Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/February-2009

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

For promoted entries, add {{VPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} to the bottom of the entry, replacing FILENAME.JPG with the file that was promoted.
For entries not promoted, add {{VPCresult|Not promoted| }} to the bottom of the entry.
Do NOT put any other information inside the template. It should be copied and pasted exactly, and only the first one should have FILENAME.JPG replaced with the actual filename.

	Archives
2009:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Augustine Volcano[edit]

Reason: Kind of badly composed. However, it has colossal EV, the closest volcano plume image we have. But the composition is too bad for it to be featured.
Articles this image appears in: Augustine Volcano
Creator: Game McGimsey (USGS). Edited by Ceranthor

Support as nominator --Ceran^→//forge 01:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great encyclopaedic value. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 16:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image. Lorax (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition seems nice -- it's the image quality that's lousy. However still a pretty good close-up of the volcano. Fletcher (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Zoo Fari 18:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Augustine Volcano Jan 12 2006 edited-1.jpg --Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frog Cakes[edit]

Reason: The only image that effecively illustrates the appearance of Frog Cakes, a GA. Without an image like this, the article would be not be able to be described with words only.
Articles this image appears in: Frog cake
Creator: Bilby

Support as nominator --Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The wrapper makes it difficult to visualize the base of the frog cake and thus does not give a complete idea of the shape of the frog cake. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to disrespect the image, creator, or promoter, but isn't the point of VP to have exceptional EV? Wouldn't that imply that an image is used in multiple locations, having many uses? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the quasi-consensus view is almost exactly the opposite -- that we want images that are strong in one article (at least), as we've noticed people will sometimes sprinkle an image into a bunch of articles, even though it's not a really compelling image for any of them. You may wish to read WT:VPC#My next idea - nominator decides on ONE article and add a dissenting view if you disagree. Fletcher (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for that Fletcher. I proposed a new comment after that. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think the wrapper is obscuring too much, and the three colors show the different styles it can be made. You don't get to see inside it as much as the "dissected" frog cake also on that page, but you can see inside enough to tell it looks just like cake. Fletcher (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Weak Support I don't see how this image is educational, ~~especially since you lacked description~~. Valued pictures is not just about beauty, quality, or impressions; it is also about how educational and value it has, not just for the article, but for Wikipedia as well. If this wasn't the case, we would have thousands of nominations already. Zoo Fari 23:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate[edit]

**Original** - Chocolate most commonly comes in dark, milk, and white varieties, with cocoa solids contributing to the brown coloration

Reason: fulfills VPC criteria, shows multiple types of solid chocolate
Articles this image appears in: Chocolate, as well as Template:Confection-stub
Creator: Aka

Support as nominator --Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd possibly prefer to see a wide variety of chocolate snacks, but it works well with the article caption. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Cacophony (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 18:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Generally, a very good picture --Numyht (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have uploaded a new version of the file with a blank background in case you might be interested. If you choose this file, re-upload it over the original file, since the original has alot of information that can't be transferred. Zoo Fari 18:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, prefer original (at the moment) per above. The alternate isn't very well cut out, particularly near the top of the stack and chops off some of the white chocolate. MER-C 08:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Chocolate.jpg --Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amarnath[edit]

Reason: IMO, The image is encyclopaedic because 1. The shrine (lingam) is accessible only for a month every year 2. The pilgrimage to Amarnath is 42 km track on foot, through mountaineous terrain. Not many people are going to do that for a photo for wikimedia. 3. In recent years, the lingam is melting quickly due to global warming see Amarnath_temple#2007_melting_controversy. Also the image is fairly big, complying to Featured pic (>1000 pixels) resolution.
Articles this image appears in: Amarnath temple
Creator: Gktambe alias Gangadhar Tambe

Support as nominator --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe there is another file at commons. Place {{db|reason}} and use the file at commons.

No, I think now that it's a VPC, we need a en:wiki page for keeping the VPC template, etc. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I think it's ok now. Fletcher (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK to delete the image on en wikipedia just as VPC File:Swami Vivekananda-1893-09-signed.jpg was deleted recently. Just add {{VPC|Amarnath}} again to the image description page after deletion of the image itself. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that's done now. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Fletcher (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 01:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Lord Amarnath.jpg --Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/File:BENJAMIN BANNEKER - ASTRONOMER-CITY PLANNER - NARA - 535626.jpg

San Ysidro Border Crossing[edit]

**Original** - Vehicles waiting to enter the United States on the Mexican side of the Tijuana-San Diego border checkpoint.

