Featured Picture Tools
Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons What is a featured picture? Featured picture candidates on Wikimedia Commons Featured picture thumbs Featured picture archive Picture of the day Picture of the day archive

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 {{FPCresult|Promoted|Image:FILENAME.JPG}} to the bottom of the entry, replacing FILENAME.JPG with the file that was promoted.
• For entries not promoted, add {{FPCresult|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.

Chipmunk with peanut in mouth

Original - A chipmunk is a squirrel-like rodent species native to North America. Though they are commonly depicted with their paws up to the mouth, eating peanuts, or more famously their cheeks bulging out on either side, chipmunks eat a variety of foods. Their omnivorous diet consists of grain, nuts, birds' eggs, fungi, worms, and insects.

Reason

Accurately shows the subject, in its environment, in a way that relates to part of the article and is of high quality.

Articles this image appears in

Chipmunk

Creator

EL C

• Support as nominator MBisanz ^talk 04:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Probably a good idea to Withdraw at this point. Can someone do the paperwork (edits) for this? MBisanz ^talk 15:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support --Risker (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Motion blur, washed out. Just a snapshot - FPs need to be more than this. --Janke | Talk 06:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose A picture of a common subject needs to be much more spectacular. Cacophony (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I like the picture, but can't support due to the chipmunk's tail being cut off. As said above, for a relatively easily taken image, the quality really has to be top-notch. faithless (^speak) 07:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose- does have a very snap-shotty feel, and the grass is rather distracting. J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Blur and tail being cut off. ^8thstar 15:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Very little of the photo is in focus. crassic!^talk 19:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Cacophony --St.daniel ^Talk 14:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn Thegreenj 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Statue of liberty panorama

Original - Statue

Reason

High resolution. Only two stitching errors that I can see, and even these aren't noticeable. Good light.

Articles this image appears in

Image stitching

Creator

Fcb981 although with this quality it could have been diliff

• Support as nominator Fcb981(talk:contribs) 14:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Perfect illustrations for Hallucination and Delirium. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Comment per Spikebrennan. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Comment per Spikebrennan. ^8thstar 15:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• No Comment --Janke | Talk 16:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to those damn dirty apes. You maniacs! You flooded it! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell! Matt Deres (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I dont think this is what we're looking for in a featured picture --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 19:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - You can't even see the stitching errors. I don't see what you're all whining about...Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted . --John254 00:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

800 x enlargement of a pixel

Original - A single pixel, enlarged 800 times.

Reason

Highly ecyclopedic, extremely detailed due to 800 x enlargement. Top image quality, even though it just barely fulfills our size requirement, it is razor-sharp.

Articles this image appears in

pixel, only for today!

Creator

User:Janke

• Support as nominator Janke | Talk 12:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support High encyclopedic value. Tomdobb (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support Despite the excessive noise, I must insist that this image is used in Black hole. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too dark and noisy, unfortunate framing. Should be white, normalized to the 1600x1200 standard and denoised (it is obviously pixelated) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support High encyclopedic value and good technique --Luc Viatour (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unfortunately, the subject does not take up enough of the image, given the size requirements. Next time make sure you use a higher power zoom on your camera. Also appears to be a bit out of focus. Was the pixel in motion or is it just due to shaky hands? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-01 13:57Z
• Strong Support very high enc, massive historical value, impossible to reproduce. Quite possibly one of the most informative diagrams I've ever seen on FPC. E∞T∞A∞ —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Doesn't work as a thumbnail. I can only see the "un-enlarged" pixel at full image size on my monitor. If adopted, we will have to restrict use to only the full size image due to technical limitations! Rmhermen (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Vehement Neutral - Unbelievable enc, but should be SVG Uberlemur (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• I Support a good April Fool's joke --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong comment. Caption needs to point out that the depicted pixel is black, because otherwise we'd never know. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support So that's what they look like up close. Massively important image, how else would anyone know what a pixel looks like, they're normally too small to see.Chris_huh^talk 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Arrow is clearly not at exactly a bearing of 135^o, hence no reflective symmetry in the top-left to bottom-right diagonal. Centy – reply• contribs – 15:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Would support color version. Also, where is the tail? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This pixel doesn't walk through walls... --Janke | Talk 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This is not a single black pixel enlarged 800 times, it's actually 640,000 black pixels together in a herd. Might work in the 640000 black pixels article. Matt Deres (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support per above. Pstuart84 Talk 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Pstuart84 Talk 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not used in any articles. Someone didn't get the joke. ::cough, cough:: tiZom_(2¢) 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Lawful Neutral, I'll be keeping my eye out for anyone trying to close this nomination too early *glares* gren グレン 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Supportoppose Its atypically posed and not in its natural habitat. ^8thstar 19:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - to me this is just a big black box --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 19:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You need a bigger monitor. That would make it an even bigger black box. You might be able to adjust the color settings on your monitor and thereby change the color of the box. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Thoughtful Suppose Dust on SLR sensor? Oppose per unnatural environs and inability to tell if this is the front or back of the animal. Excessive oversharpening. Blocky JPG artifacts present. Should be SVG, but just because this is an SVG doesn't mean it gets a free pass. -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) —Preceding comment was added at 21:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Downright unencyclopedic, pixels aren't androngenous. Please ID and replace the symbol. Thegreenj 21:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Needs to be antialiased. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted . --John254 00:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Green Bay Packers Stock

