Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/March-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.

Burnie CBD and Port Panorama

Original - Burnie CBD and Port, Tasmania, Australia

Reason: Probably ultimately failed FPC on lack of wow, but the enc is good
Articles this image appears in: Burnie
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Heh, no offence to the locals, but IMO Burnie's one of the least attractive towns in Tassie, however no reason it can't have a VP :-). This gives a pretty good overview of the main part of town and is prominent and well used in the article. However, if I remember correctly (and I may not as it's some years since I've been there) there's possibly a better shot as you come around a headland and down the hill on the road in from Devonport. Not sure if there's anywhere to stop, but I remember thinking when this was at FPC that it may come up better from that perspective, as from here I think we lose quite a bit of the town making it look very narrow and tight. --jjron (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great panorama!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Very nice. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Burnie CBD and Port Panorama.jpg --Ceranthor 16:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space Candle

**Original** - In a microgravity environment, convection does not carry the hot combustion products away from the fuel source, resulting in a spherical flame front, such as in the candle seen here. This is a rare example of a diffusion flame which does not produce much soot and does not therefore have a typical yellow flame.

Reason: I found this image very interesting and highly informative.
Articles this image appears in: Flame, Diffusion flame, Weightlessness
Creator: NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (NASA-MSFC)

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique image.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Quality is not great, but it's rare and has significant EV. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose I'm concerned about the quality. Feel free to sway me. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- My guess is that it is noisy since the flame wouldn't be very bright at all. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should we leave all quality concerns to FP :)?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand how difficult it would have been to take this photo, but I mean it looks like a cell phone took it. Am I missing something? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well if its not very bright, then either high ISO film or high ISO digital would be required to capture it reasonably quickly, hence the noise. I don't know what the technical details actually are, but imo it will suffice unless a wikipedian flies into space and take a better image. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Couldn't we enlist Lance Bass the next time he goes up? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I thought I'd seen this at better quality before, but it may have been a small printed grayscale version thereby hiding many of the flaws. So I'll give it the benefit of the doubt - definite EV. --jjron (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Candlespace.JPG --Ceranthor 16:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letharia vulpina

Reason: Recently failed a FPC nom here, but I still think it's a good picture- both aesthetically pleasing and encyclopedic. I like the colours, and it looks good at full resolution. Has been the lead image of the article since its creation just over a month ago.
Articles this image appears in: Letharia vulpina
Creator: Jason Hollinger

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently also nommed at FPC in an alt version. --jjron (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise, I didn't realise the alternative was nominated. Please withdraw this nomination. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Ceranthor 17:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom cap morphology

Reason: High quality, informative diagram used in mushroom hunting for over three years. Large size, well illustrated and self-explanatory to the extent that a novice suddenly has the basics of mushroom identification after viewing. I doubt it is of featured quality, as it is a png image as opposed to an svg, and deals only with mushrooms, as opposed to all larger fungi species.
Articles this image appears in: Mushroom hunting (note it is also the basis of Template:Mycomorphbox, used on hundreds of mushroom pages.)
Creator: Debivort

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I like it, but there's possibly an issue that no source references are provided on the image page. --jjron (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is it you want verifying? Most of it is in the books around me, one or two I can have a hunt for online? J Milburn (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the point is that a reference needs to be cited for this. Your book or books would be suitable for doing so. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep; as for articles, diagrams such as this are generally expected to provide references back to reputable published sources (whether print or web). See Wikipedia:Citing sources. It's really meant to be what the creator used as references, not just what you've got laying around (I'm not sure about the validity of you providing 'sources' for someone else's diagram, but I guess it's possible). --jjron (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Compare it to an article- we can turn up and add references to material, even if we don't know where the author found the material. The primary purpose of adding a source is so that the information can be verified, and someone other than the author adding a source is acceptable for that, surely? I will add some sources when I find some time. J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, I was kind of thinking the same thing, but was just wondering about the implications on an image using different refs from the actual source. --jjron (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References added for all gill and cap shapes, apart from flat, which is so obvious that no one seems to bother defining it. It's still used a lot- see Google Results for just one mushroom site. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support That'll do me. I'd really prefer a SVG, but this isn't really featured picture candidates so I guess it doesn't matter so much. I wouldn't worry about a reference for flat (as you say, its obvious) Noodle snacks (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per above discussions. I assume you checked all the spelling and correct use of terminology while referencing - nothing jumps out as wrong, but I'm not familiar with all the terms. --jjron (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, yeah. Everything looks good to me. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: With the references in, I see no reason why i should not support this pic. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mushroom cap morphology2.png --jjron (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corning Tower