Reason: Large image showing the border crossing from Tijuana, Baja Mexico, into San Diego, California. Notes the volume of traffic seen by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on a daily basis and also shows some ways in which locals make money from selling trinkets and souvenirs.
Articles this image appears in: San Diego–Tijuana metropolitan area, border checkpoint, San Ysidro, San Diego, California
Creator: ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk»

Support as nominator --ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support EV seems most applicable to border checkpoint, where it has been in the article long enough to be eligible. Seems like it could have the most EV in that article, showing both the checkpoint and the hellish traffic leading up to it. Fletcher (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for EV in border checkpoint. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 18:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for obvious reasons Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:SanYsidroBorderCrossing.JPG --Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Ki-moon[edit]

**Original** - Ban Ki-moon, the eighth and current Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Reason: I stumbled across this picture on several related pages. Too small to be a FPC, but it shows Ban Ki-moon and illustrates effectively many articles.
Articles this image appears in: Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, United Nations Secretariat, as well as Template:Asia-diplomat-stub
Creator: Agência Brasil (released under Creative Commons)

Support as nominator --Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 08:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lighting is terrible in this picture. Maybe something could be done with the reflected light of the wall --Muhammad(talk) 15:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I can overlook the technical flaws for its massive EV within the project. Although a touch up could help. Either way I still support. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose If size was the only concern, I would have supported but the lighting is not ideal and as per the discussion on the talk page, IMO this fails to meet the requirement. --Muhammad(talk) 09:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All valid points, but don't forget this is used in over 25 articles and has substantial EV, the #1 reason for valued picture status. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But if we lower the bar this much, then I'm afraid any picture could be eligible for VP status. IMO the picture should at least look good in thumbnail. --Muhammad(talk) 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - See my comment on the talk page. I'm worried that's already the case (though I'm not so worried about quality as much as EV; though that's not to say quality isn't important - but I believe this successfully illustrates the subject)... ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bankimoon07052007.jpg --Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthidium florentinum[edit]

Reason: high quality depiction of a species poorly illustrated in Wikipedia
Articles this image appears in: Bee, Anthidium
Creator: Joaquim Alves Gaspar

Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Zoo Fari 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for good encyclopaedic value. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 14:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - almost looks like he found himself a lei to land on. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Anthidium February 2008-1.jpg --Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mantis in Defense Posture[edit]

Reason: Good, but not the best, quality of a mantis in "Back Away!" posture :)
Articles this image appears in: Mantis, Archimantis latistyla
Creator: 159766 - dr. Tibor Duliskovich - http://www.duliskovich.com

Support as nominator --Zoo Fari 19:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't support this until there is a referenced mention of this defensive pose somewhere in one of the articles. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree Nice catch, Noodle snacks. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton, Bermuda 1911 and 2007[edit]

Panorama of Hamilton, 1911. View from Fort Hamilton.

Panorama of Hamilton, 2007. Same vantage.

Reason: A corresponding pair of panoramas of the capital of Bermuda depicting the city and harbor from nearly the same location and vista 96 years apart.
Articles this image appears in: Hamilton, Bermuda
Creator: W.H. Wallace (1911), walknboston (2007)

Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 17:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very cool. Would we make this into a valued set? Loses some of its cool if it's not a pair. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be our first valued set. Why not? Durova^Charge! 18:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably the right thing to do... ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I definitly agree with the above statement. It should be a pair or it will lose its "cool" Zoo Fari 18:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The stitching is pretty bad on the flickr version distorting the geometry a lot (look at the wavy horizon) and the two don't line up in position or field of view very well. Landmarks are still visible in both though which does make the oppose weak. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I very much respect the opinions of Mr. NS, I think that VPC is here to offer extraordinary EV such that that while the image may not be a perfect panorama, the jist is given by a lower quality photo and meets the expectations and criteria of VPC. It's also not the exact same vantage point, but the idea gets across remarkably well for this pair of images. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Noodle snacks and the fact that the match between the photographs could be better. Presumably, the 1911 version was taken from the top of a building or height somewhat closer to the water. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. There seems to be an IMO mistaken view that there are no technical standards at VPC. The 'new' one is sloppy, in particular that big downhill slope at right (unless this place has undergone a huge earthquake in the last century causing it to collapse to the right). And the images don't align very well at all, except for the island in the middle. FWIW the arrangement and alignment of the pair in the actual article is also poor. I would be far more inclined to support just the old version by itself. --jjron (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"England expects that every man will do his duty" signal flags[edit]

Reason: Shows Admiral Nelson's famous flag signal and its "translation"
Articles this image appears in: England expects that every man will do his duty, as well as War of the Third Coalition and Battle of Trafalgar
Creator: Ipankonin

Support as nominator --Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Never heard of this, but seems to have respectable EV and quality meets expectations since it's SVG. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashta-Matrika.jpg[edit]

**Original** - The Goddess Ambika leading the eight Matrika goddesses in battle against the demon Raktabija. - (top row, from the left) Matrikas: Narashmi, Vaishnavi, Kumari, Maheshvari, Brahmi. (bottom row, from left) Varahi, Aindri and Chamunda or Kali and Ambika riding on a lion. On the right, demons arising from Raktabija's blood. Early 18th century folio from the final (third) episode of the text Devi Mahatmya.