Original - Astock issued by the Green Bay Packers in 1997.

Reason

Very nice image. You can read everything. Very historical as well.

Articles this image appears in

Green Bay Packers

Creator

Aviper2k7

• Support as nominator - Milks F'avorite Cookie 21:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Try fixing the white balance and rotation. Probably won't be enough to feature it but will improve it. Is there any copyright problem with the logo? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted . --- Milks F'avorite Cookie 01:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco Under Fog

Original - San Francisco blanketed by a clean, thick sheet of fog.

Reason

This is a very rare image, it passes the quality requirements, and it displays a familiar landmark in an odd situation.

Articles this image appears in

Fog

Creator

user:Mbz1

• Support as nominator Rj1020 (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice image, but noisy and unsharp in full size. --Janke | Talk 10:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Janke. Also, I could have sworn this, or one very similar, was nominated less than two months ago and failed or was withdrawn? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy close Low quality image.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Decent thumb, but we're judging the full-scale image. Terrible quality. crassic!^talk 22:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 10:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Lewis hamilton - 2008 Melb GP

Original - Lewis Hamilton took pole position and the race win for McLaren.

Already FP for comparison (promoted 27 March 2008!)

Reason

This look like a better photo than Image:Heidfeld and Rosberg - 2008 Melb GP.jpg. Which has just passed

Articles this image appears in

McLaren, Lewis Hamilton, 2008 Australian Grand Prix, McLaren MP4-23

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator Buc (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support -- may be crop to cut-off a little from left? Dmottl (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Isn't this a bit redundant? I may be oblivious to the subtleties of this sport, but I see no big difference as for which driver is supposed to be in the depicted car. Looks the same to me, just different commercials on the car. Plus a little too much of out of focus dirt. --Dschwen 18:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think it would be better cropped. Unfortunately I can't do it myself without reducing the qulaity. Buc (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support With or without a crop, it's an excellent picture. The clarity is amazing. CillaИ ♦ XC 23:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also a comment: yes, the two photos are very similar but they're both excellent quality. Just because one of them already happens to be featured doesn't have any bearing on whether this current nom should be featured. It meets all the criteria. (And considering the slew of barely-distinguishable insect pictures that come through FPC I think it's forgivable in this case.) CillaИ ♦ XC 23:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The original existing FP shot contains a lot of drama and captures the excitement of an F1 race. This nom is dry and still. The car in the foreground is static, there's too much bright foreground, and the moving car behind is mostly hidden by the static car. SilkTork *^YES! 14:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per silktork —Preceding unsigned comment added by The freddinator (talk • contribs)
• Weak oppose Per some of SilkTork's concerns. Still a great photo, imo. crassic!^talk 22:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Just as good as the last photo, and the subject (Lewis Hamilton) won the race, so the similarity is justified.-- Diniz (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment on Silktork's point. I agree that the other shot has far more drama, although as Cillan says it's not really relevant to compare with other pictures in determining whether this is of featured quality. What this picture provides is a nice, clear three-quarter shot of a modern F1 car, with all its aerodynamic wings and fins and bits and bobs clearly presented. I'd suggest the content is of high quality for this reason, and is better in this way than the other. I'm no photographer, so whether or not the focus, resolution etc are of the right standard, I couldn't say. 4u1e (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support As 4u says, it is a great 3/4 shot of an F1 car, wonderfully clear shot that shows everything clearly, including the carbon fibre inserts on the wheels. While the memorable bits of F1 for many might be the crashes, there are times it is quite nice to just admire the cars. Narson (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Too much of the foreground, lack of drama, everything else is great  - oahiyeel ^talk 16:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Can foreground issue be solved with a crop? 4u1e (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment And, well, is drama an essential for a picture to be nice? We have pictures of bees and hummingbirds as Featured and we don't have the bees attacking the hummingbirds with nunchucks while Daleks emerge from the Tardis being ridden by Riders of Rohan (Man, I want to see that picture). Is drama essential? (To respond to 4u, a crop would be great, though the current ratio is perfect to me.) Narson (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support, but with the provision that this would be following a crop. If the present aspect ratio is maintained the picture would benefit from losing a fair slice off the left side, and some of the lower portion. The "out of focus dirt" lends a great sense of depth to the shot, and as such is an integral part of the photo. However, at present it places the car too high in the frame for comfort. Other factors in this image's favour include the clarity, and the fantastic heat-haze affected view of the following car. Cropping would also emphasise this feature. Pyrope 14:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - as was said above, the last promoted F1 pic was full of drama, and is indeed set as my desktop. Now I'm a Hamilton fan, but there's a reason this one isn't my desktop - it's a bit boring. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Willow Tree, Bloedel Reserve

