Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/February-2019
| Featured picture tools |
|---|
Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2019 at 08:06:28 (UTC)
- Reason
- A beautiful and clear image of an iconic prototype self-driving car, an early flagship product of Waymo.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Waymo, Self-driving car
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
- Creator
- grendel|khan
- Support as nominator – grendel|khan 08:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Is the car operating in autonomous mode at that time? The best EV composition would have nobody in the driver's seat and some motion blur in the background. Reserving judgement for now. MER-C 10:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – As I understand it, it's illegal to operate an autonomous car without a driver in California; these are neighborhood-scale vehicles, so they max out at 25 mph, in practice usually much less, and I don't believe that these cars had a non-autonomous mode. (They had no steering wheel or other in-car controls.) grendel|khan 17:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – The Waymo article strikes me as overlong (nearly 3,000 words) and semi-promotional in places, and this image doesn't seem to say much beyond "here's the product." Sca (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - The white balance (seems a tad dark, or perhaps it's that it was too bright and the highlights were taken way down) and bottom crop don't seem ideal. Not sure how much of that can be helped, and perhaps it's not a good idea since it's already a QI and VI on Commons... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2019 at 20:59:31 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality, detailed reproduction and restoration of this unique document. Featured on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Nobel Prize in Physics, Marie Curie, Pierre Curie
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others
- Creator
- Sofia Gisberg, restoration by Jebulon
- Support as nominator – MER-C 20:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for nomination.--Jebulon (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Some minor damage, but it's the type of document that one shouldn't touch excessively. Should probably upload the original for comparison and documentation. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 23:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Adam and others. You have a link in the file page to the original (page 1) of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France. I have stitched page one and page two as it is a diptych. I did not want to touch this document too much, it is in good shape, and the small remaining damages or mistakes by the painter are moving enough IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support – but the file page needs an "English" description per FP criteria 7. Bammesk (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Done--Jebulon (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support - DreamSparrow Chat 07:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Of course! --Janke | Talk 15:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Nobel Pierre et Marie Curie 1.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2019 at 15:15:04 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- High-quality image, comprehensive description, high encyclopedic value (reference image in main article, appears in multiple articles), near-threatened status promoting awareness and interest in conservatory measures, photographed in natural habitat
- Articles in which this image appears
- Black-headed ibis, Ibis, List of birds of India, List of birds of Tamil Nadu
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- PhotoDoc
- Support as nominator – Hari Krishnan 15:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - overly compressed/JPEG artifacts, needs a higher quality export from RAW. MER-C 16:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Could you please explain what the artifacts are so I can correct them? Also, could you explain what you mean by a higher quality export from RAW so I can possibly address that as well? Thank you. PhotoDoc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.89.66.135 (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- You need to go back to the original file you downloaded off the camera (hopefully in raw image format) and enter a higher quality setting when you save it as a JPEG. You should aim for a file size of about 3-4 MB or a quality setting of about 97 instead of the <~ 80 you put in. The blocky noise in the background at full resolution (the JPEG artifacts) should disappear. MER-C 21:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying. Went back to the original raw image and saved it as a higher resolution JPEG. Replaced image, current file size is 6.85 MB. Thank you. PhotoDoc —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- The artifacting is gone, but it has unmasked image noise due to your choice of ISO sensitivity. You've got a fairly old entry-level DSLR, which doesn't perform too well at higher ISO settings. A noise correction will help, but I don't know whether it will be enough. For future reference, a shutter speed of 1/800s at ISO 200 and the same f-number yields effectively the same brightness and sharpness but with much less noise. MER-C 13:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying. Went back to the original raw image and saved it as a higher resolution JPEG. Replaced image, current file size is 6.85 MB. Thank you. PhotoDoc —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- You need to go back to the original file you downloaded off the camera (hopefully in raw image format) and enter a higher quality setting when you save it as a JPEG. You should aim for a file size of about 3-4 MB or a quality setting of about 97 instead of the <~ 80 you put in. The blocky noise in the background at full resolution (the JPEG artifacts) should disappear. MER-C 21:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Could you please explain what the artifacts are so I can correct them? Also, could you explain what you mean by a higher quality export from RAW so I can possibly address that as well? Thank you. PhotoDoc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.89.66.135 (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2019 at 10:00:07 (UTC)
- Reason
- I think this, the last sheet of the map, which is explicitly discussed in the article about it, clearly deserves to be part of the set as much as any other part. However, modifying a complicated set nomination in progress is just disruptive and awful; so... yeah. Better to handle it as a separate vote. Whilst this may not be used in other articles than the one on the map itself, that's going to be true of a lot of the set. I don't think we should leave out parts of the original, just because we can digitally get around the need for them now.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Turgot map of Paris
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
- Creator
- Michel-Étienne Turgot
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 10:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. My bad. MER-C 12:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2019 at 10:53:46 (UTC)
- Reason
- It's from a pre-photographic era, so it being an illustration is expected. I think it does a good job of showing Rossini's sphere of influence; illustrates his time in Britain in an interesting way, and is a pretty good example of that late 18th/early 19th century caricature that highly popular at the time. There's some nice details to it, like the crowd behind them. The vertical space is a little empty, but on the acceptable side, I think.
I'm going through Gioachino Rossini and helping clean up the images in it as it moves towards an FAC, so there'll probably be a bit more Rossini in the next bit.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Gioachino Rossini
- FP category for this image
- Not... sure what category? Shove it under theatre?
- Creator
- Charles Motte (Fr.), restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 10:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 15:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- DreamSparrow Chat 05:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2019 at 04:16:34 (UTC)
- Reason
- well done panorama, high EV, in use prominently in several articles, FP on Commons
- Articles in which this image appears
- Long Island City, Long Island, Queens, New York City, Brooklyn-Queens Connector, NYC Ferry, Amazon HQ2
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
- Creator
- King of Hearts
- Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support per my !vote at Commons almost four years ago. Daniel Case (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Nice photo, but like some on Commons I feel the perspective is slightly off. MER-C 15:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support, thanks for the nod. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Jehochman Talk 16:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Long Island City New York May 2015 panorama 3.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2019 at 15:24:18 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- We don't have enough FPs that show the passage of time. As in many time series photos, the EV in this image is strong and obvious. Featured in Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Birth, Calf, Cattle
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
- Creator
- Basile Morin
- Support as nominator – MER-C 15:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 16:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support - high EV — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Thanks, MER-C, for the nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- DreamSparrow Chat 05:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Cow giving birth, in Laos (step by step).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2019 at 20:25:03 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- For such a major opera, we really had very little illustrative content. Having found this as part of the Gioachino Rossini FAC push (it should appear in that article shortly, but I'm letting the main article writers decide where) it had the nice added bonus of improving the opera's article.
I can't say for certain if it'll stay in the infobox or be moved down into the text later in favour of a picture of Rossini, but I can't see it being removed. The article literally has two images.
- Articles in which this image appears
- The Barber of Seville
- FP category for this image
- WP:FP/THEATRE
- Creator
- Alexandre Fragonard, restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 20:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Is that splotch on the actress's dress supposed to be there? MER-C 12:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- @MER-C: It's impressive the things you miss after staring at a file for hours. It's fixed now. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 12:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 17:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. DreamSparrow Chat 05:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Portrait of Commander C. R. Perry Rodgers, officer of the Federal Navy LOC cwpb.05822- Restored.jpg
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2019 at 21:04:06 (UTC)
- Reason
- Restored image
- Articles in which this image appears
- C. R. Perry Rodgers
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military
- Creator
- Unknown, Restored by Eddie891
- Support as nominator – Eddie891 Talk Work 21:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support either Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 12:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – Should be the U.S. Navy, which has never been known as the "federal navy" – even, from what I've seen, during the Civil War. Sca (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sca: No, that actually was used during the civil war. See this search and this article for just two examples. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- I couldn't access your second cite.
In Eng.-lang. historiography, the U.S. Navy during the Civil War usually is referred to as the Union Navy (as the U.S. Army is termed the Union Army). See, for example, this article. – Sca (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- I couldn't access your second cite.