Reason: The image depicts the Matrika goddesses on their mounts, their features, weapons and mounts are discussed in the Matrikas article. Also, the legend depicted is described in Devi Mahatmyam, Matrikas, Chamunda (one of the Matrikas).
Articles this image appears in: Matrikas, Devi Mahatmyam, Ajima, Chamunda, Puranas, Raktavija, Newa art, Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Creator: original painter - unknown, the file is produced by LACMA. Initially uploaded by Redtigerxyz on wiki

Support as nominator --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know we don't have explicit size requirements, but 640×377 seems a bit low. I can't refute its EV though. Other comments on this? I'd like to read more input. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on EV. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Sissle[edit]

Reason: Another nomination set: a restored portrait of lyricist Noble Sissle and a restored period sheet music cover to one of his most famous songs, "I'm Just Wild About Harry". Noble Sissle was part of a team that broke the color barrier in Broadway theater with the 1921 show Shuffle Along; this was its most popular number and was later selected by President Harry Truman as his election campaign song in 1948. These two files correspond to the featured sound File:Eubie Blake - Just Wild about Harry.ogg for the "A recording, a score, and a portrait" series at Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Restoration.
Articles this image appears in: Noble Sissle
Creator: Carl van Vechten

Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 02:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another possible valued set? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support both! Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good resolution and EV. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original. Effective enough photo of the man in question. I can't understand how they form a 'set' though - remove the cover sheet from the article and it doesn't detract from the photo. So just support original. --jjron (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support both - Elucidate ^{(light up)} 14:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support both Both have good EV. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Noble Sissle 2.jpg --Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Image:I'm Just Wild About Harry 1b.jpg --Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hindenburg Disaster[edit]

Reason: Well-known image of the destruction of the German Zeppelin Hindenburg. I don't think it's up to FPC quality, even given its age, so I promoted it here, where I think it's a shoe-in anyway. Happy !voting.
Articles this image appears in: Zeppelin, LZ 129 Hindenburg, Hindenburg disaster, plus dozens more
Creator: Murray Becker (US Navy) (uploaded by Blimpguy)

Support as nominator --ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting; I never knew there were blimps at that time. Zoo Fari 19:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 08:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Wow, the Hindenberg. Strong support for a picture documenting a significant historical accident. The photo has great encyclopaedic value. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 14:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I wonder if the video of this is freely available? I have viewed it on the internet, though not sure of licensing, but if so that could be good for FPC. --jjron (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Hindenburg burning.jpg --Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halemaumau vent[edit]

Reason

Good Ev. Failed its FPC nom a couple months ago, but I think it deserves VP at least.

Articles this image appears in

Pele (deity), and if promoted, should probably go into Kilauea (the alternate already is)

Alternative image is used in Halemaumau Crater and Kilauea--Mbz1 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator: Mbz1

Support as nominator --Ceran^→//forge 21:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support original~~ Strong oppose Alt- The rainbow doesn't fit in with the picture, especially since it is not raining in the image. The rainbow also appears to come to an end on an exact location, especially the area in which it is clear of clouds. Rainbows don't normally appear like this in the current posture of the view. Additionally, I don't like the perspective of the alt. You can distinguish the smoke from the clouds easier with the original image. Zoo Fari 23:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, this image is not in any article that describes this event. It only says that this is where Pele lives in this crater according to the Legend. Zoo Fari 00:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I please ask you what you mean that rainbows don't normaly appear this way? Sure they do in Hawaii. Here's for example an image by usgs.gov from this site.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose - Not much EV until it's added to Halemaumau Crater, Kīlauea, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (even if you do just add it to the gallery), and maybe even pit crater (could replace first image, methinks). I would say withdraw the current nom, place the image in at least some of those articles, then renominate in the beginning of March. Right now, using it solely in Pele isn't good enough. Oh, and while I love the fact that there's a rainbow in the alt (I know how tough it is to get one in any shot), I would only support the original (and should you place it in at least a couple more articles, I will support). I also updated the caption (and would suggest you use the new caption on the file page as the caption for your nom). ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose alternate: Out of place raindow. Original: Not much EV in Pele (deity). Should be placed in relevant articles then nominated after 1-2 month(s). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody. Thank you for voting and commenting on my images. If I may I'd like to say that a rainbow never is out of place. The image with the rainbow was published in two magazines in India and Germany (both times on the cover),here's one. It was also published at NASA site here (scroll down). BTW how about this rainbow that I photographed from a helicopter, or this one at Zanzibar are they also out of place? And how about this image of mine

? Out of place again? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose and speedy close It is a rhyme!--Mbz1 (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Ceran^→//forge 20:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Sign[edit]

Reason: Large image clearly displaying the Hollywood Sign, an iconic American landmark.
Articles this image appears in: Los Angeles, California, Southern California, United States, Hollywood Sign, as well as Portal:California
Creator: Oreos

Support as nominator --ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 21:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I admit that I just added this photo to Hollywood Sign. It replaced a much lower quality image and I expect it will remain there for a long time (unless of course a higher quality image comes in to replace it). That said, I know some will not like this, but in all fairness, the image has already been featured in Los Angeles, California, Southern California, and United States. These articles are by definition more encyclopedic than Hollywood Sign, so this image has its EV and has met the time requirement in more encyclopedic articles. I added it to Hollywood Sign because it obviously belongs there, but it doesn't add much EV in all honesty. So please !vote on its previous EV in the other articles and consider its addition to Hollywood Sign supplemental. Thanks! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 21:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Y casts a shadow on W. H is blocked by some bushes. The earlier image in the Hollywood sign infobox (File:Hollywoodsign (1).jpg) does not have these problems (but occupies a very small portion of the img), so a better quality photo of the sign from that prospective (angle) can be created.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed that the filename of this image seems to be the default from the camera. The picture would be more useful, and easily found, if the filename were changed to be descriptive. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tule Fog[edit]

**Original** - Tule fog, a thick ground fog that settles in the San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Valley areas of the Central Valley during the fall and winter.

