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.
Support Not bad, it could've been centered a bit more to the left, that tree on the left is closer to the center and hurts the balance a little, but not by much. --
I'ḏ♥One05:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment Weak support. I don't think it's clear why this image is considered to have good EV. Is the particular subject typical of Bahá'í Houses of Worship (it appears so from the article, but I'm not familiar with the subject), or is it particularly well known? While it's a pretty picture, the bushes either side of the building potentially hide extensions of the building (I doubt it, but it's a possibility).
Nev1 (
talk)
18:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)reply
That would certainly indicate EV, but why wasn't that in the nominating statement? It would help if the vague assertion of "Good EV, quality picture" was expanded upon, perhaps with some evidence or at least so that it constituted a complete sentence.
Nev1 (
talk)
18:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Support original Yes, the bushes are almost in the way, but they're not and they add a nice symmetry and seclusion to the photo. --
I'ḏ♥One04:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Beautiful lead image of the subject, thus EV. I think it technically/arguably could pass FPC on crit., but I don't feel like arguing about dimensions right now.
Support. Althought technically big enough for FPC, it's a bit small to pass. EV is great and technicals are good, a great VPC candidate.
J Milburn (
talk)
13:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The filing of this 1830 map of Chicago is said to mark the beginning of the municipality of Chicago, which would incorporate as a city later that decade. To this day the original 58 blocks of this city are regarded as such, with the most famous being
Block 37.
Wolf Point, Chicago is block 14.
Commnet A more elaborate rationale would be more helpful. Is this the earliest map of Chicago? Does it show a detail no other map does? --
Elekhh (
talk)
05:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)reply
It seems to be a reproduction from 1884 which altered the original from 1830 which could be
this, although again a different version is shown
here. --
Elekhh (
talk)
06:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)reply
In 1830 when the area had a population of about 250, historians regard the August 4, 1830 filing of the plat as the official recognition of a municipality known as Chicago.[1] Chicago became an incorporated city in 1837. The 1884 map that you point to was just a later mapping of the city with a much larger area depicted that includes the orignal 58-blocks of this map.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
06:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, this is a reproduction taken from a book published in 1884. I'm not sure if the original still exists; the one in the Encyclopedia of Chicago is a certified copy dating from 1837.—
Jeremy (
talk)
15:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I love and respect historic content, but this seems too vague, just a bunch of boxes with no description. --
I'ḏ♥One08:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
It is a standard
plat. It shows
city blocks and individual land parcels. What more could you want it to contain. The city did not exist at the time of the map. It had a population of only 250 people. This is the vision of the actual streets that eventually evolved.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
13:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Support—High EV plat that laid out the grid of downtown Chicago, and in some senses could be considered the founding document of the city.—
Jeremy (
talk)
17:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Very HQ interesting image that has EV because it shows variations of the subject which is also reflected in the different regional names shown above, as can be the types people from different places might be used to.
Weak Support. Was instinctively going to oppose (what's with the tux?), but looking further, if the brother actually skates in that stuff, then good luck to him. OTOH, it's really pretty small, and despite that, focus is still clearly well off. --
jjron (
talk)
15:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. The file's description could do with more detail such as the author and date. Though not contemporary, it is useful as far as later interpretations of Ptolemy go. I'm not sure if it's detailed enough though.
Nev1 (
talk)
18:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose only because I don't think the size comes close to the full-size, which I'm not saying we need, but I think we can do better. --
I'ḏ♥One04:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Illustrates the towers very well known towers very well. Great EV, and featured on Commons, and the Spanish and Turkish Wikipedias. Fails English FP due to 'blown highlights' at top, which I feel isn't an issue for the VP criteria.
Yes I saw that, but looking through the article, I feel it's the clearest picture of the towers, which is why I nominated it :) --
bydand•talk16:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose right now, maybe I'll change if I can be convinced. Sorry, there's too much wrong with this, from what I can tell. Firstly, it's not interesting, it looks like a picture from a seat at an assembly, there's nothing going on, no people doing anything, just the photographer's camera's-eye-view from behind many rows of rusted, makeshift seats. It looks like something should be happening, like someone took the time to arraign all those seats for an event but, nuthin'. Even if the chairs are permanently there I don't think this photo is very flattering at all with its boring sky and rusty, replaceable folding chairs. I think
this would be a better lead image for the lawn article and the one to the right should be somewhere amongst the prose. --
I'ḏ♥One15:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I rarely am able to capture such a good sky and have my subjects in focus with my point and shoot. I think this image contributes to the articles of both architectural works that it features.
