I like this one - would you consider cropping the television aerial and a little of the foreground? --Gaz 13:40, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yeah for sure but i don't understand the part of little of the forground. Chmouel Boudjnah 00:41, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I also really like this one (even as is). Maybe we can get Gaz to reconsider, or maybe you can edit out the TV equipment and repost? - Bevo 18:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just to clarify - THIS IS the cropped version, and I vote FOR it to be included - Gaz 11:31, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Very nice. Gives you a feeling of being there - must be the perspective.—Eloquence 22:11, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice words everybody! I actually try not to look at that photo too much since doing so causes a strong emotional response in me that I don't want diluted by overexposure (my partner and I were nearly brought to tears when we were there because the scene was so perfectly beautiful). That photo in fact does not do the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone justice. --mav 12:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Good composition. — Sverdrup 12:16, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Neutral. FWIW, I like your "rolling dice" Image:Dice.jpg one better than this one. If the lighting on this one was more like the dice picture, I feel I'd like this one better- Bevo 22:52, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Actually the source lighting was identical. The dominoes are a deep ivory colour, the dice are almost silver. - Gaz
Result: self nomination, two supports, one neutral - not enough supports: not added. fabiform | talk 02:54, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Nominated by MykReeve 01:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC). Excellent photograph. Not only the photograph, but also the subject were created by the user!
Second. What a great, detailed, image. fabiform | talk 01:37, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes. It would be wonderful if every Wikipedia article were accompanied by such an excellent photo of the subject matter. - Bevo 01:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Marvelous! - check out the depth of field - I wonder what he could do with 100g of pure sodium ;-) - Gaz 12:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Who ever thought that chemistry could be so gorgeous? --mav 12:13, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Add it, add it now! — Sverdrup 13:44, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It looks so nice, I almost want to eat it. Jalnet2 23:43, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I actually don't care for it, but no objection. I don't know enough about Gallium to say if this is a fine example of it or not, and the camera work is good, but it looks messy and icky to me ;P Sam Spade 03:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. Great image. --Minesweeper 04:05, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Ooohhh...so SHINY...touuuuch...support. Could you please send this gallium in the elevator to the 23rd floor of Liberty 1 in Philadelphia at 3:27 PM, EST, tomorrow afternoon? - Woodrow 02:07, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oh Pleeeease - Let me do the honours - Gaz 08:56, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. There are very few such photos in color that are better. It's actually an incredible shot of most of the head as well as the eye. - Bevo 02:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Great picture. --Minesweeper 04:05, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Beautiful, accurate, and informative. Prior to seeing that photo, I had never really seen a compound eye. -Spencer195 01:31, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. Very attractive, and it's about what it's about. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:04, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. Very clear and beautiful -- chris_73 05:50, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Voting ends - resounding support (10 for, nil against) - Gaz 12:52, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Western-Grey-Kangaroo-with-joey at Western Grey Kangaroo by User:Tannin. Removed by Tannin 13:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC), (a) because it's a charming subject rather than a great picture (it's sort of OK but I've certainly posted better ones, as have many other contributors) and (b) (a purely personal reason that I don't expect others to share) because it wasn't taken in the wild. For me, it's a bit like catching your trout in a net.
Were you the only one involved in making that decision? Seems like you should have allowed us the chance to debate you on it ;) I for one would have likely opposed, its a charming picture, mother and baby roo.. Sam Spade 23:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I can see what Tannin is saying (no offence mate) - The fence in the background spoils things a little - More generally, I think we must allow a creator to withdraw an image at any time - Gaz 13:37, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Beautiful. fabiform | talk 21:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. (changed from my earlier Neutral). - Bevo 02:45, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC), later edited by Bevo 23:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Neutral. The lighting and lines are great, but I feel like I'm "missing" part of building (i.e. the shot feels 'narrow'). --Minesweeper 04:05, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
It's a beautiful picture, but I have to question how "NPOV" it is. Does it give the reader an accurate impression of what he could expect to see if he were to visit it? Spencer195 01:04, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. Beautiful yet accurate, and I like the "chopped" composition. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:50, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Background info: To be honest, this picture was a complete fluke. I was walking past City Hall one evening and noticed that a movie was being shot in front of it - the floodlights happened to all be on one side of the building, hence the rather bizarre lighting effect. I'm glad it came out OK, as it's probably not a repeatable photo! -- ChrisO 23:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think info like this should be in the image page itself. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:47, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Good colours (I'd up the saturation, but then I do that with every photo) and the "road perspective" is nice, but we can't see enough of the building to really see its architecture properly (and this also serves to make the image a wee bit claustrophobic). Do you have a less close-cropped version? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk
Not promoted. 1 Support, 1 Oppose - not enough votes - Bevo 09:44, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Neutral. I'm not sure how to fit artwork into a "pictures" category. As with the astronomy pics, there are so many great pictures of great art that it's hard to critically compare them against one another. - Bevo 02:52, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - What I want is a photo of the artist in his studio painting his masterpiece. THAT would be worth featuring - Gaz 11:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If fine art isn't worthy to be featured, I think the majority of what little we have that IS featured should be turned out on its ear ;). Wiki is not paper, and we have plenty of room for all extremely high quality images. If you object to the artistic merits thats one thing, but simply that it is art? Sam Spade 03:11, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry. It's a nice painting, but in the article nymph, it's not strikingly good. It has to be brilliant in its context. — Sverdrup 21:27, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Any suggestion on how it might be improved? Sam Spade 21:36, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not promoted. 1 Support, 2 Oppose, 1 Neutral - Bevo 16:02, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Neutral. (on quality grounds only, I imagine that there are much better PD images of this nebula or others that could be spotlighted in that article.) There are so many of these kinds of photos that I wonder how we could ever fairly sort them out, and I don't think that we need all of them in the featured picture gallery. They are all, so "far out", so to speak! - Bevo 02:50, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What makes you feel that another image might be superior to this one? To m this image is essentially perfect. SamSpade 23:03, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Qualified support - I think we can have a few astronomy shots, but they have to be damn good. - May a quota of 5? - Gaz 11:49, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I strongly disagree w quotas (in any area of life) ;) Sam Spade 03:10, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not promoted. 2 Support, 0 Oppose, 1 Neutral - not enough votes - Bevo 16:02, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support - one of the few astronomical images that makes its subject look real. And frankly, I do find it somewhat erotic (sic). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:32, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. I like 'em. →Raul654 00:33, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
In spite of the power lines, I think this is a great photo. --Minesweeper 04:05, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
I liked it better before you cropped it. Sam Spade 18:09, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I wish you had said that then. (There were no comments at the time I modified it or I would not have done it.) The original is still at Media:Dust storm in Spearman,Texas, Wea01422.jpg. - Bevo 21:45, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't following the discussion on this image at that time. Besides, since I havn't voted on this one my opinion isn't very important is it? ;) Sam Spade 22:56, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I've noted that the quality of the opinions here carry at least as much weight in the promotion process than actual votes. They persuade future votes and have caused votes to be changed within the nomination time-period. Usually, I've seen Oppose votes changed to Neutral or Support because of the influence of comments and suggestions for changes to an image under nomination. - Bevo 13:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. Technically it's horrible, but it captures the subject perfectly. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:19, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Very nice. Ludraman | Talk 19:06, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Promoted. Support 4, Oppose 0, Neutral 1. - Bevo 22:06, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Nice, would be interesting if a Wikipedian took that kind of picture :-). ugen64 23:04, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Support. In addition to looking excellent, it really captures the idea of the article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:13, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. I wish i had a my own personal plane to be able to do pictures like that. | Chmouel 02:25, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. That is an outstanding picture. I especially liked the blast impression in the ocean! -- chris_73 05:45, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oh-yeah! Ludraman | Talk 00:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC):P.S. - I have it set as my desktop and every now and then I minimise everything to look in awe at it!
Oppose - I fail to see how this adds significantly to the article. - Gaz 12:03, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I do see how it fits into the article about that man's profession, but I'm not overly impressed with it as a photograph. It serves its purpose well, with the child inserted for appreciation of scale, but without the context of the words in the article, I was completely puzzled. - Bevo 17:24, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Mmmmmmmm.... Interesting. And very cute. But it's hard to figure out what it has to do with the subject matter of the article. -Spencer195 02:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
nominated by fabiform | talk 16:33, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
perfect. now someone has to polish up the butterfly article to provide a vehicle to bring this to the Main Page. +sj+ 17:14, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)
I agree, very nicely done! Support.—Eloquence 22:27, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
Support. I'd have actually liked it better if it were one of the butterfly in a natural habitat. - Bevo 02:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes - Just try and imagine the article WITHOUT the photos. - Gaz 11:38, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, It really doesn't strike me as a particularly fine photo. Sam Spade 20:49, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. This is what encyclopaedic photography is supposed to be. It's graphically clear, the levels are well-balanced, and the detail is obvious. Identifying this butterfly from this photograph would be extremely easy. Artistic photos don't generally aid encyclopaedic exposition unless used as a primary source. This photograph, on the other hand, explains what the article cannot. Methylsoy 06:25, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree that it is helpful in examining this particular butterfly, but I simply don't think it is featured photo quality. Sam Spade 19:58, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. Great picture. →Raul654 19:59, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Great photo. Accurate and informative. -Spencer195 02:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support - beautiful and very encyclopedic -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:09, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