Reason: Effectively illustrates Tule fog, a special regional kind of fog, in an orchard. Also illustrates Valley fog in Fog and Climate in Central Valley (California)
Articles this image appears in: Tule fog, Fog, Central Valley (California)
Creator: Intothewoods29

Support as nominator --Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but to me it doesn't really look that foggy, I have no idea from this photo how this 'tule fog' is different from any other fog (and I'm not really sure if you can show that, but I don't know enough about it to say), and I'm buggered if I can tell where the orchard is - it looks like it's showing a road to me. (Maybe some others can disagree with me, but I'm at least trying to get some voting started on some of these.) --jjron (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me it looks like any other fog. Actually, It doesn't look like fog in the image. It looks more like an image with low contrast. Zoo Fari 17:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This picture doesn't show to me the difference between tule fog and any other fog. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am afraid I see absolutely no thick ground fog at the image. IMO the image should be removed from the fog and Tule fog articles after the nomination is clossed. Here's how Tule fog looks File:Fog at night.jpg. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon's Departure[edit]

**Original** - Richard Nixon boarding Army One upon his departure from the White House after resigning the office of President of the United States following the Watergate scandal in 1974

Reason: An iconic image of the 1970s and one of the more historical images of 20th century American history. Being the only US President to ever resign the office, Nixon waved farewell with his trademark V-sign even during such a negative moment of his life and US history. Admission is made to its small size, but the historical and encyclopedic value is extraordinary.
Articles this image appears in: Richard Nixon, Watergate scandal, United States v. Nixon, V sign
Creator: Ollie Atkins, official White House photographer 1969-1974 (uploaded by Happyme22)

Support as nominator --ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I was going to support till I looked at it 'fullsize'. I know there's no definite size restrictions here, but I use my basic definition that it has to be big enough to show necessary details, and I don't think this is - maybe about twice this size would do it for me here. I also wonder why if it's copyright free as stated on the image page, why it isn't available at a decent size. --jjron (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per jjron.

Not promoted --Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center[edit]

Reason: Newest addition to the campus of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. This is a performance hall that opened in October 2008. It was a controversial move on the part of the administration (cost $220M) but has some of the best acoustics in any performance hall in the world. Has been nicknamed "The Ark" due to the look of the wood paneling on the exterior of the main concert hall (wood paneling seen in the photo behind glass wall). The building is now one of the most notable edifices on the top of the hill in Troy, New York.
Articles this image appears in: Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Capital District
Creator: yours truly (ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk»)

Support as nominator --ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great job with the EMPAC pictures! Danski14^(talk) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey thanks! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I can not comprehend the EV of a corner of the building. Isn't an entrance a more recognizable representation of a building. Also, I see a car parked at the bottom of the photo, which is an eyesore. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll just point out that this is the iconic view of the building. Have a look at the gallery. The entrance isn't much to really note and other angles don't show much. It's a weird architectural design in that way. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iconic, it is. But I still see the car as an eyesore. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I like the shot and I'm not too worried about the vehicle, but isn't building cutoff at the right? Obviously I don't know the place, and can't see anything in the gallery to clarify, but isn't it possible to actually get the whole building? --jjron (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that's a fair point and hadn't thought of that. File:EMPAC SW Face.JPG shows the building from the other end. I cut it off essentially because that's not the iconic part of the building. The "Ark" as it's known is the main performance hall and that's what I was trying to capture. !vote as you will with this new info. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, there's not that much of interest there where it's cutoff - I wouldn't particularly expect a shot from this angle to capture the whole stone wall along the bottom say. But it does concern me that we can't see the edge of the building. Hmmm - I'm probably tending towards a weak oppose for that reason. Is this a place that's easy for you to get back to and rephotograph? --jjron (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, in fact I intend to replace this image by summer with one I take with my new camera. But getting that stone wall in the photo is near impossible (even if it makes it, it will be barely identifiable; I was about 100m from where the other photo was taken.). ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image and good caption--Mbz1 (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Needs more !votes before archive or promotion... thanks. Ceran^→//forge 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per my comments and discussion above. Would support the proposed new version that doesn't cut off the building. And FWIW if an image doesn't get enough 'votes' it ultimately means it's not promoted, it doesn't wait indefinitely for them to come. --jjron (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus=Not promoted --Ceran^→//forge 12:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House gecko scan-- Second Attempt[edit]