This is a high EV image. The quality is pretty good with even small print on the jersey being completely legible at full resolution. It could be sharper, but although we can get another photo of this guy, we can't get one for a Super Bowl champion that he was the defensive leader for.
Comment The lighting's not so good on his face or above the logo. Parts of the quality are good, like of his jersey, but, honestly I don't think the image has enough value or rarity for a support or is bad enough for an oppose and I think we could get a better image of him. I guess I could support edit 2. --
I'ḏ♥One05:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Conditional support It's a great picture, especially with the emblem, but with the Wikipedia way, we won't promote potentially copyrighted material. Personally, I think the picture is great, but with the Super Bowl emblem in the background, which, by the way, I think is owned by him, we can't offer a promote. (I can support without the emblem, but I really like it because I think it adds to the picture.) Sorry, but track down the photographer. Someone owns the copyright.
Gut Monk (
talk)
03:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 2, I would like to support original picture but due to copyrights I won't. Edit 1 looks like the photographer fell off his chair as he took the picture.
JFitch(talk)15:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Support The quality is arguably better than most VPs and the heads and many parts of the skin look pretty good, some glare and blurriness but it's not going for FP and surely is educational, quality photograph. --
I'ḏ♥One04:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
This is a high EV image in its primary use and uniquely valueable as likely the earliest image of him as a professional athlete. Although smallish, it is larger than its use for which we are evaluating its EV, which means more detail than is even used where we are evaluating it.
Click here to zoom and pan using a Flash-based interactive viewer.
Reason
It's very educational and shows many famous parts of central London, as well as educating how good the view from the London Eye actually is (I have never seen a view before). The resolution is high, and I feel this is one of the best images portraying London as a panorama. Since it is often discussed on FP, I would want to click on this picture if I saw it. Make sure you view the alternative as well.
Comment I usually dont nominate anything for FP anymore beacuse all my nominations get rejected. If i find something really good i would maybe nominate it but it usually doesnt pass.
Spongie555 (
talk)
03:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I did nominate it for FP just to see if it passes. If it doesnt pass in FP i think it will pass in VP. Since VP nominations take weeks to close i can leave the VP nomination up till the FP one is done(hopefully it passes as FP) but if it fails ill leave VP nomination.
Spongie555 (
talk)
03:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)reply
I disagree, an image of an article's subject, which this is, definitely has EV, but if J Milburn prefers the current image, then I hope it's ok if I just add it. Support both/either, pref. ALT because that one seems to show a mature of each gender whereas the original still looks like it's not fully aged. --
I'ḏ♥One00:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)reply
So a hundred images of a Tufted Duck, all showing pretty much the same thing, all have EV? Right. Encyclopedic value is about how much an image adds to the article- when we already have a stronger image showing the same thing, a new image often adds nothing. Yes, if the other two didn't exist and this was the only image we had of the species, it would have EV. As it is, it doesn't.
J Milburn (
talk)
22:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose on the criteria currently in place. Its not the best image for illustrating the species, as it only shows the male. The other picture in the article showing both the male and female is better to illustrate the species.
Canada Hky (
talk)
14:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)reply
CommentI don't think you can get this building without cars parked. The trees are at their least distracting time of the year. What would main side be. A head on shot would depict a lot less.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
12:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I actually think the light is well placed on the main facade and entry, and the cars are not too distracting (although the red one is a bit). It appears to potentially have high EV in
William Wallace Kimball, although is unclear for how long he lived there and the info is unreferenced. It has also high EV in the USSF, however here the pole which covers the USSF plaque is disturbing. For the EV in the other two articles, I find the highrise which disturbs the building's silhouette a considerable drawback. I would tend to support if the EV in William Wallace Kimball is strenghtened, by adding more referenced info. --
Elekhh (
talk)
00:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Snowfall reduces the encyclopedic value of this picture. A picture taken in the spring would depict the features of this neighborhood much more clearly.
Edge3 (
talk)
16:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)reply
This contributes to several articles but failed at
Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Eisenhower Expressway. When this was previously listed here it had three supports (myself,
Raeky and
Extra 999) and no opposes, but the creator did not even comment, making me think that if he or one other person had taken the time to look at this it would have passed since four supports is the general rule for passing.
