Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/June-2010

< Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates
Valued Picture Tools

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.

Sant'Angelo Castle and Bridge

edit
 
Original - Sant'Angelo Castle (aka. Mausoleum of Hadrian) and Bridge in Rome
Reason
Aesthetic image presenting a nice composition of the castle, bridge and river. It provides contextual information about the location of these relative to each other.
Articles this image appears in
Castel Sant'Angelo, List of bridges in Rome
Creator
Kiss Tamás

Promoted File:Angyalvar036.jpg --NauticaShades 16:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Valued pictures was a project to highlight images that add significant value to Wikipedia articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or by being a hard to obtain free use image of the content being illustrated. Per the consensus on Miscellany for Deletion, this project has been shut down.

This is not to be confused with Valued Images on Commons.

Valued pictures was a project to highlight images that add significant value to Wikipedia articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or by being a hard to obtain free use image of the content being illustrated. Per the consensus on Miscellany for Deletion, this project has been shut down.

This is not to be confused with Valued Images on Commons.

Gary Sinise on stage

edit
 
Original - Gary Sinise on stage with the Lt. Dan Band at the Chicago Air and Water Festival 2008
Reason
This is a featured picture on commons that is used in a couple of WP articles. Its nomination recently had modest support at WP:FPC.
Articles this image appears in
Gary Sinise, Lt. Dan Band
Creator
Dschwen (Daniel Schwen)

Promoted File:Gary Sinise on stage 1 crop.jpg --Jujutacular T · C 03:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Valued pictures was a project to highlight images that add significant value to Wikipedia articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or by being a hard to obtain free use image of the content being illustrated. Per the consensus on Miscellany for Deletion, this project has been shut down.

This is not to be confused with Valued Images on Commons.

Valued pictures was a project to highlight images that add significant value to Wikipedia articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or by being a hard to obtain free use image of the content being illustrated. Per the consensus on Miscellany for Deletion, this project has been shut down.

This is not to be confused with Valued Images on Commons.

Hailstone

edit
 
Original - A large hailstone, approximately 5 1/4 inches in diameter, that fell in Harper, Kansas on May 14, 2004.
Reason
This photograph is one of the most educational photos on wikipedia of a complete hailstone, including a $20 USD bill for size comparison and a neutral, non-distracting background.
Articles this image appears in
Hail
Creator
National Weather Service Wichita, Kansas

Not promoted --Jujutacular T · C 17:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Willis Tower

edit
 
Original - Willis Tower presumably taken from the southwest in Near West Side, Chicago
Reason
This is one of the highest EV images on WP. Although too small for FPC, this is a VPIC.
Articles this image appears in
Willis Tower
Tower
Chicago school (architecture)
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill
Tube (structure)
Skyscraper
List of tallest buildings in Chicago
Timeline of tallest buildings in the United States
List of tallest buildings by U.S. state
America's Favorite Architecture
{{User Chicago}}
{{User Chicagoland}}
{{UserbornChicago}}
Creator
Soakologist

Promoted File:Sears Tower ss.jpg --Jujutacular T · C 17:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Cyrus McCormick engraving

edit
 
Original - Cyrus McCormick invented the reaper and founded the company that would become the backbone of International Harvester
Reason
For its age this is a quality image and it has high EV. It is too small for FP, but fine here.
Articles this image appears in
Cyrus McCormick
International Harvester
Reaper
Irish American
Creator
George Smillie

Not promoted --Jujutacular T · C 00:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Jesse Jackson, 1983 cropped

edit
 
Original - Cropped image of Jesse Jackson, 1983 (cropped from File:Jesse Jackson, half-length portrait of Jackson seated at a table, July 1, 1983 edit.jpg)
Reason
The uncropped version of this (File:Jesse Jackson, half-length portrait of Jackson seated at a table, July 1, 1983 edit.jpg), which is more widely used, just passed at FPC (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson 1983). This is also a fine, high EV image.
Articles this image appears in
Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1984
Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1988
United States presidential election, 1988
United States presidential election, 1984
Creator
Leffler, Warren K., U.S. News & World Report, edited by Fletcher