Reason: Very clear and educational. As of Updated Nomination- This image taken by a graphical scanner (which tends to implement better details and somewhat easier to shadow in), shows great detail of the toepads and skin of the downward side of a Mediterranean house gecko. Second attempt for VP, as earlier nomination hadn't had a one-month elapse.
Articles this image appears in: house gecko, Mediterranean house gecko,gecko
Creator: ZooFari

Support as nominator --Zoo Fari 03:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous comments
Comment Why is it in black and white? You need a scientific name in the caption and image description page too. I'd also ask you too add it to the right category at commons too (scientific name). Noodle snacks (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] (per below as well) The scientific name is Hemidactylus turcicus (Mediterranean house gecko)(which I will add to that article as well). It is in black and white because I used it to better implement the shapes, textures, and shades for the lizard. These geckos are white-peach from underneath and didn't display the details I wanted when I scanned it. Therefor, I scanned it in black and white using a graphical high quality scanner (per below). Zoo Fari 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment. You say it's a 'scan' - I'm not actually sure what you mean and the image page doesn't clarify. Have you stood this gecko on a simple document scanner and just scanned from below, or have you used some more hi-tech scanning process? Additionally it has only just gone into gecko and was removed from house gecko back in August after having been in the article for only a couple of months, and has only just gone back in the last day or so. For these reasons I would say is not eligible under the 'one month' rule - vandalism or not it's been out of the article longer than it's been in it. FWIW, frankly it's far too big and prominent in that article for what it is and what it's illustrating, and perhaps that's why it was removed, and is really a bit big and awkward in gecko too. --jjron (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] I described some of the comments you brought up on the above discussion. Also, I have now fixed the image in the articles to be more article-friendly. Zoo Fari 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment/Possible Speedy close - Before Zoofari added the image to house gecko, it had been removed since August 27th. As for gecko, it looks like it's only been in that article for a short amount of time. Thus, the question is: do we still allow the image to go through because it was in the house gecko article for a month a while ago, or do we speedy close it because it has not been in the article since a month ago? Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] This is something we should consider, that way we can add it to the criteria page. We should discuss this on the discussion page soon... Zoo Fari 22:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Speedy close per author of image. Zoo Fari 22:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding nom again - the above comments were for a different nomination. Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting subject and technique. Good EV. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 14:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - while this is very detailed I am not convinced that it shows the subject as well as File:Hemidactylus turcicus on a wall in Greece.jpg so perhaps it may not pass criteria 2. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC) - changing after some consideration. This is the only picture I can see that gives such quality to the toepads and underside.... The toes in particular an important part of the animal - Peripitus (Talk) 05:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the image was ment to show only details of the underside belly, tail, and (especially) toepads. I read many information on geckos that describe the toepads, but it was a shame that there were no photographs that showed good details of it as this one. So I figured I should add this to VPC ;) Zoo Fari 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:House gecko scan.JPG --Zoo Fari 19:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Parks[edit]

**Original** - 1955, Rosa Parks at bench, Martin Luther King, Jr. at background.

Reason: Good EV (also contains MLK), but too low res to be an FP.
Articles this image appears in: Rosa Parks, 2005, Civil disobedience, List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients, Timeline of the African-American Civil Rights Movement, Multiracial American, & more
Creator: Unknown

Support as nominator --Ceran^→//forge 18:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Reeks of EV, especially with MLK in the background. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - holy flippin crap! Super EV! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, Strong Support Finally a good candidate :) Zoo Fari 23:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Good EV, due to MLK.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Quality is decent, good EV. --jjron (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Redtigerxyz's reasons. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 22:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 22:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - no, great EV due to MLK and RP! --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 17:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Rosaparks.jpg --Zoo Fari 19:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Keller[edit]

Reason: Unspeakable EV, but way too low res to be FP. Also well illustrates that she was blind and deaf, that she was looking away from the camera. Let's hope that here, Helen Keller will conquer again. (quote about her)
Articles this image appears in: Helen Keller, Deafblindness, List of Alabama state symbols
Creator: Unknown

Support as nominator --Ceran^→//forge 18:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just uploaded a higher-res image. Now potentially could be FP, though the quality still isn't the best. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just found an even higher-res pic and uploaded it separately here. This is probably the best Keller pic we have, probably FA quality too. Needs to have the lower-right label removed, though. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt 1. The original nom was very poor quality, it's updated version is a bit better, but quality is still weak. The alt version is pretty good quality though, even with the writing at the bottom, and what looks like a bit harsh lighting. Given it's essentially just a better version of the nommed image, I'm not concerned about the 'time in the article' as I believe that is satisfied. --jjron (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please choose your preferences (ALT or Original) Zoo Fari 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt, for sure. Ceran^→//forge 21:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Promoted Image:Helen Keller.jpg~~ --Zoo Fari 23:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Helen Keller1.jpg - wrong version promoted, Alt1 had clear preference --jjron (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

64 pounder RML gun firing[edit]