Support Very good illustratiomn of the highway. Previous nomination was closed just minutes before I wanted to cast my vote. I don't think the license plate needs to be obscured (See related discussion
here). --
Elekhh (
talk)
07:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)reply
This image is widely recognized by Chicagoans and is widely used on WP. A quick look at some of the articles that include this image such as
1893,
1894 and
1893 in art give an understanding of the image's importance and EV. If anyone knows how to find and upload a higher res version of this that would be a great service to WP.
Comment Something about that picture just makes me think it needs OTRS, plus it's pretty small and the EV of the band in general along with
WP:N is probably questionable... I'm tempted to tag it with {{no permission since}} imho. — raekyT02:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
What I mean is, it looks rather professional, and for professional photographers we usually like to have OTRS on file for their pictures, since at this point we're just assuming the uploader is the actual photographer, without an e-mail and ip's and other stuff to back that up. We really do get quite a few people who try to upload professional stuff and not actually own the copyright or pretend to be the photographer. — raekyT03:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
It just strikes me as strange that someone like
Kyle Cassidy uploading
a rather mismatch sample of his work in VERY wide ranges of quality (
tiny to
big,
bland to
strange) many looking to be web quality. When he has
blog and
website where he systematically publishes his work online, easily accessible for someone to access and upload here... I think it would be darn right foolish of us to not have record that
KyleCassidy is really him. I think an OTRS admin should
e-mail to confirm that really is his account and record it. Just seems strange the account has been active since 2007 and as most recently as January of this year without anyone requesting actual identity to backup these pictures. — raekyT04:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I donno, I'm not enthused about the size, and I just don't have a good feeling about
a band that has a myspace link on their homepage. Just doesn't scream notable to me. — raekyT13:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
My first impression is that this probably is Kyle Cassidy, but I agree that a check would be nice. I've sent a quick email to the address listed on his site.
J Milburn (
talk)
10:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Yep, I can confirm that the account is run on behalf of Cassidy, and he has authorised the release of the files uploaded. In other news, Cassidy said he will look into getting a higher resolution version of this shot uploaded.
J Milburn (
talk)
11:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)reply
If thats the case then I'll probably support it!, Probably a good idea to get a OTRS ticket number and link to it on
User:KyleCassidy stating that it is indeed him. That way in the future someone else as picky as me doesn't have another OTRS volunteer go through that again. ;-) — raekyT15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose I know you tried, but the snow, the boring sky and skeletal trees all make this boring and badly composed. --
I'ḏ♥One08:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm sorry, but when it comes to athletes, just as with the Cato June nom, I expect to be blown away by photo quality, I mean thousands of people show up to watch them, I'd think many of them would have cameras and someone should get at least one really amazing shot... Idk.. --
I'ḏ♥One00:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment As someone who has tried their hand at sports photography from a fan's perspective - getting that 'wow' photo isn't all that easy. It'd be nice to be on the floor, with strobes in the catwalk and have the advantages that professional photographers have, but your bar might have the be lowered a bit as to what is realistic on a routine basis from your average person taking photos at a game. Its hard, especially an indoor sport. That being said - there are better examples than this - for illustrative purposes especially. I just don't see it on this one, the foreground is distracting, and the crop is too big.
Canada Hky (
talk)
19:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Illustrates a part of
Sheffield very well, from a view many people will not see. Also illustrates the geography and is used in several good articles. Although not the best quality picture ever, it portrays a typical area of Sheffield well, from an angle I myself have never seen.
Sheffield in my opinion is featured article standards, but due to lack of review, did not pass. It is currently a good article nominee.
It still appears a bit tilted. VP does not require it to be perfect but by the towers in the middle is really apparent. Also digital manipulation, including artificially increasing saturation, as you just did is generally seen as reducing encyclopedic value. --
Elekhh (
talk)
03:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I think there might be stitching errors in this, some things in this look too duplicated, someone tell me if I'm wrong. --
I'ḏ♥One05:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
An interesting picture, it shows the seeds of a, to my knowledge, not very-well-known type of coconut, so, yes, what you see to the right are probably a type of purple coconut. Apparently this plant was discovered only maybe 3 years ago. It's rarity, quality and eye-appeal gives it high EV IMO, I bet you were thinking "what is that? Let me find out" when you saw it as well.
This shows the casual relaxation area in
Millennium Park being used pretty much as intended. I am contemplating cropping to landscape to cover up lower quality portions of the image at the top.
I'm kinda new here, so I may have interpreted the criteria incorrectly. If the rest of the reviewers have a different opinion, then I'll reconsider. I'm putting this nom on my watchlist right now.