- Support either. MER-C 17:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support either, prefer Edit 1, or similar. The file pages say images were extracted from this, but they were extracted from this. There is minor scratch close to the tip of his left hand index finger, not sure if it needs fixing though. Bammesk (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The first one is cropped too much. The second would benefit from a little work around the left hand. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Would tentatively support Edit 1 as per my comment on the talk page. The pant leg could maybe take another pass or two (I'm not sure -- something looks very slightly off -- not a deal-breaker), and there's still a scratch on the pointer finger of the left hand that I presume Charles is referring to. I don't know if there's much else that can be done with the left hand, given the original. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Charlesjsharp and Rhododendrites I've further restored Edit one, removing the scratch on the pointer finger (I think?) Let my know how it looks... Eddie891 Talk Work 22:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 (the updated version following the "I've further restored" comment above) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Original too cropped for me. Support edit 1 Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I prefer to Support Edit 1 : DreamSparrow Chat 05:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Portrait of Commander C. R. Perry Rodgers, officer of the Federal Navy LOC cwpb.05822- Restored2.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Only edit 1 has enough support for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 22:20:39 (UTC)
- Reason
- This image is striking and unique in its ability to illustrate complex issues regarding Slovak complicity in the Holocaust, by depicting a disturbing scene involving members of the paramilitary Hlinka Guard forcibly cutting the beard of Lipa Baum during the deportations of Jews from Stropkov, Slovakia. At 1,782 × 1,132 pixels, it is a bit below the usual required resolution, but the quality is still quite good and it is unlikely that there is a higher quality picture of similar events.
- Articles in which this image appears
- The Holocaust in Slovakia, Hlinka Guard
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II
- Creator
- Anonymous, uploaded by User:Buidhe
- Support as nominator – buidhe 22:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – image is not currently in Commons, or in public domain in its home country. I doubt it meets FP criteria #4: "It is available in the public domain or under a free license." Bammesk (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Bammesk: It is in the public domain in the US, which is enough to use pictures on Wikipedia. If the images are required to be under a free license in their home countries as well, the criteria should be more clear about that. buidhe 20:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I cannot see any evidence that it was published in the United States between 1924 and 1977, which would be necessary both to satisfy that requirement, but also to see that it was not accompanied by a copyright notice. The source says it was taken from a 2001 source, which would not qualify for that tag. The default would be to assume it was first published in Czechoslovakia, in which case the rules of Slovakia would apply and this would not be in the public domain. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: I do not understand your comment. The image description page states that the image was "Published in the US in 1950 without a copyright notice, in The Tragedy of Slovak Jewry in Slovakia (1950) by Louis Mandel in New York, p. 30". Although the author indicates that he found the image in 1945 (p. 22) I suppose that it's possible that it was published in Slovakia between 1945 and 1948, which would make it PD-Anon-EU as well. The Communist government suppressed publications relating to the Holocaust after it came to power in 1948. Since the picture was taken by a perpetrator who was complicit in a blatantly criminal assault and I have not seen the photographer named in any of the places where this photograph is reproduced, it's reasonable to conclude that it was anonymous. buidhe 23:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I missed that line below the template (rarely anything outside of templates on file pages these days, for better or worse). So you are saying that you have seen the Mandel publication and it did not contain a copyright notice, or is that addressed through that website? Either way, if indeed we have no information about the photographer then we are indeed past the 70 year mark for anonymous works... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- The linked web page has a full copy of the book, with no copyright notice on any of the images. But anonymous EU photographs are protected 70 years from publication not creation, so the image shouldn't be transferred to commons until 2021. buidhe 05:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I missed that line below the template (rarely anything outside of templates on file pages these days, for better or worse). So you are saying that you have seen the Mandel publication and it did not contain a copyright notice, or is that addressed through that website? Either way, if indeed we have no information about the photographer then we are indeed past the 70 year mark for anonymous works... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: I do not understand your comment. The image description page states that the image was "Published in the US in 1950 without a copyright notice, in The Tragedy of Slovak Jewry in Slovakia (1950) by Louis Mandel in New York, p. 30". Although the author indicates that he found the image in 1945 (p. 22) I suppose that it's possible that it was published in Slovakia between 1945 and 1948, which would make it PD-Anon-EU as well. The Communist government suppressed publications relating to the Holocaust after it came to power in 1948. Since the picture was taken by a perpetrator who was complicit in a blatantly criminal assault and I have not seen the photographer named in any of the places where this photograph is reproduced, it's reasonable to conclude that it was anonymous. buidhe 23:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I cannot see any evidence that it was published in the United States between 1924 and 1977, which would be necessary both to satisfy that requirement, but also to see that it was not accompanied by a copyright notice. The source says it was taken from a 2001 source, which would not qualify for that tag. The default would be to assume it was first published in Czechoslovakia, in which case the rules of Slovakia would apply and this would not be in the public domain. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Bammesk: It is in the public domain in the US, which is enough to use pictures on Wikipedia. If the images are required to be under a free license in their home countries as well, the criteria should be more clear about that. buidhe 20:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Doesn't really add much value to the holocaust article. 11:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2019 at 05:54:18 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- good EV/quality. image is focus stacked and composited to include the same fruit in both whole and halved state
- Articles in which this image appears
- Hylocereus megalanthus, pitaya
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits
- Creator
- Rhododendrites
- Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- comment Nice idea, but I'm not sure it's really sharp enough. I'll go along with other voters though. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support It seems comparable to other fruit images. It might be able to be improved with a different white balance more than sharpness, I'd say; it gets a little light in the highlights. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 18:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I find the composition somewhat less pleasing than that of File:Pitaya cross section ed2.jpg, a current FP (though it's small by today's standards) of another species in the genus. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the fruit seems rotten to me. In Laos we have dragon fruit of this kind, and when the pulp is that color, it's only good for the garbage :-( But maybe this species is different. In any case, even the one at left really looks old and unattractive -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Basile Morin: ? The translucent/darker area just indicates it's getting overripe. It's sweeter, the texture isn't as firm, and the other flavors not as pronounced, but it's not much different than a brown spot on a banana. Personally, I prefer the firmer texture, so with this one, I ate part of it and used the rest in a smoothie. Definitely not rotten... not that this matters terribly to the quality of the image -- I guess just responding to encourage you not to throw them away when they're overripe. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, overripe is maybe more appropriate than rotten, however overripe fruits are not very attractive IMO. Bananas like those for example wouldn't gain my support either, even if the picture was perfectly focus stacked. Also technically the multiple shadows are a bit distracting for a studio shot, diffuse lamps would have been better, with a perfectly white background -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with the above commenters that the image could be improved in those ways, but there's enough EV for a weak support. MER-C 11:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2019 at 12:25:58 (UTC)
_male_close_up.jpg)
- Reason
- High quality large image. FP on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- hairy dragonfly
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
- Creator
- Charlesjsharp
- Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support I don't think this is the best view for the dragonfly overall, but this is a fascinating view of the behaviours, and a superb closeup. Caption, however, needs updated in the article. "In Estonia" is not the important takeaway from this image; if that was all we wanted, we'd be using File:Hairy dragonfly (Brachytron pratense) male on finger.jpg. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 13:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- done thanks Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 20:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- done thanks Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 11:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
_male_on_finger.jpg){kind=link}
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2019 at 12:49:46 (UTC)
_male_3.jpg)
- Reason
- High quality large image. FP on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- beautiful demoiselle, Damselfly, Zygoptera
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
- Creator
- Charlesjsharp
- Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support The head is slightly blurry, but other than that, this is excellent. There's possibly some slight overexposure in some of the highlights, but it seems the kind of thing that's unavoidable in any good photograph of this species, and does not detract. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 13:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- We have three FPs of this species already: File:ColapteryxVirgo.jpg A female, File:Calopteryx virgo male.jpg a juveline male and File:Beautiful Demoiselle Calopteryx virgo.jpg (not used) male, but will be nominated for delisting if my nomination is promoted. How is this one different? MER-C 11:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Good question, MER-C. I've indicated the differences above in bold. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Second point - the image should be exported at a higher quality. There are noticeable artifacts in the bokeh. (I'm quite surprised that Commons FPC didn't pick up on this.) MER-C 13:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Exported at highest quality available. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I see a halo around the dark wing - is it real, or just Mach bands? --Janke | Talk 08:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- so do I, but as it's not around all the wing I don't think it's from post-processing. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just checked in Photoshop - I'd say it's definitely an artifact; look at the blue channel - value changes 10-15 units near the wing. --Janke | Talk 14:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- so do I, but as it's not around all the wing I don't think it's from post-processing. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2019 at 16:45:45 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution, used in article as marque image, free license, widely used by Google. Unusually good lighting and interesting composition. Complete high res picture of locomotive and passenger car in CT rail livery.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Hartford Line
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
- Creator
- Jehochman