Original - The Bloedel Reserve is a 150-acre (0.6 km²) forest garden on Bainbridge Island, Washington, USA, made by the vice-chairman of a lumber company, under the influence of the conservation movement and oriental philosophy. Prentice and Virginia Bloedel wished to 'capture the essence of the Japanese garden - the qualities of naturalness, subtlety, reverence, tranquility - and construct a Western expression of it'.

Reason

High quality image, good composition.

Articles this image appears in

Bloedel Reserve

Creator

User:Geaugagrrl

• Support as nominator ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 03:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - maybe it could do with a little more sharpness, but it has my support. BTW, is this edited? diego_pmc (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The image has not been edited. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 13:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - ineligible for FP because it isn't in an article. Cacophony (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added the image to Bloedel Reserve. faithless (^speak) 07:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for helping out a newbie. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 13:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You're quite welcome. :) faithless (^speak) 01:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, much of the image is dulled and it doesn't seem to be the best illustration of the reserve. gren グレン 17:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Prominent artifacts and it's not very encyclopedic. It's more illustrative of a willow tree than it is of the reserve, and even then the main subject is cut off. CillaИ ♦ XC 18:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - very heavily artifacted, low contrast, low enc. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Enc. is lacking, even though it's a beautiful picture. Some unsharpness in corners - maybe shot with a compact digital camera? But, keep trying, you might submit to Wikipedia:Picture peer review first for more input and/or suggestions. One right away: Always use the "best" quality for storage (largest file size). --Janke | Talk 12:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the helpful input. The camera is now out of commission, so it is time to get a new one. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 05:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Vanderdecken. Spencer^T♦C 11:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Barack & Michelle Obama

Original - Barack and Michelle Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign

Edit 1 cropped and image named descriptively

Reason

It adds significantly to the articles it illustrates. In fact, although there is a Barack Obama WP:FP this image is on his bio page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles this image appears in

Barack Obama and Michelle Obama

Creator

Luke Vargas (of flickr)

• Support as nominator TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • P.S. is there a way to move this to a properly named page instead of one named by the image's flickr number?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, the black and white worries me a little. I don't mind it if some other photographer has made it famous--but we should not take that more 'artistic' step. gren グレン 16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I should expound on this nomination. The current Barack Obama WP:FP at Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg may be technically sound, but it is aesthetically alarming. There are at least a dozen pictures on wikipedia or commons that illustrate Obama without showing him on a bad hair day. He looks like he was dragging his feet across a shag rug while wearing wool socks. The only worse pictures aesthetically would show him with hair flaring from his nostrils or ears. I imediately looked for an aesthetic Obama picture when I noticed the current FP. Maybe tonight I will sit down and present a dozen or so images that would be chosen for Obama articles over the current FP. The point is that this is one of the first pictures that would be chosen for his article. It is probably the second or third most important picture on his bio. From an aesthetic perspective it is far superior to the current Obama FP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think I have hair similar to Obama's. It's always like that ("bad hair day")...maybe that's just the way his hair is. Louis waweru (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose because of the color that hides technical flaws (no pun intended).--Svetovid (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Svetovid. The Black and White doesn't help the picture. 76.205.74.106 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Ach, this is me. I mean that the picture shouldn't be in black and white, not that there are technical flaws. Spencer^T♦C 20:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • IP votes are disregarded . If you wish to vote, please create an account or log in. Also , could either of you explain to me what technical flaws are hidden ? I see nothing to incline me in that direction . --Mad Tinman _{T C} 23:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Modern images should not be black and white unless there is a specific reason for them to be (and there is none here). Mangostar (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose same as Mango. And to be quite honest, I don't really think this is that flattering of a picture anyway.The freddinator (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it is an incredibly flattering shot, personally.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me expound on the problem. Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg is the current Barrack Obama FP. The following images are in Barack and related articles:

(Click "show" to view a huge gallery from Wikipedia articles)

			2174568925 20a4057c6b.jpg

The following are available on commons (I believe the sort only identifies images with Barack or Obama in the name)

(Click "show" to view a huge gallery from Commons)

Don't let me get started with flickr. Of these I think about 5 or 10 are better images than the current FP. Despite the current bias against black & white photography, I think the current nominee is one of them. Regardless, to say that the current FP represents the finest of WP is a joke.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not to enter your private arguments, but it's not appropriate to clutter up the FPC page like that. I have hidden the two galleries you've dumped here, as if people can't go and look for themselves. --jjron (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Of the images above I consider the following better than the current FP although the last four may not be sharp enough and 2 and 3 need to be cropped.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(Click "show" to view a huge gallery from Commons)

• Oppose Per above ^8thstar 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Wonderful picture, but I think photographs of contemporary public figures need to be in color to provide the most encyclopedic value / accuracy. Cacophony (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - I like the picture, but a couple of things as have previously been mentioned. The black and white, do you have the picture in colour? Might be quite good. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Based purely on aesthetics, I think the fact it's black and white is no problem at all. The depth contrast is absolutely stunning. I actually don't really get some of the criticism that's listed on this page, since I think that it's a very nice and natural portrait of these two people. —msikma (user, talk) 20:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mangostar. crassic!^talk 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Better images of him exist. Spinach Dip 20:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support I disagree that modern images shouldn't be black and white. Why shouldn't they? This is a great picture. Louis waweru (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support unless there's a previously established consensus against black and white photographs of modern figures, which seems a bit odd to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - what's so great about this image? I see no indication that this image is somehow "wonderful" or quailified to be a FP. Happyme22 (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Prokaryote cell

Original - prokaryote cell

Reason

this is the new image i did. the old one has been already delisted.

Articles this image appears in

Bacteria,Bacterial cell structure,Cell (biology), Cell theory ,Cell wall, Prokaryote

Creator

LadyofHats

• Support as nominator LadyofHats (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. A big improvement over the previous version. Kaldari (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, I have added your 'original sources' from the first image and I just want you to check them to make sure you didn't use any more or change something. Thanks. gren グレン 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support, textbook-quality illustration. If the old version deserved promotion, this one does for sure. --Dschwen 18:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see why svg images should be exempt from size guidelines
  • I think an SVG can be arbitrarily sized up , so if that's the issue it's simple to solve. Or am I incorrect ? I am not at all sure :\ --Mad Tinman _{T C} 23:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it can be as big as you like without losing any quality. I just tried to size it up in my sandbox to demonstrate, but I think I put one too many 0s and went and crashed my (ancient) laptop. J Milburn (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • That's not really very convenient though, why not just upload a big version to begin with --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 02:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeesh, what about "scalable vector graphic" do you not understand? The image can be 10,000,000 pixels on edge if you choose. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-03-26 13:15Z
    • My point is that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs to be accessible for everyone, not just those who have the software to enlarge scalable vector images --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Then someone can upload a version as large as you desire . Still, I don't get why a larger version has more encyclopedic value - and you have to understand, the only reason the size guideline is there is to ensure that the images have enough size for detail to be seen adequately, and since it's there at this size or larger, it seems pretty irrelevant... --84.90.46.116 (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Above comment by me. --Mad Tinman _{T C} 20:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • You don't need special software to enlarge the image, just insert it into a Wikipedia page and set the size to whatever you want. You could also just click through to the image itself, and right click on it, in most browsers there's an option to zoom in. If you want to edit the image or zoom with more advanced control, there are many free editing packages (Inkscape, OpenOffice etc.) which can handle SVGs. See Scalable Vector Graphics. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment Still, it is a convenience for readers when we upload images that are big enough to examine the detail without having to go through any extra steps. On the other hand, images shouldn't be too large. For this image, I'd say 750 to 1000 px is appropriate. I agree with TheOtherSiguy that the flagellum lacks detail, especially compared to Image:Flagellum base dia