Edge3 (
talk)
19:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's right. There were also some at road level and some on the metal structure of the bridge, as well as on the skyscrapers in the CBD and from behind the Southern bridge ramp (designed to be seen above the Opera House when viewed from
Mrs Macquarie's Point). Pfainuktalk17:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)reply
I have seen several of these satellite images favorably received here and this seems to have as much EV as the others I have seen. This recently had 4 supports and 3 opposes at FPC.
This is a high EV photo that had four supports in its first nomination. There just was not consensus on which edit to promote. Those supporting various versions were me,
IdLoveOne,
Raeky and
Extra999.
I was just following the template, obviously I didn't take the photo, or else I'd be about 120 years old. I changed it to "unknown".Neonblaktalk - 17:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Great photograph, yeah, a little shading over the eyes, but I'm satisfied with how well I can see his face in full size. --
I'ḏ♥One06:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I actually didnt work on the main article i only nominated the picture beacuse im in a Bacon Wikicup. But it does meet the general notabillity guidelines beacuse it has reliable sources and has significant coverage.
Spongie555 (
talk)
01:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)reply
I think this photo is a bit more vibrant than most official portraits that I've seen. I.E., I actually don't think this is just another official portrait. If you look at
Illinois's congressional districts, you would likely agree that this is one of if not the best photo on the page.
Very likely that Victor Powell of Powell Photography, Inc. who also did
File:Sandi Jackson.jpg and
File:Sandi and Jesse Photograph.jpg is the creator. I would have to check although usually saying work done for the U.S. government is sufficient. I will check if need be.
Now that's a good point and a can of worms. On one hand we could be awarding more images VP for being quite valuable to their articles, like this one is, but on the other hand I'm reminded of J Milburn's suggestion of favoring really, really rare stuff... Weak support for now. VPC criteria might need to be reworked. --
I'ḏ♥One20:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The historic district has tree-lined streets. I'm not sure that it would be possible, or even desirable, to depict it without trees, or the shadows that they cast.—
Jeremy (
talk)
14:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
And if you weren't trying so desperately to swallow arbitrary points for a meaningless contest, would you even know what those things are? Can we just give the points for the WikiCup to the folks who gave us permission to use the image? Let's give a win to the Lesbian Herstory Archives. --
Moni3 (
talk)
03:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I am planning to nominate more Nazi leaders beacuse i think the images are good quality and improve the articles. I wanted to say im not a Nazi just incase anyone would think that.
Spongie555 (
talk)
03:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
It's a solid picture, but it is smaller than the minimum I'd expect to pass. I also think the EV would be slightly higher if he was facing the other way (with the swastika visible)
Noodle snacks (
talk)
08:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)reply
support nice image but I question the EV like what does a presidential election poster have to do with Cuba-United States Relations and American imperialism.
Spongie555 (
talk)
05:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)reply
It showed how after the Spanish-American War, the United States had a lot of influence in Cuba, and notice the "acquire more territory" part of the poster; this part had many critics of imperialism at the time point out how America was conducting imperialism.
Secret Saturdays (
talk to me)what's new?23:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Umberto Eco interviewed by Wikinews very high EV for Wikimedia, and the best image in the article. But please slightly rotate it CW to be vertical. --
Elekhh (
talk)
06:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I did a slight 0.8°CW rotation (you might need to purge cash with CTRL+F5 to see it), but is impossible to completely straighten, due to barrel distortion, and loss of detail on the edges (both window on the right and hand at the bottom are important to retain). But I agree with you that the dynamism of the image does not reduce its value. --
Elekhh (
talk)
23:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak support Don't like this as much as I thought I would, the helmut and the angle he's got his neck turned make it hard to discern his face. --
I'ḏ♥One06:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)reply
This is a professional photo that has already proven to make
main page viewers click through as a
highly viewed DYK. This article seemed to be close to passing at FPC so I brought it here.
In all honesty, if it is the focus of the picture then, this would/should fail because it is chopped. If it is a contributing element like it is here, it has a chance. I am not going to crop it just to show the more stylish one.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
14:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Nice picture. I think we should promote this one and keep the other. The other has one train and this has two making it a different picture.
Spongie555 (
talk)
01:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Since you can see every pimple and strand of hair pretty well, I am satisfied with its level of detail. I think this is a high EV image in its main use and captures him without some of the fancier glasses that he wears on his face.
Oppose per Elekhh. Additionally, it even has some watermarks. Remove them, improve the picture a bit, the bright and then I might reconsider.