- Support as nominator – Jehochman Talk 16:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - cut off on the right hand side. MER-C 18:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- The train is also cut off on the left hand side. :-) I framed it this way on purpose, but maybe my sense of aesthetics is weird. To advance my understanding of this process, if not for the framing issue, would you support it? Jehochman Talk 20:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, but my other concerns are fixable if you still have the original image from the camera - the JPEG quality is too low (resulting in visible artifacts and a little loss in sharpness). Also, the image appears to be slightly tilted. The train being cut off on the left is fine, however a better composition would not only contain all of the locomotive but also some lead room. MER-C 20:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. I’ll keep that in mind for the future. Jehochman Talk 21:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- The train is also cut off on the left hand side. :-) I framed it this way on purpose, but maybe my sense of aesthetics is weird. To advance my understanding of this process, if not for the framing issue, would you support it? Jehochman Talk 20:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Would generally agree with MER-C about the right crop. The composition is otherwise quite good. Ditto the light/color. The reason I'm commenting, though, is because there's something I think is implied in a comment above that may not be clear. I believe when MER-C says "if you still have the original image" it's based on the assumption that a stand-alone digital camera was used. From the EXIF, it looks like it's an iPhone picture. Smartphone pictures have come a long way, but it's still going to be really really hard to get FP-level quality with one. It just can't get the level of detail. "The original image" would likely reference the raw file a digital camera could take, which could then be processed before jpeg compression (and customize that compression). I learned all of this the hard way, sending my smartphone images through QIC on Commons... the beating they gave my phone's camera was my motivation to buy an inexpensive mirrorless camera. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for that advice. We have a couple nice digital cameras in the family. I just need to nick one from the kids. This was the most interesting photo I've uploaded, so I wanted to see if it was deficient, and how it might be deficient, to use that information for making a serious effort to take some FP's. The above image was a chance happening, unprepared. Next time I'll bring a real camera and take a sequence of shots so that at least one of them will have acceptable lead room. At least I know where to stand and what time of day to get a great shot. Jehochman Talk 22:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with this sentiment. You've got the right idea, it just needs some refinement. (My comment about "the original image" was referring to RAW, or the original high-quality JPEG.) MER-C 12:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – Aside from the tight crop, this unpeopled shot of a EMD GP40 diesel-electric locomotive, of which thousands have been built, seems unexceptional. Also, this 60-mile rail link, while of regional utility, doesn't seem particularly significant, despite the 2,000+ -word target article about it. – Sca (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- If thousands of this engine have been built, it is a significant engine, yet we have no featured pictures of it. This particular one is a very rare GP40-3H, not the standard EMD GP40. There are exactly six of these in the world. If I go take a proper photo, composed like this one but with lead space and eliminating the JPG artifacts, will you still object? Jehochman Talk 16:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Is the 3H version noticeably different in appearance from the standard GP40? That might give it some EV. But in general, photos of machines (and other objects) are more interesting if they include people doing something. (So happens I took this photo of a (GP-9?) loc., but I wouldn't offer it as an FP candidate – too static.) – Sca (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Any change is internal. What about the engineeer? You can see his arm but his face is blocked by the mirror. If I alter the vantage point slightly I could get him in the shot. Fortunately this train is in the same place every day at approximately the same time. Jehochman Talk 19:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Is the 3H version noticeably different in appearance from the standard GP40? That might give it some EV. But in general, photos of machines (and other objects) are more interesting if they include people doing something. (So happens I took this photo of a (GP-9?) loc., but I wouldn't offer it as an FP candidate – too static.) – Sca (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- If thousands of this engine have been built, it is a significant engine, yet we have no featured pictures of it. This particular one is a very rare GP40-3H, not the standard EMD GP40. There are exactly six of these in the world. If I go take a proper photo, composed like this one but with lead space and eliminating the JPG artifacts, will you still object? Jehochman Talk 16:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2019 at 17:21:13 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- A notable Christian church with historic background. I think I have captured a better inside view of the church. Currently there is no other FP in the page. The flower bokehs on bottom corners are slightly distracting the image still with good quality and lighting.
- Articles in which this image appears
- St. Mary's Syro-Malabar Cathedral Basilica, Ernakulam, List of Catholic basilicas, Catholic Marian church buildings, Religion in Kerala
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Creator
- Augustus Binu
- Support either as nominator – DreamSparrow Chat 17:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - @Mydreamsparrow: Some of the highlights are blown, losing some detail. Seems likely fixable, as the rest looks good. Most noticeable on the flowers along the middle aisle, and less so in a few areas in the very middle of the image. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Rhododendrites. If you can recover the highlights (or reshoot with a lower exposure/HDR), this image would likely be of FP standard. MER-C 12:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support either but with advice: If you can't recover the highlights, why not crop a bit off the bottom to at least draw the eye away from them? They're a bit too prominent now, but some croptool experimentation says it looks pretty good with less of them in frame. I've done one as an example, feel free to replace it with one of your own, or just remove it if you can get the highlights fixed properly.. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 12:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2019 at 12:26:18 (UTC)
- Reason
- She's a notable singer, which is enough in its own right, I think, and File:Josephine Fodor-Mainvielle Litho.jpg was the image previously in use, which is a really good reason to fix things, I think. As for the art itself, since she predates photography, I'd say it's probably one of the best representations of her we're likely to get. It's on the upper tier of lithographs. I'm just hoping the current slump at FPC is over - seriously, almost nothing's getting voted on - but I'm also aware that lack of activity here is a problem as well, as people don't check if there's no activity....
- Articles in which this image appears
- Joséphine Fodor
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
- Creator
- Jean-Baptiste Singry, restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 12:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 12:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support - This one looks good to me. Mattximus (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I may be wrong, but it looks like a trace of the dark splotches may remain in the right corner of her mouth (our left). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- If you zoom out, it matches the other side pretty well, though. I'm inclined to presume original, or at least within the levels of inherent randomness a lithograph has. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 20:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Aoba47 (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Jean-Baptiste Singry - Joséphine Mainvielle-Fodor.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2019 at 20:52:50 (UTC)
- Reason
- I'm going to take a wild punt here and nominate this reproduction of this award-winning, classic comedy whose copyright expired at the beginning of this year.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Safety Last!
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
- Creator
- (see article)
- Support as nominator – MER-C 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support – EV, too bad it's missing audio, I assume the audio is not in public domain. Bammesk (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's a silent film - the audio may have been improvised or lost altogether. MER-C 21:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Theaters usually had an organist playing some incidental music in "sync" with what happened on the screen. Sometimes, studios provided sheet music for specific movies, and if so, composed in 1923 that would be public domain, too - right? Would be nice to find an example... See [1] for examples from other Lloyd films. Support by the way. Janke | Talk 10:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- The recordings themselves are likely still copyrighted for... reasons. The nonsense has been sorted out, but it will take another four years for sounds recorded in 1923 to be PD. The sheet music should be PD, but may have been lost as well. MER-C 11:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Theaters usually had an organist playing some incidental music in "sync" with what happened on the screen. Sometimes, studios provided sheet music for specific movies, and if so, composed in 1923 that would be public domain, too - right? Would be nice to find an example... See [1] for examples from other Lloyd films. Support by the way. Janke | Talk 10:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's a silent film - the audio may have been improvised or lost altogether. MER-C 21:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- I meant the later music score written for it in 1993, in this video and mentioned in this section. The original music would be nicer of course if it exists. Bammesk (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 01:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great! --Yann (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support This is a fantastic comedy. Good quality in the file too. Abzeronow (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Aoba47 (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Safety Last (1923).webm --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2019 at 23:12:50 (UTC)
- Reason
- high EV, high quality.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Iceberg
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others
- Creator
- AWeith
- Support as nominator - I learned today that one of my favorite Commons photographers, AWeith, has died, and found myself going back through some of his stunning Arctic photography. Looks like a few good candidates for FP among them. – — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 10:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great view -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. - DreamSparrow Chat 05:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Conveys with photographic immediacy the underwater extent of the iceberg, something normally only represented in words, diagrams, or drawings. —Syrenka V (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Iceberg in the Arctic with its underside exposed.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2019 at 23:17:10 (UTC)
- Reason
- very high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Polar bear, Global warming, Pagophily
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Creator
- AWeith
- Support as nominator – I learned today that one of my favorite Commons photographers, AWeith, has died, and found myself going back through some of his stunning Arctic photography. Looks like a few good candidates for FP among them. - — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support - it's a little noisy and underexposed, but otherwise fine. EV carried it over the line on Commons, and is much more important here. MER-C 11:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. A powerful and valuable image. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support a striking image. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 21:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Horrifying, but that response only underscores the power of the image. —Syrenka V (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Aoba47 (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Endangered arctic - starving polar bear.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2019 at 03:32:49 (UTC)
- Reason
- High educational value, good quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Syzygium samarangense, List of Syzygium species
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits
- Creator
- Basile Morin
- Support as nominator – Basile Morin (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 15:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Truly impressed by the composition. I honestly thought this was some master artist's still life. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 20:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support.- DreamSparrow Chat 05:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Lovely composition as stated above. Also, it serves as a close-up illustration of multiple aspects of the fruit, from both culinary and scientific standpoints. —Syrenka V (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Syzygium fruit.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 03:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 11:47:44 (UTC)
_in_Dark_theme.png)
- Reason
- It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. It is very beautiful and only free software screen-shot that has been nominated! its previous revision was selected as a featured picture and Picture of the day on the Persian Wiki last year.