Reason: This is the iconic edifice of the city of Albany. It's a panorama of 4 images and pretty good quality. Notable EV since it's used strongly in four articles. Negatives are the time of year and cloudiness of the day.
Articles this image appears in: Erastus Corning Tower, Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York, Erastus Corning 2nd
Creator: ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk»

Support as nominator --ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Used in so many articles and adds value to every one of them.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you do a perspective correction first? Noodle snacks (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done... though it's not perfect. I had trouble getting the edges of the building to be vertical. And now it's a bit cramped on the sides, but that goes with the territory. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support new version--Mbz1 (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanja Matsuri, 2006

Reason: I have always thought that this image was very exciting. A sea of people extending as far back as the camera can see! It is also a great depiction of the third and final day of Sanja Matsuri, a large Japanese Shinto festival. It depicts important festival structures in the area and shows the enormous popularity of the festival.
Articles this image appears in: Sanja Matsuri
Creator: Torsodog

Support as nominator ----Torsodog^Talk 14:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Powerful image, technically good, valuable as a lead image. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Definitely a better image is possible without the capped head of a photographer, the pillar and the wire.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varanus gouldii

Reason: Best image I can see of Varanus gouldii (Gould's sand monitor). Some CA around the bright leaves doesn't really distract from the image. Shows the whole reptile (excluding a small bit of tail) with some objects for scale - all in it's natural environment.
Articles this image appears in: Sand goanna
Creator: Peripitus

Support as nominator --Peripitus (Talk) 05:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom, tending to 'weak' due to the clipped tail, but then would probably support if the beast was facing forwards and you couldn't see the full tail. Unless there's something very unusual at the very tip I think it's sufficient. BTW, I can't tell for sure but the nose looks slightly blurry - I don't think it's DOF because it's blurrier than the rocks behind; perhaps a slight motion blur, perhaps a smudge on the the lens? Just wondering... --jjron (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Penguin

Reason: Didn't pass FPC since apparently flash photographs are a no-no, even for birds that only spend time on land at night. Regardless, the photo was difficult to take, and the only decent non-zoo shot on wikipedia.
Articles this image appears in: Little Penguin
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it's only a gallery image in the one article it's in (goes against the first criterium). I do remember this image though, and supported it at FPC. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone just condensed all the article images into a gallery, against the WP:MOS. Fixed anyway Noodle snacks (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Still question the EV of the image. It's not the main image, and it's not all that prominently featured in the article. Does it really make a difference to the article? I think that's pretty debatable. No offense intended, of course. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Real life Little Penguins spend the day at sea, then return to their burrows at night. A picture of one in daylight at the Zoo or Sea World during daylight is unrealistic and misleading. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masked Lapwing

Reason: Would be known to most Australians as a "Plover". Quality is a bit less than I'd like, which I attribute to either crappy 400D AF or motion blur (the bird is just landing). This pose is excellent for showing the sharp spurs on the wings.
Articles this image appears in: Masked Lapwing
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pretty nice shot, shows head, both sides of wings, feather colouration, good EV - but boy, did you have a stopwatch running on the time limit? ;-) --jjron (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sopport. Good enc. Spencer^T♦^C 21:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no quorum. --jjron (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Liberty

Reason: Iconic vista in the New York City Harbor, recognized throughout the world as a beacon of freedom (I sound like a travel agent). Notable by itself, and used in many articles. Been in Statue of Liberty since at least 27 October 2008.
Articles this image appears in: Statue of Liberty, Frédéric Bartholdi, List of National Monuments of the United States, List of New York City Designated Landmarks in Manhattan, Landmark
Creator: William Warby (on Flickr)

Support as nominator --ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Appears to have a slight CCW tilt, apparent even in the thumb. And I can't believe we don't have a high quality image of this created by a Wikipedian. --jjron (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tilt Corrected - Take a look at the Commons collection of Statue of Liberty images, and none are of much better quality at this close range (nor are any more used than this image). ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flammulina velutipes

Reason: A featured picture on Commons, but too small to be featured here. Pretty and striking image of a rather nice-looking fungi.
Articles this image appears in: Flammulina, Enokitake
Creator: Archenzo
Time Requirement: Added January 2007. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 05:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Zoo Fari 16:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Support From Enokitake, "wild mushrooms usually have a dark brown color" - but these look rosy and pink? Fletcher (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The species does seem to vary a little- see the search results. Note that the article specifies that- "Wild forms differing in color, texture, and sliminess are called winter mushrooms, velvet foot, or velvet stem among other names." J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Flammulina velutipes.JPG ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Obama's 2009 Inauguration