Diego Grez (
talk)
00:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
Support Not bad, it could've been centered a bit more to the left, that tree on the left is closer to the center and hurts the balance a little, but not by much. --
I'ḏ♥One05:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment Weak support. I don't think it's clear why this image is considered to have good EV. Is the particular subject typical of Bahá'í Houses of Worship (it appears so from the article, but I'm not familiar with the subject), or is it particularly well known? While it's a pretty picture, the bushes either side of the building potentially hide extensions of the building (I doubt it, but it's a possibility).
Nev1 (
talk)
18:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)reply
That would certainly indicate EV, but why wasn't that in the nominating statement? It would help if the vague assertion of "Good EV, quality picture" was expanded upon, perhaps with some evidence or at least so that it constituted a complete sentence.
Nev1 (
talk)
18:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Support original Yes, the bushes are almost in the way, but they're not and they add a nice symmetry and seclusion to the photo. --
I'ḏ♥One04:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Beautiful lead image of the subject, thus EV. I think it technically/arguably could pass FPC on crit., but I don't feel like arguing about dimensions right now.
Support. Althought technically big enough for FPC, it's a bit small to pass. EV is great and technicals are good, a great VPC candidate.
J Milburn (
talk)
13:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The filing of this 1830 map of Chicago is said to mark the beginning of the municipality of Chicago, which would incorporate as a city later that decade. To this day the original 58 blocks of this city are regarded as such, with the most famous being
Block 37.
Wolf Point, Chicago is block 14.
Commnet A more elaborate rationale would be more helpful. Is this the earliest map of Chicago? Does it show a detail no other map does? --
Elekhh (
talk)
05:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)reply
It seems to be a reproduction from 1884 which altered the original from 1830 which could be
this, although again a different version is shown
here. --
Elekhh (
talk)
06:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)reply
In 1830 when the area had a population of about 250, historians regard the August 4, 1830 filing of the plat as the official recognition of a municipality known as Chicago.[1] Chicago became an incorporated city in 1837. The 1884 map that you point to was just a later mapping of the city with a much larger area depicted that includes the orignal 58-blocks of this map.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
06:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, this is a reproduction taken from a book published in 1884. I'm not sure if the original still exists; the one in the Encyclopedia of Chicago is a certified copy dating from 1837.—
Jeremy (
talk)
15:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I love and respect historic content, but this seems too vague, just a bunch of boxes with no description. --
I'ḏ♥One08:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
It is a standard
plat. It shows
city blocks and individual land parcels. What more could you want it to contain. The city did not exist at the time of the map. It had a population of only 250 people. This is the vision of the actual streets that eventually evolved.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
13:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Support—High EV plat that laid out the grid of downtown Chicago, and in some senses could be considered the founding document of the city.—
Jeremy (
talk)
17:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Very HQ interesting image that has EV because it shows variations of the subject which is also reflected in the different regional names shown above, as can be the types people from different places might be used to.
Weak Support. Was instinctively going to oppose (what's with the tux?), but looking further, if the brother actually skates in that stuff, then good luck to him. OTOH, it's really pretty small, and despite that, focus is still clearly well off. --
jjron (
talk)
15:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. The file's description could do with more detail such as the author and date. Though not contemporary, it is useful as far as later interpretations of Ptolemy go. I'm not sure if it's detailed enough though.
Nev1 (
talk)
18:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose only because I don't think the size comes close to the full-size, which I'm not saying we need, but I think we can do better. --
I'ḏ♥One04:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Illustrates the towers very well known towers very well. Great EV, and featured on Commons, and the Spanish and Turkish Wikipedias. Fails English FP due to 'blown highlights' at top, which I feel isn't an issue for the VP criteria.
Yes I saw that, but looking through the article, I feel it's the clearest picture of the towers, which is why I nominated it :) --
bydand•talk16:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose right now, maybe I'll change if I can be convinced. Sorry, there's too much wrong with this, from what I can tell. Firstly, it's not interesting, it looks like a picture from a seat at an assembly, there's nothing going on, no people doing anything, just the photographer's camera's-eye-view from behind many rows of rusted, makeshift seats. It looks like something should be happening, like someone took the time to arraign all those seats for an event but, nuthin'. Even if the chairs are permanently there I don't think this photo is very flattering at all with its boring sky and rusty, replaceable folding chairs. I think
this would be a better lead image for the lawn article and the one to the right should be somewhere amongst the prose. --
I'ḏ♥One15:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I rarely am able to capture such a good sky and have my subjects in focus with my point and shoot. I think this image contributes to the articles of both architectural works that it features.