- Articles in which this image appears
- GNOME, Debian on many different wikis
- FP category for this image
- "Engineering and technology/Electronics" because it contains many images of computer hardware, or "Engineering and technology/Others" because it comes from Software Engineering
- Creator
- me (User:Editor-1)
- Support as nominator – Editor-1 (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - doesn't meet minimum resolution requirements, needs to be 1440p or greater. MER-C 15:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Dear MER-C, this image is actually a computer generated image and its quality is very different than a real photograph image, it should be considered as a "Animation" image, a still animation image, not a photograph, and per Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria:
- "*Animations* and video may be somewhat smaller"
- "Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, *technically difficult* or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired."
- for taking this screenshot in 1440p I need a 4K monitor, but my monitor and most monitors used by people are 1080p or less, so technically it is very difficult and I can't buy a 4K monitor just to take 1 screenshot, please take it easy. Editor-1 (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- This image is in no way technically difficult - a Linux user can reproduce it in ten minutes. A 1440p monitor is significantly cheaper than some of the DSLRs and lens kits used around here. MER-C 10:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- for taking this screenshot in 1440p I need a 4K monitor, but my monitor and most monitors used by people are 1080p or less, so technically it is very difficult and I can't buy a 4K monitor just to take 1 screenshot, please take it easy. Editor-1 (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – Too cramped. –KAMiKAZOW (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- This log shows that you have 100 edit on the KDE article (4.28% of the total edits made to the page) since 13 January 2008!! so you are a KDE hardcore fan/user/developer and have "Conflict of Interest" so your vote is not valid because KDE is the main competitor of GNOME. Also what does mean "Too cramped"? explain more details. -- Editor-1 (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that editing an article in the field means that they're ineligible. Please don't make unsubstantiated accusations here. I presume there are many GNOME layouts possible, after all, and there is some overlapping of elements. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 05:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – In addition to the size objections, this complex image is not visually accessible to most Main Page readers who are not acquainted with the relevant technology. Sca (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't think the resolution is a big deal. I don't think it makes sense to consider it an animation, but it's true that the reason for that minimum is most connected to photo quality. Nobody would expect a, say, 12 megapixel screenshot. What we want is for it to be a high-quality representation of what something really looks like. That takes more pixels for most photographic subjects, and if we somehow had a 12 MP screenshot it would not actually look like the thing being depicted. My question is about the layout. It's been a long time since I've used GNOME, I would much more expect a typical desktop screen, with icons, etc. and maybe one window open, rather than every bit of space taken up by open programs. I don't know. It seems like a really hard thing for FPC. I don't think it matters at all if people looking at the main page don't know what it is. There's a blurb there, after all, and we're not trying to only appeal to the lowest common denominator. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy close, I refused. -- Editor-1 (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- At the request of the nominator, see talk page. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2019 at 20:42:37 (UTC)
- Reason
- Notability is a good start, these are great documents of the original production. It's also a nice example of what restoration can do: Three images, cut to pieces, reconnected after at least a century and a half. And it shows the value of high-quality, consistent scanning. More notes on the File description page.
- Articles in which this image appears
- William Tell (opera), Laure Cinti-Damoreau, Adolphe Nourrit, and Nicolas Levasseur
- FP category for this image
- You could argue for people, but I'd say WP:FP/THEATRE
- Creator
- Eugène Du Faget, restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 20:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Is it just me, or is the paper around (our) right hand of Nicolas Levasseur discoloured due to cloning? MER-C 21:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- If I'm looking at what you are, checking the original, it appears to have a slight halo there as well. I think it's just a little bit of paint tint. You know Levasseur's the far right one? Because I find it slightly odd you mention which hand when only one is visible at all. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 21:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. DreamSparrow Chat 05:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 00:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2019 at 06:36:04 (UTC)
- Reason
- ...I don't think I need to defend this one. It's from the opera's first performance, it's particularly good lithography (albeit from a timeperiod after photography, which might have helped - compare the Barber of Seville lithograph nominated down the page, which is probably in the highest quality tier of the pre-photography lithographs, and also shows the differences: that one is very active, whereas this is more realistic, but also more static. There's also a few other differences: A poster is bigger than a standard lithograph, so the grain size, relative to the image, is a lot smaller, meaning this has more detail, but that's just an aspect of the medium.) It has great composition and layout. And, y'know, things on here are starting to pass again - with some casualties near the bottom of the page - so it's time to bring things back out.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Gillette de Narbonne
- FP category for this image
- WP:FP/THEATRE
- Creator
- Paul Maurou, restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 06:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 19:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- DreamSparrow Chat 13:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Paul Maurou - Poster for Edmond Audran's Gillette de Narbonne.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 19:17:07 (UTC)
- Reason
- This photo captures a pivotal moment in John F. Kennedy's presidency and in the African-American civil rights movement, when on June 11, 1963, he delivered a televised speech to the nation, discussing the integration of the University of Alabama earlier that day, civil rights in America as a whole, and proposing new legislation which would eventually become the monumental Civil Rights Act of 1964. Several historians such as Carl Bauer and Peniel E. Joseph have noted the significance of this moment in American history, and this is reflected by this photo's appearance in numerous Wikipedia articles, not only on en.wp but across other language versions as well. This photo captures an important moment in American history, is of good quality, good resolution (best that could be obtained from the JFK library's website), is in the public domain (as the work of an official US government photographer), has a sufficient English description, and has been subjected to no digital manipulation.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Report to the American People on Civil Rights, John F. Kennedy, Civil Rights Act of 1964, History of the United States, Presidency of John F. Kennedy, Birmingham Campaign
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History, Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
- Creator
- Taken by Abbie Rowe, uploaded by Tom
Support as nominator– Indy beetle (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)- Speedy close - well below the resolution limit. MER-C 20:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired." -Indy beetle (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- A higher resolution scan of the photo can be made. MER-C 20:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Presumably, that would require traveling to the JFK Library and requesting access to the original negative. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- A higher resolution scan of the photo can be made. MER-C 20:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired." -Indy beetle (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Yes, historical, but too small. --Yann (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Far too small to be featured. Mattximus (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Request withdraw. This isn't going to go anywhere. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2019 at 18:42:04 (UTC)
_composite.jpg)
- Reason
- Was put up for FP two years ago and ended on 3-0.5. As with many time series images, the EV is strong and obvious and I feel the image deserves another hearing. The half oppose was over some confusion with the caption, something I've rectified.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Suspensory behavior, Proboscis monkey
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Creator
- Charlesjsharp
- Support as nominator – MER-C 18:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support thanks MER-C, Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose – Nicely done, but presumably most readers would think it showed three monkeys, not the same one. Sca (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 00:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support - nicely-done and high EV. TSP (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus) composite.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2019 at 19:53:57 (UTC)
- Reason
- This single visually striking image illustrates multiple chemical aspects of these two heavy alkali metals: their fierce reactivity, which requires them to be confined within glass ampules; their metallic luster due to electron delocalization, which illustrates their character as true metals; their low melting points, allowing them to liquefy just above room temperature (caesium) or just above human body temperature (rubidium); their tendency to form dendritic crystals; and the relativistic effect that gives a golden hue to the heavier of the two (caesium), but not the lighter (rubidium). This multifaceted educational value enables this image to add to the communicative power of at least five different Wikipedia pages.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Caesium, Relativistic quantum chemistry, Rubidium, Dendrite (metal), Dendrite (crystal)
- FP category for this image
- WP:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
- Creator
- ErpingWu
- Support as nominator – Syrenka V (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Is that paper with 7mm or 5mm squares? Or perhaps imperial measures? Need to know... ;-) Also, DOF a bit shallow, a tilt and shift lens shot would have been sharper overall. --Janke | Talk 20:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Janke, contents are 5 grams and densities are known, so volumes are known. Using that, I did a check, 7mm grid doesn't fit the photo at all. 10mm grid does. 9 and 11mm also fit but not as nicely as 10. So I think it is 10mm. Bammesk (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I sharpened the front portion of the image and did an upload. The sharpening is tapered vertically over three steps. Feel free to revert, improve and comment on the upload. Support, EV per nom reason, it shows the solid, liquid, crystal states at the same time. Bammesk (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - unfortunately some of the unsharpness is also due to JPEG artifacts in the original, and the sharpening has made them worse. The composition and subject are, however, FP worthy. MER-C 18:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The Rubidium's fantastic, but I can't get over the Caesium's blurriness, even after fixes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 02:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2019 at 06:41:51 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very beautiful image that represent the tourism capability of the Mountain city of Pokhara, Nepal.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Pokhara, Phewa Lake പൊഖാറ, ഫേവ തടാകം
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
- Creator
- User:Sanu N
- Support as nominator – N Sanu / എന് സാനു / एन सानू 06:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Transcluding nomination. MER-C 10:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – pretty but I think the infobox image of the lake article has more EV, it a better depiction of the lake's setting. Bammesk (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - agree a daytime shot would be better. The low lighting doesn't do the surrounds justice. MER-C 11:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2019 at 10:55:54 (UTC)
- Reason
- The photograph is well-composed, well-lit and sharp, and shows the cat in an interesting pose.
