Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/August-2016

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

Ana Santos Aramburo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2016 at 06:34:58 (UTC)

Alt 2: alternate crop

Reason

A really nice image. Plenty of personality, nice use of colour

Articles in which this image appears

Ana Santos Aramburo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People, I'm not quite sure which subcategory; Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

may be the best fit.

Creator

National Library of Spain

• Support either as nominator, prefer Alt 2 – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – A bit excessive flash glare on her face. Not optimal file/image size, given the camera. Not sure about the crop either [1], the background's depth is appealing. Bammesk (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bammesk: I don't think the flash is that bad, but you're right about the crop, so I'll put that up as an alt. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a compromise between these two. The architectural backdrop on the right of the uncropped version seems excessive. (Halfway between her elbow and the stonework would be better, with probably at bit less background on the left.) Sca (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt 2 or similar crops, weak support Alt 1 and original nom. Wish list: no flash glare, larger file size! Bammesk (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt. 2 --

talk) 15:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support Alt. 2 – Sca (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I reduced the flash glare and uploaded a revision. If you disagree, just revert. Pinging those who voted: @Adam Cuerden, Rainbow Archer, and Sca: -- Bammesk (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me too. Still a bit of glare at full res but otherwise not obtrusive. Sca (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt. 2 – Jobas (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Bammesk, Jobas, Rainbow Archer, and Sca: Just noting that Alt 2 had been a CSS crop; I've provided an actual uploaded crop as near as possible to it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no diff to me. Sca (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt. 2 per all. Just to know, who exactly is the author in this case. Library, or the user uploaded or some pro?? -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 06:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt. 2 That's a nice middle ground on the crop. Cat-fivetc ---- 20:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ana Santos Aramburo en la sede de Recoletos de la Biblioteca Nacional de España (crop 2).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a clear concensus that alt 2 should be promoted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delila Hatuel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2016 at 08:28:42 (UTC)

Reason

High quality professional photo for fencer Delila Hatuel, taken in her training facility. Capturing.

Articles in which this image appears

Delila Hatuel

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

MLAPH

• Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – the file size is too small, the original is 7MB, nominated image is 1MB. Bammesk (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. There doesn't appear to be significant noise in the original, so I don't quite know what the last edit did, but we can go back to the original and colour-correct it, and save with appropriate settings this time. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed as well. No need for so much compression. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd suggest this be moved to suspended nominations until the issues with the image can all be worked out. Cat-fivetc ---- 20:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Without any prejudice against immediate renomination, once the issues are addressed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colour balance (set)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 06:26:33 (UTC)

Reason

Highly encyclopedic set of images with good EV for illustrating the concept of colour balance in photography. Has everything you could want: a subject in a neutral-coloured shirt which underscores the differences, a colour pallette so you can see how different colours are affected by colour balance, and different sources of lighting which offer different colour balances.

Articles in which this image appears

Color balance

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment

Creator

Alex1ruff

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For the first and the second pictures.MITB --- MITB_talk 07:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support stricken, as MITB has not been on Wikipedia for 25 days. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Presumably faked - no-one holds still that long - but faked well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. — Chris Woodrich (talk)
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC) withholding vote Bammesk (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. To my eye, "neutral" looks colder than "cold". 86.185.218.109 (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If I read the source correctly [2], the images (although faked) are uncorrected (i.e. as shot or raw) sensor renderings given neutral, warm, and cold light sources. The designators are not necessarily the temperature of the (rendered) images. The labels given here are misleading!? Bammesk (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• All labels per the files. I'm out of town ATM, but I'll compare these in Lightroom when I've got acess to it.
  talk) 05:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Regretful Oppose because they are indeed faked. The lighting fixtures are photosouped onto the basic image, and don't give the correct distribution of lights and shadows. Leave them out, and fix the "cool" image (should be blueish, not greenish), and I might support. --Janke | Talk 05:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Which one of these three is nominated? --
  talk) 17:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Rainbow Archer: all 3 images are nominated as a set (see "title" of the nomination and the "reason" section). Bammesk (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – per above. Bammesk (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- I cannot see why a faked picture should be opposed. No matter it is faked or filtered, it is still possessing EV. -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Herald: the fake part is only one part of one user's opinion, read all of the comments above, the images don't represent what the "reason" section of the nomination claims they do. Bammesk (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I could care less that they are faked, but the color is way off on image three, as mentioned above, and that just utterly destroys it for me. Cat-fivetc ---- 20:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I think this is a great idea for a featured picture set, but I share concerns about the faking and the not-quite-right colours. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Woolf

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 07:30:11 (UTC)

Reason

Somehow, we don't have a featured picture for her. How?