Not promoted --Jujutacular T · C 00:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Willis Tower upward pano

edit
 
Original - an upward panorama of Willis Tower from Wacker Drive.
Reason
:This is a featured picture on commons and German Wikipedia. It is also a quality image on commons. Despite being a little light in terms of EV, it represents a masterfully stitched panorama. It had quite a bit of support at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Willis Tower upward pano
Articles this image appears in
Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower)
Wacker Drive
Creator
Daniel Schwen User:Dschwen
  • Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support It is an unusual perspective of a particular aspect of this building, however executed at high quality and thus has a solid place in the article. --Elekhh (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was a bit rushy to straight support and I amended my position to weak support. Diliff is right that EV is key criteria for VP and that this image is not outstanding in the usual sense EV is judged at FP. However to clarify the reason I still tend to support it as a VP, is that it provides a different perspective on the building and thus contributes to a plurality of views on Wikipedia, which I consider to have a significant educational value. --Elekhh (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unless I've misinterpreted the criteria here, my understanding is that the EV requirement is roughly as strict as FPC, but the technical requirements are less stringent. The problem with this image, for me, is that it is the EV that is somewhat low because of the akward projection. The buildings and the surrounds don't bow like that and even though a viewer would likely be aware of this, it is hard to imagine what the building really does look like. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is your complaint about the projections related to the EV, especially since its highest EV is in an the article showing the building from many perspectives. In its highest EV use it shows the builing from an alternative perspective so it does not cause a problem of imagining what the building really does look like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you prefer a massive tilt perspective correction to make the lines in the Tower appear straight up and down?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'd prefer a photo taken from further away so that you wouldn't need massive tilt correction to fix the perspective. ;-) Just because it's an 'alternative' perspective, doesn't make it a great image to illustrate the subject IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can not get anything much further away to capture anything similar to this. Wacker Drive has tall buildings (one of which is visible in this photo) lining the other side of the street. In order to show the Wacker Drive address plate, you would are very limited. This is an upwards pano, which has its artistic merits. It is a difficult DOF shot from my limited photographical knowledge. This image shows the building from Wacker Drive, which is basically different subject matter than its place in the skyline like the other VPC below. The fact that it is the same building and could be shot in a manner similar to other buildings misses the whole point of showing what it looks like from its base. For what it is (an upwards pano) it is among the finest illustrations that WP has to offer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand what you're saying (although I think calling it a 'difficult DOF shot' does show your limited photographical knowledge - with that sort of angle of view, DOF isn't likely to be much of an issue), but that doesn't change the fact that the image's projection makes it confusing and misleading. Let me rephrase. Just because it's the best way to show the building at street level, doesn't automatically give it sufficient EV for FPC and VPC. Some subjects are more difficult to illustrate than others, but difficulty alone doesn't qualify it IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 06:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although it might unfortunately be hard to belive: The building pretty much looks like this. The projection does it justice. I've benn there, I saw it. --Dschwen 15:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it hard to believe that the buildings all lean inwards with a curve when you look upwards though. ;-) I know all projections involve spacial compromises, but our eyes/mind can visualise the reality of some projections better than others, and IMO this isn't one of them. But my point is that even if it did look like this image from this specific viewpoint, it's still not an ideal way to illustrate the building. I don't think it's superior to an image taken from further back, showing the shape/size of the building with better context and less distortion. I prefer this image of yours for that reason, although I'd still have to think hard about whether I'd support it here or at FPC. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If anyone even nominates it... Anyhow, some distortions in the periphery are not a major problem. The main subject is reproduced pretty well. So I support if I may. --Dschwen 01:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If you've stood at the base of one of these supertall skyscrapers, the real perspective actually can be confusing and disorienting, almost vertigo-inducing, as the top of the building is so far away you lose context with its surroundings. So the weakness of the projection is really a strength, in recreating the experience of being there. I realize in reality the buildings at the sides wouldn't curve as in this stitched projection, but the main subject looks accurate enough. And I reiterate even if a more distant vantage point would be a more ideal illustration, that doesn't mean this viewpoint has no EV. Different perspectives should be possible and worthwhile. Fletcher (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose We have this, this, and quite a few more that illustrate the subject with more EV than this distorted image. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too wonky, to use a technical term. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular T · C 00:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Wesley Clark

edit
 
Original - Retired general of the United States Army Wesley Clark. (Official portrait as edited by Fallschirmjäger (talk · contribs))
 