- Articles in which this image appears
- margay
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Creator
- Supreet Sahoo
- Support as nominator – cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Transcluding nomination. MER-C 10:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Support Excellent photo, but poor resolution. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 23:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – Image has a watermark on top right side, it should be removed. Bammesk (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - agree that this is a nice shot, but resolution technically doesn't meet the criteria. MER-C 11:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- oppose watermark. should only be removed by image-rights holder. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose watermark, and under minimum resolution. Mattximus (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2019 at 23:22:57 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- One of my favourite artists, in another fine work. We can always CSS crop some of the border if needed.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Les Huguenots
- FP category for this image
- WP:FP/THEATRE
- Creator
- Philippe Chaperon, restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 23:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 12:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- DreamSparrow Chat 14:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Commment It was removed from Philippe Chaperon. What EV does the border add? JJ Harrison (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Remember this was meant to be seen on a stage, so I imagine it's intended as a framing á là seeing it in the the theatre. In any case, it's part of the original artwork, and with {{CSS image crop}} a there is absolutely no reason to remove it from the promoted artwork, and so we shouldn't. It presents the image as it was intended to be seen. Philippe Chaperon is in a high state of flux, having just been created a week or so ago, so don't worry about that. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 09:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's a beautiful restoration. However, I doubt very much if the framing was integral to the design or how it was "meant to be seen" and certainly not the lighter ivory-coloured paper on which it was painted which increases the border even more. It was fairly common for Chaperon to paint a darker "frame" around his gouaches, e.g. this landscape (not a theatrical design). Incidentally, I replaced this image in the gallery at Philippe Chaperon because the Oberon image was more interesting in that particular gallery, especially with sunlight streaming through the window. It was not a judgement on this image's overall EV or quality. Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Remember this was meant to be seen on a stage, so I imagine it's intended as a framing á là seeing it in the the theatre. In any case, it's part of the original artwork, and with {{CSS image crop}} a there is absolutely no reason to remove it from the promoted artwork, and so we shouldn't. It presents the image as it was intended to be seen. Philippe Chaperon is in a high state of flux, having just been created a week or so ago, so don't worry about that. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 09:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's not paper, that's gold paint. Trust me, after spending literally a dozen hours on it.... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 14:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- @JJ Harrison and Voceditenore: I should point out this is consistent with other featured pictures we have. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 21:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's not paper, that's gold paint. Trust me, after spending literally a dozen hours on it.... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 14:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support JJ Harrison (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support cropped THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Philippe Chaperon - Meyerbeer - Les Huguenots Act I (1896).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 03:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2019 at 15:00:02 (UTC)
- Reason
- high resolution and quality of a famous sculpture, lead image in the article
- Articles in which this image appears
- Lansdowne Heracles
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture
- Creator
- unknown Roman sculptor / J. Paul Getty Museum
- Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Awesome lighting. Reducing noise a bit without loosing the sharpness would give an amazing result I feel. Quality is perfect and superb size. I Support : DreamSparrow Chat 16:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - definitely could benefit from a noise reduction but is otherwise fine. MER-C 17:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with above. BTW: Who censored Heracles? Or is it that cold in the Getty Villa? ;-) --Janke | Talk 22:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 07:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support JJ Harrison (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as is, sorry to crash the party, it needs noise reduction, per above. Doesn't meet FP criteria 1.Bammesk (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Mydreamsparrow, MER-C, Janke, Adam Cuerden, and Bammesk: Yes, but noise reduction should be done only on the background. I am not very proficient with this kind of editing. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I struck my oppose. This is a high resolution pro shot, the noise isn't substantial relative to the image details. I was able to reduce the noise a bit, but the improvement was not worth revising the high quality original. Bammesk (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Lansdowne Herakles Getty Museum.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 08:56:14 (UTC)
- Reason
- Nominating as a set - both are encyclopaedic, high quality, and the similar composition aids comparison
- Articles in which this image appears
- Hardhead
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Conditionalsupport Since this is a set, is the lighting and exposure the same, but the reflections merely different on different parts of the pond, or is the male photo taken in less light? It looks a bit different, but that may be the ripples. I could support each of these individually, but if they're a set, and the exposure varies, we should probably fix that. If you can either assure me that it's just the ripples/part of the pond/angle/whatever, and the ducks themselves have the same exposure and lighting, OR adjust it so they match, I'm happy to support. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 09:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)- They're on slightly different bits of the pond and the backgrounds are different. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support both. I think it's the apparent difference in brightness is due to the male having darker feathers and the ripples. MER-C 11:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note to self: supersedes existing FP File:Female Hardhead duck.jpg. MER-C 13:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support – Yann (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Aythya australis male - Hurstville Golf Course.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Aythya australis female - Hurstville Golf Course.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 08:59:07 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality image in natural habitat. One duck nomination is not enough duck nominations.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Grey teal
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Tail's a little more out of focus than I'd prefer, but this otherwise has no problems. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 09:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I find the small water droplets reflecting sunlight to be a little glaring. They are also clipped, mainly in red. This is an easy support if the highlights can be recovered, but as is I'm not quite sure. MER-C 18:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Yann: A second version of the image has been uploaded over the original that recovers highlights and improves sharpness somewhat. It's certainly an improvement, though the droplets still don't have enough color information in them to make it obvious that they are small water droplets. As for me, I'm still on the fence for that reason. MER-C 12:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The overexposed area is disturbing. I would support if that is fixed. --Yann (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment head is really sharp, but back end is not in focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'll ask the duck to go on a diet so it fits within the depth of field and get back to you. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, that would be helpful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'll ask the duck to go on a diet so it fits within the depth of field and get back to you. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 09:01:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality. Less common and harder to photograph than the other ducks noms.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Pink-eared duck, List of birds of Australia
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I think the biggest problem with this one is the bit of branch on its bill meant I could not interpret the oddly-shaped sides of the bill until I compared it with other images (kind of looked like it was eating something, and the sides of the bill were the thing it was eating. Other than that, it's excellent. I know, however, that my mind is simply bad at interpreting that sort of thing, so does anyone else have that problem? If not, I'm happy to
Support.Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 09:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)- It looked like mud to me, but it's real. Support any by the way (prefer retouched). MER-C 11:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support original, opposed retouched There's a subtle band of colour where the stick was, as well as the shadow of it on the side of the bill. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 02:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Would it be sacrilegious to clone out that little stick on the bill? --Janke | Talk 20:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- We have had bird noms which had details cloned out, examples [2], [3]. I support removing the small branch. Bammesk (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Let's ask JJH to clone out ihe stick in his RAW file, right? When done, I'll support. --Janke | Talk 13:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- However, neither of those clones affected the main subject, which is a significant difference. FP criteria say, "Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable." While "misrepresented" is obviously subjective, cloning out the branch would mean featuring a picture where part of the subject was in fact cloned from elsewhere (perhaps in ways that subtly misrepresent the subject). This seems inadvisable to me. TSP (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- There's room for reasonable disagreement here, but I don't think that that "part of the subject [being] cloned from elsewhere" necessarily implies that the subject is being "misrepresented". I think a change would be relatively innocuous - indeed, given the potential for confusion as to what is and isn't part of the duck's bill, I think cloning could here reduce confusion, and thus (inadvertent) misrepresentation. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'll have a crack at it soon. There seems to be some precedent for cloning in for e.g. digital restorations. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- For me, the cloning is not needed here. The twig is on the bird rather than being in the background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- IMO, clonong is needed. Otherwise, you'd think that the strange shape of the bill is just mud or other stuff. Cloning away the twig would leave the very peculiar shape of the bill clearly to be seen without confusion. Conditional support if twig is cloned away. --Janke | Talk 11:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've made an edit using the content aware fill tool. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support retouched only - now, you can clearly see the shape of the bill. --Janke | Talk 22:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- IMO, clonong is needed. Otherwise, you'd think that the strange shape of the bill is just mud or other stuff. Cloning away the twig would leave the very peculiar shape of the bill clearly to be seen without confusion. Conditional support if twig is cloned away. --Janke | Talk 11:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- For me, the cloning is not needed here. The twig is on the bird rather than being in the background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'll have a crack at it soon. There seems to be some precedent for cloning in for e.g. digital restorations. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- There's room for reasonable disagreement here, but I don't think that that "part of the subject [being] cloned from elsewhere" necessarily implies that the subject is being "misrepresented". I think a change would be relatively innocuous - indeed, given the potential for confusion as to what is and isn't part of the duck's bill, I think cloning could here reduce confusion, and thus (inadvertent) misrepresentation. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- However, neither of those clones affected the main subject, which is a significant difference. FP criteria say, "Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable." While "misrepresented" is obviously subjective, cloning out the branch would mean featuring a picture where part of the subject was in fact cloned from elsewhere (perhaps in ways that subtly misrepresent the subject). This seems inadvisable to me. TSP (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Let's ask JJH to clone out ihe stick in his RAW file, right? When done, I'll support. --Janke | Talk 13:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- We have had bird noms which had details cloned out, examples [2], [3]. I support removing the small branch. Bammesk (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Retouched – Bammesk (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Original but happy to go with the majority if the retouched is preferred. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose retouched, neutral original - it's a good photo, but I'd argue that if a reasonably reproducible shot can't be featured without cloning in part of the main subject, it probably shouldn't be featured - a photo where part of the thing depicted is fake falls short of being the best of Wikipedia photography. (This is distinct from restorations, where it isn't possible to retake the shot and a restoration gives the best possible version.) TSP (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- The stick thing arrived there from feeding, so I think it has some EV. As far as me getting another photo without one, I would most likely need to get on a plane and visit another part of Australia. Per the article they're only nomadic visitors to my part of the country. This was the case in Tasmania too where I last saw one in 2011! JJ Harrison (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I sympathise; and it's certainly a good, valuable, encyclopedic shot, and if editors feel that it's featurable with the stick in place, that's great. If editors feel that the stick needs to be edited out, my feeling is that moves it below featurable standard. Not that it's not a great shot; but featured images should be the very best, most encyclopedically-valuable possible works among the 50 million images available to Wikipedia; and in my view, if part of the main subject of a potentially (even if not trivially) reproducible photo has had to be faked to make up for a perceived problem, that moves it below that bar. TSP (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- I beg to disagree. The removal of the twig has made the bill shape clear; originally I thought the edge of the bill was mud! Besides, if JJH had shot the picture a few seconds before the duck got the twig on its bill, we'd have a photo just like the retouched one. Removing something confusing that isn't a part of the duck increases EV, IMO. --Janke | Talk 22:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- I sympathise; and it's certainly a good, valuable, encyclopedic shot, and if editors feel that it's featurable with the stick in place, that's great. If editors feel that the stick needs to be edited out, my feeling is that moves it below featurable standard. Not that it's not a great shot; but featured images should be the very best, most encyclopedically-valuable possible works among the 50 million images available to Wikipedia; and in my view, if part of the main subject of a potentially (even if not trivially) reproducible photo has had to be faked to make up for a perceived problem, that moves it below that bar. TSP (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- The stick thing arrived there from feeding, so I think it has some EV. As far as me getting another photo without one, I would most likely need to get on a plane and visit another part of Australia. Per the article they're only nomadic visitors to my part of the country. This was the case in Tasmania too where I last saw one in 2011! JJ Harrison (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
![[2]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Tropical_kingbird_(Tyrannus_melancholicus).JPG){kind=link}
![[3]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Common_black-hawk_(Buteogallus_anthracinus_gundlachii).JPG){kind=link}
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- None of the images has enough support for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 10:40:15 (UTC)
- Reason
- It is a clear and well-coloured representation of the famous periodic table. If passed, I would also like to fast-track it to POTD this March, to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the periodic table.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Periodic table, Chemical element, Chemistry + 13 others
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others
- Creator
- the creator of the image, where possible using the format Offnfopt
- Support as nominator – — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Let's say I didn't know anything about the periodic table. What do the colors mean? What do the numbers mean? Something like File:Tableau périodique des éléments.svg, but in English, would be better. I agree we should do something, but this isn't it. Possible alternatives could be images of Dmitri Mendeleev or something like File:Dmitry Mendeleyev Osnovy Khimii 1869-1871 first periodic table.jpg. MER-C 14:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well fair enough, but the way I was seeing it was that this image exists to illustrate the periodic table article. The French one is nice, but has too much detail to be usable as the main image. The advantage of the one we're using here is that it is legible at the resolutions typically found on a Wikipedia page. So although it lacks the full detail (which can be seen a little further down the article) it is actually usable for anyone who does have a vague idea of what the table is, and I think provides a good basic illustration. The scan of the first periodic table is a good idea, but the version you've linked seems kind of blurry to me. So unless there's no other detail available anywhere I'm not sure that one would pass muster? — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- I get your point about being at display resolution, however my objection about the lack of explanation of the colors still stands. This is certainly a topic that admits at least one FP, but to the best of my knowledge Commons doesn't have an FP-worthy image at the moment. MER-C 16:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Stretching the remit a bit further, we have this photo of Niels Bohr, who put forward the first explanation of the structure of the periodic table. It needs restoration, though. MER-C 16:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:MER-C, I will give the restoration a go. Btw that's a big stretch, he doesn't look like an element, but I am sure he is made of them :-) Bammesk (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I imagine the POTD blurb will talk about the Bohr model, atomic structure and how it explains the periodic table. I had a thorough look for better alternatives, but the best images in the US National Archive (of Glenn Seaborg) were copyrighted. I also looked for images of Yuri Oganessian to no avail. There is hopefully a relevant image in an institution somewhere that hasn't been scanned yet, but we'll see. MER-C 21:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- The tiff image you linked to here is about 3300x4700px after the borders are removed. It has a bit more detail, better lighting and shows more of his torso than the infobox image. I will go with it, but if you find a better one let me know. Bammesk (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I imagine the POTD blurb will talk about the Bohr model, atomic structure and how it explains the periodic table. I had a thorough look for better alternatives, but the best images in the US National Archive (of Glenn Seaborg) were copyrighted. I also looked for images of Yuri Oganessian to no avail. There is hopefully a relevant image in an institution somewhere that hasn't been scanned yet, but we'll see. MER-C 21:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- User:MER-C, I will give the restoration a go. Btw that's a big stretch, he doesn't look like an element, but I am sure he is made of them :-) Bammesk (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Stretching the remit a bit further, we have this photo of Niels Bohr, who put forward the first explanation of the structure of the periodic table. It needs restoration, though. MER-C 16:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I get your point about being at display resolution, however my objection about the lack of explanation of the colors still stands. This is certainly a topic that admits at least one FP, but to the best of my knowledge Commons doesn't have an FP-worthy image at the moment. MER-C 16:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well fair enough, but the way I was seeing it was that this image exists to illustrate the periodic table article. The French one is nice, but has too much detail to be usable as the main image. The advantage of the one we're using here is that it is legible at the resolutions typically found on a Wikipedia page. So although it lacks the full detail (which can be seen a little further down the article) it is actually usable for anyone who does have a vague idea of what the table is, and I think provides a good basic illustration. The scan of the first periodic table is a good idea, but the version you've linked seems kind of blurry to me. So unless there's no other detail available anywhere I'm not sure that one would pass muster? — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose A modern periodic table is a wealth of detailed information. This one is not. Amongst other information left out:
- Names of the elements
- Average atomic mass
- Key to the colours. Also, are they colourblind-friendly?