Articles in which this image appears

Virginia Woolf + others.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers

Creator

George Charles Beresford restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support MITB --- MITB_talk 07:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support stricken, as MITB has not been on Wikipedia for the requisite 25 days. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – A rather famous photo, if I'm not mistaken. (Wondering a bit how it's different from previous version. Contrast?) – Sca (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sca: There were a lot of scratches and fine dirt. Admittedly, it may partially be concealed by the pale colours, but there's several hours of work in this. An easy place to see the sort of damage is the bottom of her neck, where the shadow of her collar is very obviously scratched up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks, Adam. – Sca (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! White-on-light grey damage isn't the most visible. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Bammesk (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support
  talk) 11:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support How indeed. Cat-fivetc ---- 20:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:George Charles Beresford - Virginia Woolf in 1902 - Restoration.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Songwe

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2016 at 05:15:45 (UTC)

Reason

It's a really good-quality candid action shot. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vera Songwe (back in February) barely failed from lack of quorum. There's a minimal amount of motion blur on the arm, fine for a candid shot. I think it deserves another chance.

Articles in which this image appears

Vera Songwe

FP category for this image

WP:Featured pictures/People/Business

Creator

Chatham House

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Per nom. Although her article at 300 words is quite brief, pic is a nice 'action' capture of a fairly notable person who seems quite animated at this moment. (Doesn't hurt that subject is black & fem.) Sca (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The borders of her left hand's fingers are blurred. --
  talk) 07:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

'Action' shot - She was gesturing. Sca (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Per nom. Vera Songwe:Look at them! They are voting for me. -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – good EV but the focus is off on her face. The camera can do multiple exposures in one second and the subject is sitting down. No reason to settle for a moderate quality action shot. Bammesk (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The blur on the hands is easier to overlook than the blur on the face but I still think it is of acceptable quality, if only just, considering the fact that it is an action shot. Cat-fivetc ---- 20:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A valuable photo, and while I do applaud what I take to be the motivation for this nomination, I don't think that this matches up with our other featured portraits in terms of lighting and composition. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Not particularly outstanding and for a 2015 photo 1800-something pixels on both sides is rather small (even older generation smartphones shoot at higher resolutions). Brandmeister^talk 12:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brandmeister: That rather presumes that one always gets the framing right in camera; I think there is value to cropping sometimes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose focuspoint problem. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opening and Closing of Stoma

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 19:57:36 (UTC)

Reason

It has a high educational value, as it also shows the parts of Guard cells. In addition, even though it is small, it can be resized without reducing the image quality since it is a SVG. It also passed under the W3C validator without any warnings nor errors.

Articles in which this image appears

Guard cell and Stoma

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

Ali Zifan

• Support as nominator –
  Ali 19:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - Sadly I will have to oppose this one. First, the guard cells are not labelled. Second it says "cell walls" when it's just a "cell wall". Third, the movement of the potassium ions are not clearly described (How do they get in and out of the cell? Ion channels? no arrows indicating direction?). Why is it H2O and not "water"? Why is H2O repeated so many times...? Are the ions going into the epidermal cell or the space between cells?I think the diagram increases confusion, but I would love to see an updated version of this...! Mattximus (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and suggest speedy close per Mattximus. Sure there is EV but absurd labelling and lack of demonstration details fails it. An updated version could be done with. -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 06:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not to pile on, but per the above. Cat-fivetc ---- 20:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A. Hamid Arief

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2016 at 03:30:12 (UTC)

Reason

A break from photographs of actresses for a bit. High quality image. The source image was rather large, about 18R.