Reason: Best demonstration of this type of 19th Century heavy artillery I can see. Only one showing the gun crew, period uniforms, size of the weapon, firing action and (if you look closely) the friction tube type fuze flying through the air. I am not convinced that the lighting is sufficient (even with tweaking) to get near FP but heaps of EV from a very lucky shot. I processed the file as best as I could to give max detail given that the uniforms are black and the helmets white - slight blown area on the gun barrel from bright sunlight.
Articles this image appears in: RML 64 pounder 64 cwt gun and Fort Glanville Conservation Park
Creator: Peripitus

Support as nominator --Peripitus (Talk) 02:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with the nominator. This has great EV. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 22:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator Zoo Fari 03:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support though a version with more on the right to show all the smoke would be preferable. Time3000 (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You take your lumps with situations like this - my plan was to capture the gun and gun crew....just very lucky that the gun firing and shutter closing coincided - Peripitus (Talk) 23:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:64 pounder gun firing - fort glanville.jpg --Zoo Fari 02:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Curie[edit]

**Original** - Portrait of Marie Curie (November 7, 1867 – July 4, 1934), sometime prior to 1907. Curie and her husband Pierre shared a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1903. Working together, she and her husband isolated Polonium. Pierre died in 1907, but Marie continued her work, namely with Radium, and received a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1911. Her death is mainly attributed to excess exposure to radiation.

Reason: Tremendous EV, completely irreplaceable. Best image we have of her, IMO.
Articles this image appears in: Marie Curie, List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry & the Physics equivalent, List of Poles, Warsaw
Creator: Unknown

Support as nominator --Ceran^→//forge 22:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see no Pierre. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Whole thing needed a rewrite, so I did; and transcribed it to the image page at Commons. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not very flattering; looks a bit like a death photo. But good quality and high EV nonetheless. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support highly encyclopedic. Durova^Charge! 05:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support quite a haunting image. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 17:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A timeless black and white image. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mariecurie.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Childe's Tomb[edit]

Reason: Great EV,Historic Interest
Articles this image appears in: Childe's Tomb;Childe the Hunter
Creator: Herbythyme

Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good and highly educational. Zoo Fari 05:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I probably would have gone a little lower to put more of the cross in the sky, and a little further back to get the edge of the depression at right, and perhaps a little more 'head on', but all up it's a pretty good illustration of the place adding value to the article. --jjron (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly I agree with Jjron :) Lower would have been better (with hindsight) however "head on" was not an option as the background would have not been sky at all then so the cross would not have been as visible. I guess it is one that I consider ok so Support & thanks. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I was wondering what other background there was, i.e., if there was a reason you'd gone for this angle rather than more head on. --jjron (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The ground rises steeply if the cross had been face on looking one way - in the other direction there would have been waaay too much sky. As with so much a compromise seemed the best answer! Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Childe's tomb 2.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psalms scroll[edit]

Reason: The highest resolution image at WMF of one of the Dead Sea scrolls. Already a valued image at Wikimedia Commons. Hebrew transcription included. English translation available here.
Articles this image appears in: Dead Sea scrolls
Creator: anonymous

Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 22:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peripitus (Talk) 03:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely great!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Zoo Fari 05:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: EV. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, this has my support 100% The EV for this is exceptional. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 13:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Psalms Scroll.jpg --jjron (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Saint-Saëns[edit]

Reason: A pretty good restoration, if my first photo restoration. Easily the best-quality image we have of Camille Saint-Saëns.
Articles this image appears in: Camille Saint-Saëns
Creator: Bain News Service.

Support as nominator -- Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This isn't even the main image of the page. I don't think it passes the EV test if that's not the case. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama and Beverly Eckert[edit]

Reason: Good EV picture of a chilling and coincidental irony
Articles this image appears in: Continental Connection Flight 3407, Beverly Eckert
Creator: White House (Pete Souza)
Time Requirement: Y Added 15 February 2009. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. President Barack Obama shakes the hand of Beverly Eckert, the wife of a 9/11 victim. Eckert died in the Continental Connection Flight 3407 crash one week after this photo was taken. As a non-American, the many ironies of this image struck me. The obvious airplane collides with building connection. The handshake from the new President Obama immediately prior to her death and the fact that 9/11 happened so early in G.W. Bush's Presidency. The image seems to capture the human fatal tragic reality of 9/11 and links it to this, what I suppose could be termed a comparatively much more minor but nonetheless horrific, incident as well as involving arguably the most important political figure in the world today.