- And that's not getting into common oxidation states, names of the groups (e.g. chalcogens) and other less common inclusions. Worse, this being the lead for the article makes it the first result for periodic table in google, thus harming other sites. If some of it can't be read at thumbnail, that's fine. Treating that as your goal makes this a terrible standardisation of the periodic table, more style than substance. Imagine being given this in a chemistry class. The French example, frankly, is almost an ideal main image, as it actually includes everything that can be minimally expected instead of actively misleading: The lead image is meant to be a typical example for things like this, not - and I hope you'll forgive this, but I think it's useful for making my reasoning clear - the sort of equivalent that that one sect that worships science in Bester's The Stars My Destination would come up with as they know the style, but not the reasoning behind it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 17:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Woefully incomplete. Somewhere I saw a PT with clickable elements - popups appeared. An idea for someone interested? (Edit: The larger table on the Wiki PT page is "kinda like" that, you just have to hover the mouse pointer over the element...) --Janke | Talk 19:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per my reasoning for the 2015 nom of a very similar version: "There's of course no questioning the EV of the periodic table, but as an image, the presentation could be much better. The tables in most standard chemistry textbooks are much more visually appealing, IMO. The numbers here are too large relative to the elemental symbols, and the thickness of most lines result in much visual clutter. The legend is also missing from the image description page." Agree that an FP of the periodic table should be one of the full detailed version, not a simplified made-for-thumbnail one. If it's technically better represented using table syntax (as currently done in the article), it probably doesn't need to be an FP. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose For one, no indication of what the colours mean. Mattximus (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 14:19:59 (UTC)
_devorando_un_ant%C3%ADlope,_parque_nacional_Kruger,_Sud%C3%A1frica,_2018-07-26,_DD_07.jpg)
_devorando_un_ant%C3%ADlope,_parque_nacional_Kruger,_Sud%C3%A1frica,_2018-07-26,_DD_06.jpg)
- Reason
- High EV depicting behavior, featured on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- African leopard, leopard
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Creator
- Diego Delso
- Support any as nominator. MER-C 14:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Original : Good EV and super effort : DreamSparrow Chat 06:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support either, minor preference for Alt 1 - the alt is more tightly-framed, and clearly shows both leopard and antelope. While it doesn't show the very act of eating as the original does, the improved framing and clarity of the two subjects just wins for me. TSP (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1 – per TSP. Bammesk (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support both probably prefer Alt 1 as it's going to look better in article thumbnails, but they're both superb. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 16:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1. Gnosis (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support red-nosed Alt 1. --Janke | Talk 11:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support original - I prefer the one that illustrates the act of bringing prey up into the tree — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support I also think that Alt 1 is slight better for Wikipedia. --Yann (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Leopardo (Panthera pardus) devorando un antílope, parque nacional Kruger, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-26, DD 06.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 07:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Alt 1 has 7 supports, while the original only 5. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2019 at 09:25:59 (UTC)
_male_Dry_Sandford.jpg)
- Reason
- High quality image illustrates article well. FP on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Large red damselfly
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
- Creator
- Charlesjsharp
- Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support – I think he is looking at the camera! Bammesk (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support – DreamSparrow Chat 13:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Looks a little light, but I shouldn't want to change the exposure on things that I hadn't seen in real life, as they have a habit of looking different than you think they do. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 16:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 18:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Kaldari (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support JJ Harrison (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Large red damselfly (Pyrrhosoma nymphula) male Dry Sandford.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2019 at 09:32:50 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- High quality image whcih illustrates article well. FP on Commons
- Articles in which this image appears
- Brown rock chat
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Charlesjsharp
- Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 11:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support - per nom. Mattximus (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support – nice. Bammesk (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support – DreamSparrow Chat 13:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Weak supportComment. I don't see any serious issue, but the feet seems quite artificial, so does the bottom part. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- The bird is on a man-made structure, so I agree that's not usually ideal, but this bird actually prefers urban life. But what do you mean by artificial feet please THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat)? ps I am the only one who finds these long signatures irritating? Makes it difficult to copy. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- IMO, the feet seems to be "coming out" and "unattached", maybe because of the excessive focus and hazy background. About my signature, while I agree it's too long (working on that), you can use {{ping|ImmortalWizard}} instead of copying. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 11:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support JJ Harrison (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Brown rock chat (Oenanthe fusca).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2019 at 21:06:02 (UTC)
- Reason
- A fine historic image, useful for showing the original costumes and actors. As an aside, remind me never to edit this on tablet again. I put up the wrong image. Twice.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Les Huguenots, Cornélie Falcon
- FP category for this image
- WP:FP/THEATRE
- Creator
- Eugène Du Faget, restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 21:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 20:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Eugène Du Faget - Costume designs for Les Huguenots - 2. Julie Dorus-Gras as Marguerite, Adolphe Nourrit as Raoul, and Cornélie Falcon as Valentine.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2019 at 21:35:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- The previous nomination ended up in a bit of a mess with alternatives being thrown around to find a better clip. Alternative 2 of that nomination ended up at 4-0 and remains in the article. It is presented here for a more clean, second hearing as I believe it still has FP potential.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Julia Shaw (psychologist)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
- Creator
- Boris Breuer, cropped by Kmhkmh
- Support as nominator – MER-C 21:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – Looks like a promotional photo for a professional practice, possibly by a commercial photographer. The image itself in unexceptional. Sca (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- The article was created by Kmhkmh, a Wikipedian of 14000+ edits, not a single purpose account (the latter suggests covert advertising) and survived an AFD. As far as I'm concerned, this is legit (and if you look at e.g. my block log, deletion log, move log and WP:GS/Crypto, you will see that I am staunchly opposed to the abuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes). MER-C 22:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Reading the afd discussion, she doesn't seeem very notable and so I'd avoid promoting an image like this. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, it's just way too tightly cropped at the top. Perhaps we'd be best planning this on WT:FPC beforehand, because there's probably a good image available from the source, but this one isn't it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 01:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd support File:Julia Shaw 2018-03-10 (cropped).jpg. Don't see the relevance of it being a professional photo or of opinions about notability when it's already been to AfD with a consensus to keep. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nice portrait, but the one shown here is not the one used in the article. --Yann (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose this crop is not shown in any article, which is a prerequisite for Featured Picture. Mattximus (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 12:56:22 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and good quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Roman bridge of Córdoba
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Rafesmar
- Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support This is excellent. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 13:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- By the way, I first reviewed this on my tablet. I opened the image, zoomed in as far as I could go, and looked around. Hm. It does look good, but those people are awfully blurry, and it's a bit grainy, isn't it. Then I realised I was zoomed in to about 16x full resolution, and that those people were absolutely tiny compared to the bridge, and that even at about 2-4x zoom in, it looked great. It's a spectacular picture, that one could upscale a fair ways without issue. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 04:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- @ImmortalWizard: You may want to put "The new" in a different colour or add a dash if you're going to be here a lot. I keep reading your votes as "Support the new", and sooner or later your vote's going to be assigned to the newest alt by mistake. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 04:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden: Changed. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! And sorry about that. Just thought you'd want to know. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 09:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden: Changed. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- @ImmortalWizard: You may want to put "The new" in a different colour or add a dash if you're going to be here a lot. I keep reading your votes as "Support the new", and sooner or later your vote's going to be assigned to the newest alt by mistake. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 04:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Wow, looks good to me. Mattximus (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't think of a reason to take this photo on a day with grey clouds. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's decent, but the superior angle for FP purposes would be from the other end, with the Mezquita and/or Alcazar and main part of town in the background. Also missing close to a third of the bridge, which affects encyclopaedic value. --jjron (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - almost, but not quite there. I agree with Charles and Jjron on this - a shot closer to sunset and from a different angle would be better (compare File:Pont du Gard BLS.jpg). MER-C 17:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2019 at 11:29:58 (UTC)
- Reason
- Highly valued in Commons. It is a painting of a notable figure of Bengali Renaissance. This is my first time nomination, expect high criticism.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Ram Mohan Roy, Bengali renaissance, Brahmo Samaj, Brahmo, History of India, West Bengal, Liberalism in India, Hindu nationalism, Greatest Bengali of all time
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
- Creator
- Bodhisattwa
- Support as nominator – THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 11:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - this painting is likely FP material, but the nominated reproduction is way too small. MER-C 11:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @MER-C: Which size would you recommend from User:ImmortalWizard/sandbox#FPC? Feel free to make changes and modifications in my sandbox. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- See WP:FP? #2 - the nominated image needs to have a resolution of at least 1500x1500px. This one is 800x1320. MER-C 13:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- My bad, forgot about that. However, this could pass through exceptions. I am not sure about that though. 13:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not in this case. Check out our existing FPs of paintings at full resolution. This artwork is likely to be feature-worthy if you can get a reproduction of that quality. MER-C 14:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- My bad, forgot about that. However, this could pass through exceptions. I am not sure about that though. 13:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- See WP:FP? #2 - the nominated image needs to have a resolution of at least 1500x1500px. This one is 800x1320. MER-C 13:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Is the artist this person? If so, the image might just be a copyvio. MER-C 21:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @MER-C: most likely. Good that you pointed out. I am surprised. They do have a page here: Atul Basu THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @MER-C: Which size would you recommend from User:ImmortalWizard/sandbox#FPC? Feel free to make changes and modifications in my sandbox. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- File was deleted on Commons. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 09:43:37 (UTC)
- Reason
- I think, when looking to the past, it's easy to forget that a lot of the people we now hold up as masters weren't accepted at first. This picture of Rossini, stomping a violin, with a magpie singing along to his tunes, and with the works of Domenico Cimarosa and Mozart being ground under the feet of his followers is great for showing the other side (however wrong it may be). It's one of those things that may not be widely useable, but certainly adds a lot where it is used.