Edit2 - More dust removed, contrast boosted more. (edited by Greg L (talk · contribs) and Fallschirmjäger (talk · contribs))
Reason
This is a high quality and high EV image that recently failed at WP:FPC (see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wesley Clark)
Articles this image appears in
Wesley Clark
List of awards and nominations received by Wesley Clark
Oklahoma Democratic primary, 2004
Valedictorian
1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
Kosovo War
Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2004
United States presidential election, 2004
List of United States Military Academy alumni
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe
Democratic Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2008
Democratic Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2008
Creator
United States Army

Promoted File:General Wesley Clark official photograph, edited.jpg --Jujutacular T · C 13:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Nancy Reagan

edit
 
Original - Official portrait of former United States First Lady Nancy Reagan
Reason
This image has a high EV and has been masterfully retouched.
Articles this image appears in
Nancy Reagan
List of breast cancer patients according to survival status
List of First Ladies of the United States
Ron Reagan (via template {{Nancy Reagan}})
Patti Davis (via template)
Ronald Reagan (via template)
Just Say No (via template)
My Turn (memoir) (via template)
Creator
U.S. government, retouched by User:Scewing.

Promoted File:Nancy Reagan.jpg --Elekhh (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Valued pictures was a project to highlight images that add significant value to Wikipedia articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or by being a hard to obtain free use image of the content being illustrated. Per the consensus on Miscellany for Deletion, this project has been shut down.

This is not to be confused with Valued Images on Commons.

Patti Smith performing in Finland, 2007

edit
 
Original - A picture of 2007 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee Patti Smith performing at Provinssirock in Finland in 2007.
Reason
This is a Commons Featured Picture that has been a commons Picture of the day but has failed at WP:FPC (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Patti Smith performing in Finland) in February 2008. It currently illustrates seven articles, giving it high EV.
Articles this image appears in
Patti Smith
Black-and-white
List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees
List of people from Chicago
List of female rock singers
Provinssirock
Shure
Creator
Beni Köhler



Promoted File:Patti Smith performing in Finland, 2007.jpg --— raeky (talk | edits) 02:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Flag of Chicago

edit
 
Original - Flag of Chicago
Reason
This image has achieved the highest level of EV possible in many respects.
Articles this image appears in
Flag of Chicago
Chicago
This image links to more than 500 articles on WP, even excluding transclusions. Among its other most important uses are {{Chicago}} in article space, {{User Chicago}}, {{User WPChicago}} and {{UserbornChicago}} in numerous user space.
Creator
-xfi-
  • Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This flag is no more and no less valuable (I guess) than all other flags of countries, regions, cities, parties, etc. Should we promote them all? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It seems to me that based upon the footnote at WP:WIAFP #5 that says, "An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article. . .", it seems that each flag that has a WP article needs to be illustrated and images of such flags have high EV. Thus, all flags that have articles on WP should be highly promotable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:WIAFP #3 says, and WP:WIAVP #2 says it must be among Wikipedia's best work, or most educational work, respectively. Alves is saying there is nothing particularly distinguishing about this flag. It definitely has encyclopedic value; I don't think anyone disagrees there. However we must keep in mind the entire criteria. Jujutacular T · C 17:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So if I understand correctly, since every significant municipal flag exists on WP, this one is not FP material unless its technical merit is above average compared to other municipal flags.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not 'technical merit' but enc value, which should be exceptional in some way to justify the VP status. In this particular case, the strict technical component of the image (as a drawing) is trivial as is its illustrative component. Nothing really wrong with the image, the same happens with all other modern flags. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Elekhh (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Valued_picture_candidates/June-2010&oldid=370230387"