Support as re-nominator This has now met its time requirement and I feel still merits a run here at VPC. Previous !votes can be found in the collapsed box below. This nom is exactly the same as it was during its previous run through here (when it was nominated by Candlewicke). ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thought this was a striking picture when I saw it in the crash article. Fletcher (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as original nominator. For all the reasons I've already given. --can dle •wicke 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous !votes have no weight on this iteration of nomination. If you !voted before, please consider !voting again. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exceptional, one-off picture Tphi (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I still stand by my origional support !vote :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, highly encyclopedic and valuable. J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - How horrible this circumstance was... on the flip side, highly encyclopedic and striking. VX!^talk 20:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Votes

Support as nominator --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 02:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support My God, talk about irony. How terrible. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per above. Tphi (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Mifter (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not eligible. For starters both articles this was in are around a week old. The photo itself was taken on February 6, 2009, making it less than two weeks old. So it doesn't jump the first hurdle of having been in an article for at least a month. Honestly, there's been grumbles about the limited extent of the criteria at VPC already, and even those are just being totally ignored. Please! --jjron (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, John!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, nice catch. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I would suggest that exceptional circumstances should be allowed. See my question on the talk page. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Probably should just speedy close it until it is eligible. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - not eligible --jjron (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Obama and Beverly Eckert.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Norfolk from Pulpit Rock Lookout[edit]

Reason: I am not particularly happy with the lighting or composition, but the enc for new norfolk (and the upper derwent) is there.
Articles this image appears in: New Norfolk, Tasmania
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I see clouds in the sky and weeds in the front, New Norfolk is not clearly visible. A better pic without the weeds in the front is needed.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pfft, they aren't weeds :P Noodle snacks (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weeds in the sense of "unwanted plants" in the pic. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose It would have been better if you would have captured the image a few feet closer to prevent the river from being obscured by the cliff ground. Zoo Fari 16:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I also question the EV of this image. Add some content to the article and I may reconsider. :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lycoperdon perlatum[edit]

Reason: A high quality, striking and informative image of a significant fungi. Already featured on Commons and the Turkish Wikipedia, recently failed a nomination here by a whisker.
Articles this image appears in: Lycoperdon perlatum
Creator: Daniel Ullrich (Commons/German Wikipedia)

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Happy to support it here. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Supported it on FP and support it here.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wedester16 Zoo Fari 22:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. At image page size I think detail and quality are fine. --jjron (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Single lycoperdon perlatum.jpg --jjron (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W. G. Grace[edit]

**Original** - William Gilbert "W. G." Grace (1848 – 1915), English cricketer, taking guard. Signed in ink in the lower white border.

Reason: This is a really interesting photo of one the most famous players in the history of cricket, though on the small side - will be interested in what people make of that. But, as we've said before, these type of photos are hard to source outside the US, and I believe you can see what you need to here. Has been in the infobox of W. G. Grace for over a year (where oddly enough it was placed by me, even though I have no recollection of having edited this article and can't remember why I did so :-) ).
Articles this image appears in: W. G. Grace is the obvious one, but about a dozen others
Creator: Unknown (1883)

Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - best and most encyclopedic image of him we have - meets all the criteria - Peripitus (Talk) 11:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Peripitus.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Great EV. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:WGGrace.jpg (I don't like promoting my own nom, but clear consensus, and no one else is closing.) --jjron (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sand Garden[edit]

**Original** - Panoramic view of the Red Sand Garden, Australian Garden, Royal Botanic Gardens, Cranbourne, Victoria, Australia

Reason: Decent quality and good detail with good composition. Has been prominently featured in two articles for over 2½ years. Hard to get an image of this without heaps of tourists. Failed an FPC nom about 2 years back mainly due to some complaints about the sky at image left. Also a somewhat historical photo as this was taken about a month after the place opened. The architects who designed the gardens liked this image so much they bought it off me after seeing it on Wikipedia.
Articles this image appears in: Royal Botanic Gardens, Cranbourne; Cranbourne, Victoria
Creator: jjron

Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice image and great EV.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support What is the source of uneven sky? Polariser? Noodle snacks (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Setting sun. No polariser, this was taken with my A95 compact, and back then I wasn't that comfortable with manual control, so I may well have taken the originals in auto. This was taken late afternoon (when the place was about to shut, so most visitors had left) and in mid-winter so the sun was pretty low in the west (image left). That lighting actually helps with some shadow and depth detail in the garden, but not so good for the sky. I intend to get back there sometime and try for better light in the sky, but not sure when would be a suitable time of year. Thanks all for votes. --jjron (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know what it'd do to the gardens, but after sunset is a possibility. Moonlight exposed for long enough can still give you colour too (but it'd take hours to stitch the pano, and its difficult to focus). Noodle snacks (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you'd have to break in to get the pic ;-). The Australian Garden is fenced off and you have to pay to get in, closing at I think 5pm. The rest of the Cranbourne gardens may stay open longer, though I seem to remember it being gated, so it may close as well before nightfall - regardless of that, you can only get a photo like this from inside the Australian Garden. --jjron (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Heh, I've been locked inside the Hobart botanical gardens on a number of occasions when I have lost track of time. It is pretty straightforward to leave or exit at any time of day if you know where. It would be difficult to go unnoticed in that environment though. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh yeah, this is a different setup from most botanic gardens. I really think you'd have to get locked in on purpose. To do so you'd have to prepare well in advance. This is in the back end of the (big) Cranbourne gardens themselves (really more like a nature reserve than a normal botanic gardens), so you'd probably have to ride your treddly in rather than driving or they'd see your car there in the Aust Gardens carpark. Then you may have to hide the bike outside, then find somewhere to hide around closing time inside in order to get locked in. It'd be quite an 'accident' ;-). --jjron (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 06:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and EV. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:RedSandGarden-Pano-RBG-CranbourneVIC.jpg (I don't like promoting my own nom, but clear consensus, and no one else is closing.) --jjron (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthomyia sp.[edit]