This is a high EV image. The quality is pretty good with even small print on the jersey being completely legible at full resolution. It could be sharper, but although we can get another photo of this guy, we can't get one for a Super Bowl champion that he was the defensive leader for.
Comment The lighting's not so good on his face or above the logo. Parts of the quality are good, like of his jersey, but, honestly I don't think the image has enough value or rarity for a support or is bad enough for an oppose and I think we could get a better image of him. I guess I could support edit 2. --
I'ḏ♥One05:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Conditional support It's a great picture, especially with the emblem, but with the Wikipedia way, we won't promote potentially copyrighted material. Personally, I think the picture is great, but with the Super Bowl emblem in the background, which, by the way, I think is owned by him, we can't offer a promote. (I can support without the emblem, but I really like it because I think it adds to the picture.) Sorry, but track down the photographer. Someone owns the copyright.
Gut Monk (
talk)
03:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Edit 2, I would like to support original picture but due to copyrights I won't. Edit 1 looks like the photographer fell off his chair as he took the picture.
JFitch(talk)15:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Support The quality is arguably better than most VPs and the heads and many parts of the skin look pretty good, some glare and blurriness but it's not going for FP and surely is educational, quality photograph. --
I'ḏ♥One04:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
This is a high EV image in its primary use and uniquely valueable as likely the earliest image of him as a professional athlete. Although smallish, it is larger than its use for which we are evaluating its EV, which means more detail than is even used where we are evaluating it.
Click here to zoom and pan using a Flash-based interactive viewer.
Reason
It's very educational and shows many famous parts of central London, as well as educating how good the view from the London Eye actually is (I have never seen a view before). The resolution is high, and I feel this is one of the best images portraying London as a panorama. Since it is often discussed on FP, I would want to click on this picture if I saw it. Make sure you view the alternative as well.
Comment I usually dont nominate anything for FP anymore beacuse all my nominations get rejected. If i find something really good i would maybe nominate it but it usually doesnt pass.
Spongie555 (
talk)
03:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I did nominate it for FP just to see if it passes. If it doesnt pass in FP i think it will pass in VP. Since VP nominations take weeks to close i can leave the VP nomination up till the FP one is done(hopefully it passes as FP) but if it fails ill leave VP nomination.
Spongie555 (
talk)
03:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)reply
I disagree, an image of an article's subject, which this is, definitely has EV, but if J Milburn prefers the current image, then I hope it's ok if I just add it. Support both/either, pref. ALT because that one seems to show a mature of each gender whereas the original still looks like it's not fully aged. --
I'ḏ♥One00:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)reply
So a hundred images of a Tufted Duck, all showing pretty much the same thing, all have EV? Right. Encyclopedic value is about how much an image adds to the article- when we already have a stronger image showing the same thing, a new image often adds nothing. Yes, if the other two didn't exist and this was the only image we had of the species, it would have EV. As it is, it doesn't.
J Milburn (
talk)
22:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose on the criteria currently in place. Its not the best image for illustrating the species, as it only shows the male. The other picture in the article showing both the male and female is better to illustrate the species.
Canada Hky (
talk)
14:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)reply
CommentI don't think you can get this building without cars parked. The trees are at their least distracting time of the year. What would main side be. A head on shot would depict a lot less.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
12:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I actually think the light is well placed on the main facade and entry, and the cars are not too distracting (although the red one is a bit). It appears to potentially have high EV in
William Wallace Kimball, although is unclear for how long he lived there and the info is unreferenced. It has also high EV in the USSF, however here the pole which covers the USSF plaque is disturbing. For the EV in the other two articles, I find the highrise which disturbs the building's silhouette a considerable drawback. I would tend to support if the EV in William Wallace Kimball is strenghtened, by adding more referenced info. --
Elekhh (
talk)
00:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Snowfall reduces the encyclopedic value of this picture. A picture taken in the spring would depict the features of this neighborhood much more clearly.
Edge3 (
talk)
16:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)reply
This contributes to several articles but failed at
Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Eisenhower Expressway. When this was previously listed here it had three supports (myself,
Raeky and
Extra 999) and no opposes, but the creator did not even comment, making me think that if he or one other person had taken the time to look at this it would have passed since four supports is the general rule for passing.
