh (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - how did the link document lack of reasoning? if u support u obviously think it meets the requirements, comments go on top of that --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Elekh is talking about the template not being filled in completely, and in this case, the "Reason" field being removed entirely. I have to admit that I've often found it difficult to say more than "meets the criteria". Perhaps the rationale is that if you haven't considered the criteria by that point, you might at least stumble and go back to check them. We seem to get the occasional ineligible image nominated in spite of this. Maybe there should be a size criterion banner at the top of the FPC page. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - good, interesting high EV photo meets the requirements --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak suppose I much prefer the previous effort - the higher resolution allows to see the down feathers clearly, whereas in this image, they're anything but clear. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Suppose? I'm guessing this means you're neutral... Makeemlighter (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Correct. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• SupportVery cute.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ten days and only 4 supports. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Surfing rainbow

Original - The key ingredients of a rainbow are (1) water droplets and (2) light. The waves of Pacific have plenty of both. Water droplets in the ocean spray intercepted sunbeams, spreading the light into beautiful colors, creating a surfing rainbow

Reason

Good quality, high EV, adds value to the article it appears in

Articles in which this image appears

Rainbow

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- A nice picture of a mediocre rainbow. Not the subject of the picture. It is the surfer instead. Abisharan (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

:Almost first edit of a bran new, and rather strange user! Well, welcome to wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, you recently replaced an older image of yours with this which was subsequently reverted (and called vandalism for some reason...). I'd recommend letting its usage in Rainbow stabilize before it goes up for an FPC. gren グレン 17:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Who thought I would have a problem with replacing of my own image?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Withdraw untill it is stable in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment don't know if it will reach consensus on the article, but personally I think the surfer distracts from the rainbow, and your other spray bow picture you replaced seemed to have a stronger rainbow than this one. Fletcher (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right the rainbow was brighter in the other image. IMO the surfer improves the composition, but basically I decided to let go on that nomination, as well as on the article itself, and let them do as they wish. I was upset my change was called "vandalism" so unfairly, and if you add to that the absolutely ungrounded accusations in canvassing down below, you may figure out what my day was like :( Anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

and I was called "strange" who knows why. I guess people like to use adjectives and labels for emphasis. Abisharan (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

More likely she saw it as unusual that someone with no contribution history would immediately find his or her way to FPC. Are you an established user who had to start a new account for some reason? Fletcher (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

why would that matter in any way? It is the picture the main business here. The most attractive part of the main page is the picture of the day... the rest is just following links, and this was the one on top when I commented. No need for conspiracy theories and it makes no difference that I am not a new user. Abisharan (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Abisharan, you are right,there is no need for conspiracy theories. I am sorry I came up with one. Please do accept my apology. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No offense was intended and I don't assume bad faith - but you shouldn't be surprised it's a red flag to start a new account and jump right into a forum where voting goes on. Fletcher (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

why is it a red flag? what could it imply? If at least there were a second oppose vote but there isn't. I don't take it as an offense, it would be really hard to offend me in the web environment but I do think it should be taken as a lesson, to take a vote with cold blood and as impersonal as it should be. In the end, it is supposed to be something about the picture, in this case. 128.100.68.3 (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not promoted --J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The break of Mavericks waves

Original - Maverick's or Mavericks is a world-famous surfing location in Northern California. After a strong winter storm in the northern Pacific Ocean, waves can routinely crest at over 25 feet (8m) and top out at over 50 feet (15m). The break is caused by an unusually-shaped underwater rock formation.

Alt 1

Reason

Amazing shot, high quality and EV, huge "Wow"

Articles in which this image appears

Surfing; Mavericks (location) Big wave surfing

Creator

Shalom Jacobovitz

• Comment The nominated image is great! Yet I put mine low quality image as the lead image for Mavericks (location). I did it because IMO my image that was made out of 4 images is more encyclopedic. It shows the break of a wave from the beginning to the end. May I please ask you while commenting on the nominated image to state your opinion about the lead. I am more than willing to replace my image with the nominated one, if you believe it will be a better lead for the article. Could you please also comment, if the title of the nomination should be changed to "Big waves surfing" ? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The alternative was done by request of Wikimedia Commons reviewers. I personally prefer the original much more. It is more encyclopedic IMO.
• Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support prefer original. Great EV for big wave surfing --Muhammad(talk) 16:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support original version. The out-of-focus area in lower left seems to be a closer wave, which is understandable. The edit in the alt version is clean, but makes the wave appear to get steeper again near the photographer for no apparent reason. -- Avenue (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment How do we know that this high-res version is CC-licensed? The one freely licensed on flickr is a lower resolution. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The high resolution image was emailed to me as an attachment by the photographer himself. He changed the license on Flickr because I asked him to. I emailed the links to the image and to the articles image appears in to the photographer. So Shalom is fully aware of what's going on. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The photographer has since begun uploading his own photos to Commons, at a similar resolution.[2] We could ask him to upload the original of this photo himself too, if there is any doubt. -- Avenue (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support either version, prefers edit. The blurred area in the original is distracting for me. I find the clone less distracting albeit it may not be a very accurate representation of the waves in this very small area. The nominator has done a good job in negotiating licensing terms with the creator. Photographing the Mavericks in this manner cannot be done from the coast. You need to be in a boat close by (as in this case, which is risky from a personal safety point of view) or hovering in a helicopter over the waves. It is rare that photos from these sources are freely licensed, so I find it is a quite unique contribution and great action shot (although the technical qualities of the photo could have been better). --Slaunger (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support either, as per others --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support either, with preference to the edited one. Obvious EV and beauty. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Promoted File:2010 mavericks competition.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Suspended nominations

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

The above article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the copyrighted Wikipedia "Wikipedia - Featured picture candidates" article.