**Original** - A fly of the genus Anthomyia. The fly was around 3mm long.

Reason: Meets the vpc criteria IMO.
Articles this image appears in: Anthomyiidae, Muscoidea
Creator: Muhammad

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 15:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good macro and IMO the image is fine with all the criterias.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Sorry, limited EV. Not well used in Anthomyiidae, and Muscoidea is only one line long (save for the infobox). ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal[edit]

Reason: Its in my opinion, the best image we have of Jimbo, its very high resolution, and has been on the article Jimmy Wales sense December 31st 2008
Articles this image appears in: Jimmy Wales
Creator: The Wikimedia Foundation

Support as nominator --Mifter (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brown-noser ;-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not FPC? --Muhammad(talk) 15:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea :), I'll go open a Picture Peer Review to see if other editors think this has a shot at being a FP :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link. Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this not being ever so slightly biased? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 21:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral about promoting this image to VP or FP, but I don't see how it can be interpreted as bias. The only connection is that he founded the project, which shouldn't necessarily preclude featured content relating to him. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hygrocybe conica[edit]

Reason: High quality image of a distinctive mushroom, used as the lead image of the article for the article since its creation in November.
Articles this image appears in: Hygrocybe conica
Creator: Taka

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Miami[edit]

Original - Panoramic view of downtown Miami, Florida from the Port of Miami. The bridge on the lower edge of the image carries Port Boulevard to Dodge Island in Biscayne Bay.

Reason: Pretty high quality panorama of downtown Miami, Florida. Doesn't really meet FPC requirements. Sits nicely in three articles, therefore has reasonable EV.
Articles this image appears in: Downtown Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida, Miami
Creator: ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk»

Support as nominator --ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, however, with a restitch I think you could just about get a FP out of this. Take a similar approach to the other miami image to correct the verticals. In advanced mode you can then go to "image parameters", adjust the exposure offset for each image until they match up, that should get rid of the banding in the sky. I'd sharpen it a bit afterwards. Try and darken the brighter segments rather than lighten the darker ones in order to avoid blown highlights. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't notice anything relating to exposure under the Image Parameters. The help pages didn't seem to mention anything about exposure not relating to HDR. Am I missing something? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - here is where to find it. The adjustment is in stops. It won't save you for HDR but if you accidentally leave a camera in Av or something then its pretty useful. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmm, weird; I don't have any of those columns. Is it a difference between regular and Pro? I don't have pro. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It may be, I don't really know. You could adjust the exposures in an external program (particularly easy if you have RAWs to work from), but it'd be more time consuming to get them to match. If PTgui won't do it then I know hugin (generally not as good) will output a panorama in such a format that each image is a separate layer in photoshop, you can then adjust it there. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Doesn't seem to be worth my time unfortunately. This is still up for vote here at VPC. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Capitol Rotunda[edit]

**Original** - The interior of the United States Capitol rotunda taken from behind the statue of George Washington. The image captures a portion of Constantino Brumidi's *Frieze of American History* starting from *Pizarro Going to Peru* to the beginning of *Landing of the Pilgrims*.

Reason: Older, but large image of the interior of the United States Capitol rotunda taken from behind the statue of George Washington. The image captures a portion of Constantino Brumidi's Frieze of American History starting from Pizarro Going to Peru to the beginning of Landing of the Pilgrims.
Articles this image appears in: United States Capitol rotunda, United States Capitol, United States Capitol dome
Creator: ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk»

Support as nominator ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This was nominated earlier, but it was withdrawn because it didn't meet the time requirement in the article it has the most EV in. It passed the month requirement having been added to United States Capitol Rotunda on 11 January. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cohoes Falls[edit]

**Original** - Cohoes Falls on the Mohawk River in Cohoes, New York during winter, but after a warm spell, which caused local melting, adding to the typical seasonal flow of the river.

Reason: Panorama of the Cohoes Falls in upstate New York. Failed FP nom, but I think is a reasonable nom for VP.
Articles this image appears in: Cohoes Falls, Cohoes, New York, Mohawk River, The Great Peacemaker
Creator: ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk»

Support as nominator --ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely reasonable. Nice and valued image with rainbow.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanita caesarea[edit]

Reason: High quality image that is already featured on Commons. Has been used as an illustration for the species article, Amanita caesarea since 2005 and has been used on volva (mycology) since 2007. The picture is probably a little too blurry to be featured here, but it is certainly valued.
Articles this image appears in: Volva (mycology), Amanita caesarea
Creator: Archenzo

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surely. Has been in both articles more than a year. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ticks all the boxes - Peripitus (Talk) 04:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aye. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Amanita caesarea.JPG --jjron (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

	Archives
2009:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December