Support Very good illustratiomn of the highway. Previous nomination was closed just minutes before I wanted to cast my vote. I don't think the license plate needs to be obscured (See related discussion
here). --
Elekhh (
talk)
07:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)reply
This image is widely recognized by Chicagoans and is widely used on WP. A quick look at some of the articles that include this image such as
1893,
1894 and
1893 in art give an understanding of the image's importance and EV. If anyone knows how to find and upload a higher res version of this that would be a great service to WP.
Comment Something about that picture just makes me think it needs OTRS, plus it's pretty small and the EV of the band in general along with
WP:N is probably questionable... I'm tempted to tag it with {{no permission since}} imho. — raekyT02:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
What I mean is, it looks rather professional, and for professional photographers we usually like to have OTRS on file for their pictures, since at this point we're just assuming the uploader is the actual photographer, without an e-mail and ip's and other stuff to back that up. We really do get quite a few people who try to upload professional stuff and not actually own the copyright or pretend to be the photographer. — raekyT03:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
It just strikes me as strange that someone like
Kyle Cassidy uploading
a rather mismatch sample of his work in VERY wide ranges of quality (
tiny to
big,
bland to
strange) many looking to be web quality. When he has
blog and
website where he systematically publishes his work online, easily accessible for someone to access and upload here... I think it would be darn right foolish of us to not have record that
KyleCassidy is really him. I think an OTRS admin should
e-mail to confirm that really is his account and record it. Just seems strange the account has been active since 2007 and as most recently as January of this year without anyone requesting actual identity to backup these pictures. — raekyT04:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I donno, I'm not enthused about the size, and I just don't have a good feeling about
a band that has a myspace link on their homepage. Just doesn't scream notable to me. — raekyT13:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
My first impression is that this probably is Kyle Cassidy, but I agree that a check would be nice. I've sent a quick email to the address listed on his site.
J Milburn (
talk)
10:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Yep, I can confirm that the account is run on behalf of Cassidy, and he has authorised the release of the files uploaded. In other news, Cassidy said he will look into getting a higher resolution version of this shot uploaded.
J Milburn (
talk)
11:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)reply
If thats the case then I'll probably support it!, Probably a good idea to get a OTRS ticket number and link to it on
User:KyleCassidy stating that it is indeed him. That way in the future someone else as picky as me doesn't have another OTRS volunteer go through that again. ;-) — raekyT15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose I know you tried, but the snow, the boring sky and skeletal trees all make this boring and badly composed. --
I'ḏ♥One08:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm sorry, but when it comes to athletes, just as with the Cato June nom, I expect to be blown away by photo quality, I mean thousands of people show up to watch them, I'd think many of them would have cameras and someone should get at least one really amazing shot... Idk.. --
I'ḏ♥One00:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment As someone who has tried their hand at sports photography from a fan's perspective - getting that 'wow' photo isn't all that easy. It'd be nice to be on the floor, with strobes in the catwalk and have the advantages that professional photographers have, but your bar might have the be lowered a bit as to what is realistic on a routine basis from your average person taking photos at a game. Its hard, especially an indoor sport. That being said - there are better examples than this - for illustrative purposes especially. I just don't see it on this one, the foreground is distracting, and the crop is too big.
Canada Hky (
talk)
19:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Illustrates a part of
Sheffield very well, from a view many people will not see. Also illustrates the geography and is used in several good articles. Although not the best quality picture ever, it portrays a typical area of Sheffield well, from an angle I myself have never seen.
Sheffield in my opinion is featured article standards, but due to lack of review, did not pass. It is currently a good article nominee.
It still appears a bit tilted. VP does not require it to be perfect but by the towers in the middle is really apparent. Also digital manipulation, including artificially increasing saturation, as you just did is generally seen as reducing encyclopedic value. --
Elekhh (
talk)
03:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I think there might be stitching errors in this, some things in this look too duplicated, someone tell me if I'm wrong. --
I'ḏ♥One05:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)reply
An interesting picture, it shows the seeds of a, to my knowledge, not very-well-known type of coconut, so, yes, what you see to the right are probably a type of purple coconut. Apparently this plant was discovered only maybe 3 years ago. It's rarity, quality and eye-appeal gives it high EV IMO, I bet you were thinking "what is that? Let me find out" when you saw it as well.
This shows the casual relaxation area in
Millennium Park being used pretty much as intended. I am contemplating cropping to landscape to cover up lower quality portions of the image at the top.
I'm kinda new here, so I may have interpreted the criteria incorrectly. If the rest of the reviewers have a different opinion, then I'll reconsider. I'm putting this nom on my watchlist right now.