Reason: A very detailed image of the Invitation to the Inauguration of Barack Obama, showing detaling in the engraving, fibres in the paper, etc, etc. I nominated it at FPC, but due to folding and resulting shadows, and a slight blur near the seal, it was opposed, but I was told to bring it here.
Articles this image appears in: Invitations to the inauguration of Barack Obama,
Inauguration of Barack Obama,
United States presidential inauguration
Creator: Commons:User:Kop
Time Requirement: Y Added 21 January 2009. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 05:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can support this. It seems to have the EV, if not just the fact that it's an historical curiosity. ~ ωαdεstεr16_{♣kiss me}^{i'm Irish♣} 18:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The invitation is crumpled, has unnecessary shadows. A better copy of invitation must be present. Or at least a better photo of the same.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Redtigerxyz. This is an easy target, and out of the million invitations, more than half should be in good shape. Zoo Fari 17:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It has no EV. Just a piece of memorabilia, one of millions. Article explains nothing encyclopedic about it. Fletcher (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too low quality for an easily replaced image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black-faced Cormorant

Reason: Clear photo, background communicates that this is a water bird. Cormorants rest on land.
Articles this image appears in: Black-faced Cormorant
Creator: Noodle snacks
Time Requirement: Y Added 21 January 2009. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 05:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zoo Fari 01:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, clear photo. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality shot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Phalacrocorax fuscescens Kettering.jpg --~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accordion bellows

Reason: A clear and detailed depiction of an accordion bellows
Articles this image appears in: Bellows (photography)
Creator: Alvesgaspar (talk)
Time Requirement: Y Added in May 2008. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 05:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. A very interesting shot. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Lovely shot. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support What an odd camera :) ♣Zoo Fari♣ 04:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support An interesting subject.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Noodle snacks (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bellows macro.jpg --~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Stereoscope

Reason: High quality and obvious EV
Articles this image appears in: Stereoscopy
Creator: Alvesgaspar (talk)
Time Requirement: Y Been in the article since at least January 2008. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 05:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per high encyclopedic value. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Pocket stereoscope.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hooded Plover

Reason: A moderately skittish species, and about the size of an egg, so pretty difficult to get a decent photograph. The species is not really related to my previous "plover" nomination.
Articles this image appears in: Hooded Plover
Creator: Noodle snacks
Time Requirement: Y Added 22 January 2009. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 05:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could the grainy appearance be reduced? Zoo Fari 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of votes; no consensus. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Litoria ewingii tadpole

Reason: Reasonable quality and a moderately difficult shot. Complements the other images in the article. I am sure of the ID since brown tree frogs are the only type that are found in my garden.
Articles this image appears in: Brown Tree Frog
Creator: Noodle snacks
Time Requirement: Y Added December 2008. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 05:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It must have been difficult capturing this underwater creature. Zoo Fari 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A polariser was helpful. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And here I'm thinking, "Nah, tadpoles are pretty easy to catch..." ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 05:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, you'd kill it though, and the photo wouldn't be representative of its environment. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No way. I've caught many tadpoles in my day; some grew up to be frogs in my terrarium. And to be honest, I assumed this photo was taken in a white five-gallon bucket filled with dirty (natural) water. There's nothing to indicate otherwise. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 07:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - It looks good overall, and I appreciate how difficult it must have been to capture this photo, but the angle just seems a bit odd to me. Still has my support, though. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 292

Reason: Encyclopedic value; listed in several articles for over a year.
Articles this image appears in: New York State Route 292, Whaley Lake, List of State Routes in New York.
Creator: Self-created.
Time Requirement: Y This was added to the first two articled in early March 2008. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 05:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Lead in a small article, well used in the prose of another. I don't really see the use of photos in the "list of" article to be all that necessary though. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 05:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It illustrates what it's trying to illustrate. However, is the "Taken during Winter, obviously." comment supposed to be in the caption? Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not my nom, but you're right. Got rid of that, decapitalized winter, and wikilinked it (hey, why not?). ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose it seems to me that the subject is the road and the road is chopped off on the left very badly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Also, image needs some work: tilt correction at least. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Classification Diagram

Reason: Extremely simple, but well-developed and -used diagram of the eight major taxonomic ranks in the currently accepted (for the most part) biological classification system. It is the basis of Template:Biological classification, which allows it to be clickable (I don't do much coding, so my description is quite that of a layman). Check it out here and see what I mean. Bonus: it's svg.
Articles this image appears in: Basis of Template:Biological classification, which is used in the respective articles of each of the taxonomic ranks, in addition to Life, Paleontology, Taxon, etc. See image page for complete list.
Creator: Peter Halasz, User:Pengo
Time Requirement: Y Added to Species in March 2007; added to Life in May 2007; I could go on, but I think that qualifies. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 03:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 03:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Highly encyclopedic. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Informative and clear. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the nomination! —Pengo 20:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are eligible to vote if you'd like. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Kind of seems upside down. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (I know this is a bit late but) the flipped version can be found at File:Biological classification L Pengo vflip.svg. I've added made it more discoverable now too. —Pengo 23:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Noodle snacks. I like that it is an SVG. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't see it as upside down, as this represents a branch of the life tree -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hierarchies are usually shown from top to bottom though, and this is reflected in the taxobox for pretty much everything. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Biological classification L Pengo.svg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concent refectory