I should probably note: Yes, the text and lines are grainy. That's lithographs for you. It's inherent to the medium.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Gioachino Rossini
- FP category for this image
- Huh. WP:FP/THEATRE?
- Creator
- Paul Delaroche, restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 09:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Nothing wrong with image, but I don't think this article justifies so many FPs. In other words it doesn't add "significant encyclopedic value to an article". I've had many images rejected because they are not a 'top right' image. If the community disagress, I'll recant for selfish reasons! Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- If it helps, that's an argument I've never supported. Maybe if the article's a stub, and feels stuffed with images, otherwise...
- I actually think that student's dangerous. It dooms us to having one good image and many terrible ones in every article. Everywhere really, but especially at GA and above, that's a terrible idea. hell, I'd say most bird article's need at least three images: Male, female, and juvenile (At least where genders are distinct, and when they're not, pictures to show what small differences exist wouldn't hurt), and would add egg, behaviours, and even alternate angles as useful images. As long as every image has unique information, and the article isn't overcrowded Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 11:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Useful debate. I'm nominating one that's in a gallery as a 'test'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think there's rules about galleries only counting for sets, but that may have more to do with old-school galleries. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 18:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Adam. Gioachino Rossini is currently going through FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gioachino Rossini/archive1), and if the image is still there if/when the article is featured, the EV cannot be disputed. Support. MER-C 16:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- To avoid clogging up this nomination with this discussion, I've created a thread at WT:FPC#How many FPs can a subject accommodate?. MER-C 19:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Useful debate. I'm nominating one that's in a gallery as a 'test'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – Pretty obscure and not particularly engaging aesthetically, IMO. Sca (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I will echo the sentiment above, I'm not seeing the EV. A featured picture for the Rossini article should be a portrait of Rossini. Mattximus (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Mattximus: That's really limiting the scope of material covered in a soon-to-be-featured article. Are we really going to insist that no picture other than the main image can be featured, and doom them all to being rather bad thereby, because no-one puts in the work on anything but the lead? We have a featured picture of Rossini. But that shouldn't preclude other illustrative content, that helps illustrate and explain key parts of the article. This picture has been discussed in academic biographies of Rossini. Hence why the File Description page has a reference to one. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 06:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose I view Featured Pictures in a very encyclopedic way. If there was an article on Rossini in a physical encyclopedia, what would be the best image of him to best compliment the article? I almost always oppose, say, two images of the exact same bird on the same ground. That's the key difference between wiki commons and featured pictures on wikipedia I think. Nevertheless I can see supporting a second picture for an article but only if it offers significant encyclopedic value (outside of a cathedral and inside a cathedral, or male and female bird, etc..). But that's just my opinion, I'm happy to hear others. Mattximus (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- I just want to add that even though we may disagree on the EV of this particular image, I do greatly appreciate what you have done with the images on wikipedia, your efforts have made it a much better website. Mattximus (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose I view Featured Pictures in a very encyclopedic way. If there was an article on Rossini in a physical encyclopedia, what would be the best image of him to best compliment the article? I almost always oppose, say, two images of the exact same bird on the same ground. That's the key difference between wiki commons and featured pictures on wikipedia I think. Nevertheless I can see supporting a second picture for an article but only if it offers significant encyclopedic value (outside of a cathedral and inside a cathedral, or male and female bird, etc..). But that's just my opinion, I'm happy to hear others. Mattximus (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Likewise going to strongly disagree with this oppose rationale, per the reasons I described on the talk page. Since when is the most encyclopedic thing about an artist their personal appearance? Best thing for the infobox, sure, but their notability comes from their output and its reception, most of the article is about their output and its reception, and I would fully expect an illustration of what most of the article is about to qualify for FP. ...That's my main concern -- that it depict something covered in some nontrivial way in the article (or that would comprise a nontrivial amount of the article if it were an FA). And that is also why, unfortunately, while I wouldn't oppose it, I don't feel like I can support in this case -- because this doesn't look to be mentioned at all in the article (unless I'm missing something), and I don't know enough about the subject to base support on what should be in the article... would likely support for FP on Commons if I saw it, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Mattximus: That's really limiting the scope of material covered in a soon-to-be-featured article. Are we really going to insist that no picture other than the main image can be featured, and doom them all to being rather bad thereby, because no-one puts in the work on anything but the lead? We have a featured picture of Rossini. But that shouldn't preclude other illustrative content, that helps illustrate and explain key parts of the article. This picture has been discussed in academic biographies of Rossini. Hence why the File Description page has a reference to one. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 06:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Not promoted Armbrust The Homunculus 13:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 15:27:50 (UTC)
_mating_composite.jpg)
- Reason
- High quality large image. FP on Commons. Not lead image, but adds significant value to article.
- Articles in which this image appears
- common blue damselfly
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
- Creator
- Charlesjsharp
- Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I pulled it out of the gallery for you - there was enough room. MER-C 16:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support One might wish the series was longer, but w!what it is is great. I've moved it to directly next to the text it illustrates. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 18:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Conditionalsupport - Don't you have a fourth image of the actual mating "wheel" position? The brightness difference in the significantly darker third image should be fixed. (Personally, I would also crop a bit from the top.) --Janke | Talk 15:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I wish I did! I've brightened the third image, thanks for spotting difference. I tried a crop, but prefer as is... Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support – I can't figure out what happened to the background on the 3rd image! Bammesk (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Common blue damselflies (Enallagma cyathigerum) mating composite.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 17:39:16 (UTC)
- Reason
- Another prior FPC nominee that ended up at 4-0. High resolution, official reproduction of an object that has been designated as being of the highest cultural significance by the Japanese government.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Haboku sansui
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art
- Creator
- Sesshū Tōyō
- Support as nominator – MER-C 17:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support – EV, high quality. Bammesk (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support JJ Harrison (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Mattximus (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 07:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted File:Sesshu - Haboku-Sansui - complete.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)