Edge3 (
talk)
19:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's right. There were also some at road level and some on the metal structure of the bridge, as well as on the skyscrapers in the CBD and from behind the Southern bridge ramp (designed to be seen above the Opera House when viewed from
Mrs Macquarie's Point). Pfainuktalk17:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)reply
I have seen several of these satellite images favorably received here and this seems to have as much EV as the others I have seen. This recently had 4 supports and 3 opposes at FPC.
This is a high EV photo that had four supports in its first nomination. There just was not consensus on which edit to promote. Those supporting various versions were me,
IdLoveOne,
Raeky and
Extra999.
I was just following the template, obviously I didn't take the photo, or else I'd be about 120 years old. I changed it to "unknown".Neonblaktalk - 17:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Great photograph, yeah, a little shading over the eyes, but I'm satisfied with how well I can see his face in full size. --
I'ḏ♥One06:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I actually didnt work on the main article i only nominated the picture beacuse im in a Bacon Wikicup. But it does meet the general notabillity guidelines beacuse it has reliable sources and has significant coverage.
Spongie555 (
talk)
01:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)reply
I think this photo is a bit more vibrant than most official portraits that I've seen. I.E., I actually don't think this is just another official portrait. If you look at
Illinois's congressional districts, you would likely agree that this is one of if not the best photo on the page.
Very likely that Victor Powell of Powell Photography, Inc. who also did
File:Sandi Jackson.jpg and
File:Sandi and Jesse Photograph.jpg is the creator. I would have to check although usually saying work done for the U.S. government is sufficient. I will check if need be.
Now that's a good point and a can of worms. On one hand we could be awarding more images VP for being quite valuable to their articles, like this one is, but on the other hand I'm reminded of J Milburn's suggestion of favoring really, really rare stuff... Weak support for now. VPC criteria might need to be reworked. --
I'ḏ♥One20:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The historic district has tree-lined streets. I'm not sure that it would be possible, or even desirable, to depict it without trees, or the shadows that they cast.—
Jeremy (
talk)
14:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
And if you weren't trying so desperately to swallow arbitrary points for a meaningless contest, would you even know what those things are? Can we just give the points for the WikiCup to the folks who gave us permission to use the image? Let's give a win to the Lesbian Herstory Archives. --
Moni3 (
talk)
03:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I am planning to nominate more Nazi leaders beacuse i think the images are good quality and improve the articles. I wanted to say im not a Nazi just incase anyone would think that.
Spongie555 (
talk)
03:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
It's a solid picture, but it is smaller than the minimum I'd expect to pass. I also think the EV would be slightly higher if he was facing the other way (with the swastika visible)
Noodle snacks (
talk)
08:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)reply
support nice image but I question the EV like what does a presidential election poster have to do with Cuba-United States Relations and American imperialism.
Spongie555 (
talk)
05:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)reply
It showed how after the Spanish-American War, the United States had a lot of influence in Cuba, and notice the "acquire more territory" part of the poster; this part had many critics of imperialism at the time point out how America was conducting imperialism.
Secret Saturdays (
talk to me)what's new?23:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Umberto Eco interviewed by Wikinews very high EV for Wikimedia, and the best image in the article. But please slightly rotate it CW to be vertical. --
Elekhh (
talk)
06:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I did a slight 0.8°CW rotation (you might need to purge cash with CTRL+F5 to see it), but is impossible to completely straighten, due to barrel distortion, and loss of detail on the edges (both window on the right and hand at the bottom are important to retain). But I agree with you that the dynamism of the image does not reduce its value. --
Elekhh (
talk)
23:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak support Don't like this as much as I thought I would, the helmut and the angle he's got his neck turned make it hard to discern his face. --
I'ḏ♥One06:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)reply
This is a professional photo that has already proven to make
main page viewers click through as a
highly viewed DYK. This article seemed to be close to passing at FPC so I brought it here.
In all honesty, if it is the focus of the picture then, this would/should fail because it is chopped. If it is a contributing element like it is here, it has a chance. I am not going to crop it just to show the more stylish one.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
14:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Nice picture. I think we should promote this one and keep the other. The other has one train and this has two making it a different picture.
Spongie555 (
talk)
01:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Since you can see every pimple and strand of hair pretty well, I am satisfied with its level of detail. I think this is a high EV image in its main use and captures him without some of the fancier glasses that he wears on his face.
Oppose per Elekhh. Additionally, it even has some watermarks. Remove them, improve the picture a bit, the bright and then I might reconsider.
Diego Grez (
talk)
00:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)reply