Reason: a good quality depiction of a convent refectory of the 16th century, with pulpits
Articles this image appears in: Refectory
Creator: Alvesgaspar (talk)
Time Requirement: Y Added December 2008. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 01:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No quorum. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canon FT QL

Reason: a clear and high quaity depiction of a classic camera
Articles this image appears in: Canon FT QL
Creator: Alvesgaspar (talk)
Time Requirement: Y Added May 2008. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 02:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Also, it has a very informative caption. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I accidentially promoted this out of process, so I suppose that's a support. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hehe, very true. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Canon FT alvesgaspar.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carrot umbel

Reason: unusual and encyclopaedic depiction of a carrot umbel
Articles this image appears in: Daucus carota, Umbel
Creator: Alvesgaspar (talk)
Time Requirement: Y Added to Daucus carota in May 2008. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 01:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it, but it seems to me that this particular angle gives no perception of depth. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting angle, but it doesn't convey much information about the actual shape. File:DSCRF0787.JPG is better, for example. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think it does because only from this point of view the shape and length of the pedicels, which are a characteristic of umbels, can be seen. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No quorum. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers and Sailors Monument

Reason: This is the main image for Lafayette Square, Buffalo, a town square with a central American Civil War monument that was dedicated with an audience that included Grover Cleveland, the Governor of Pennsylvania and two Brigadier Generals. Cleveland had previously laid a cornerstone during the groundbreaking for the monument.
Articles this image appears in: Lafayette Square, Buffalo has linked to the pre-edited version of this image (File:20080310 Soldiers and Sailors.JPG) for a year. I just added it to Buffalo, New York.; I have just added this article to town square.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Creator: TonyTheTiger, edited by User:MER-C.
Time Requirement: Y Added March 2008. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 21:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No quorum. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Monument

Original (left), Edit (right) - Victory Monument in the Douglas community area of the South Side of Chicago is both a Chicago Landmark and National Register of Historic Places-listed structure.

Reason

This has been the main image for a fairly high traffic WP:FA (South Side (Chicago)) that has vast image alternatives since 2007. It is also the main image for the Chicago Landmark and National Register of Historic Places-listed Victory Monument since 2007. It has been included in both List of Chicago Landmarks, National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago and the Portal:Chicago selected article rotation for a long time. In addition, I have recently added the image to Douglas, Chicago and Fountain of the Great Lakes. I personally like seeing the beautiful blue sky in the backgroud of this image whenever I visit the articles where it is the main image.

Articles this image appears in

main image in: South Side (Chicago); Victory Monument (Chicago)
supporting image: List of Chicago Landmarks; National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago; Portal:Chicago/Selected article/7; Douglas, Chicago; Fountain of the Great Lakes

Creator: TonyTheTiger
Time Requirement: Y Added to South Side (Chicago) September 2007. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have made my first attempt at perspective correction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, I attempted to make both sides of the column vertical. I think they were about 88.5 and 89 degrees before instead of 90.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apparently, my attempt was no good and Noodle snacks (talk · contribs) "uploaded a new version over the top, did perspective correction as I saw it, fixed the barrel distortion, levels, sharpening and crop (off centre composition was awkward)". (copied from my user page with a time stamp of 05:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 05:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say it was no good, but I thought a better job could be done is all. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 - Better quality and better lighting. VX!^talk 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No quorum. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common Brushtail Possum

Reason: Obviously the flash is a bit harsh. They are however nocturnal. The image has high enc because it shows the tail length, and a juvenile riding on the mother's back.
Articles this image appears in: Common Brushtail Possum
Creator: Noodle snacks
Time Requirement: Y Added 19 February 2009. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very informative picture, clearly the best we have of the subject. Amazingly cute. J Milburn (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I agree with J Milburn, but the lighting is a bit hard on the eyes. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 04:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as I can't think of a way to oppose. --can dle •wicke 17:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Too cute not to :P Anyways, good quality and encyclopedic picture. VX!^talk 20:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Trichosurus vulpecula 1.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama and Beverly Eckert

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]

	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