Articles in which this image appears

A. Hamid Arief

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Tati Studio; restoration by  — Chris Woodrich (talk)

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Well done and nice EV. But its blurry on the left bottom. But still fine to go..-The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 06:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, slightly overlit and OOF at the bottom left, as per the original.
  talk) 10:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support
  talk) 14:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Overall it is well done, despite minor flaws as previously mentioned. Cat-fivetc ---- 20:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a great portrait and the restoration from the original is done well enough for me to not be able to see the points of restoration even looking closely. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great portrait. --Dэя-Бøяg 16:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:A. Hamid Arief, c. 1960.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Halsted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2016 at 00:57:03 (UTC)

Reason

A well-composed and charismatic portrait. It's good to see him in his kit, as well.

Articles in which this image appears

Laurence Halsted

FP category for this image

People/Sport

Creator

Marie-Lan Nguyen

• Support as nominator – Josh Milburn (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though this would be even better if he were looking more towards the camera. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the quarter view. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support – the white patch next to his face, and the slightly tight crop (left and top) are a bit distracting. Bammesk (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per Adam.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Godot13 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hindenburg: "Oh the Humanity"

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2016 at 15:11:45 (UTC)

Reason

Surprising that there is no FP yet on the famous Hindemburg zeppelin. I think all these 3 choioces can be considered as featured media candidates: the grainy burnign airship, the high res when alnded, and the famous "Oh the Humanity" live radio broadcast of the disaster

Articles in which this image appears

Hindenburg disaster, LZ 129 Hindenburg

FP category for this image

link to category (listed on the WP:FP page) that best describes the image

Creator

Gus Pasquerella/U.S. Department of the Navy/WLS-AM Radio in Chicago

• Support as nominator –
  Nergaal (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Original Also, its not for lacking of trying that there are no hindenburg shots at FP status here, as I did my part some years back, it just fell short. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is also a copyright-free movie of the explosion, including the "humanity" broadcast as soundtrack on archive.org. I'd support that rather than just the sound. --Janke | Talk 13:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a link?

Nergaal (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Wellll... Archive.org - and search for Hindeburg explosion - second from top... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - image is too small, it's well below the minimum requirements. Mattximus (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1.6×1.2 M is too small?

Nergaal (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Yes. Please
  read the criteria. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Last time I read the rules it was 1k. Anywaus, "well below" to you means 20% under?

Nergaal (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Can anyone comment on the relationship between the resolution requirements for photos and the size of the original photograph? The first image is a recognizable historic photograph which has irreplaceable cultural significance. By insisting on a 1500 pixel size, does that mean that if some archivist had access to the original photograph, a higher-quality archival image could be created to meet requirements here? If the digital reproduction is poor, then I understand that. If this digital reproduction is the best that anyone might expect, then that gives me pause. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, one could take the original, scan it at a higher resolution, and save it with less compression. The version nominated was compressed a lot (only 200kb) and it shows. Banding and jpeg artefacting in the image.
  talk
  )

• [3] from [4] looks fairly viable, though it's probably a bit too dark. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, here we go. It's now a lot better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zojirushi coffeemaker

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2016 at 15:52:31 (UTC)

Reason

I think this image meets all of Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Note that it did fail Commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Consumer Reports - Zojirushi coffeemaker.tif for not being "wow". Commons seems to wish to avoid highlighting the mundane, and this image is definitely supposed to represent a typical product at its best but without embellishment.

Articles in which this image appears

coffeemaker, coffee

FP category for this image

electronics or food and drink

Creator

Consumer Reports

• Support as nominator – Please note that I work for the organization which provided this photo, Consumer Reports, and have a
  WP:COI in nominating it. I am unsure whether there are customs in place for anyone nominating content on behalf of their employer. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I'd expect a photograph used in an article to be jpeg, owing to the downsampling issues Wikipedia has with tifs and PNGs.
  talk) 04:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)§[reply
  ]

Crisco 1492 Does documentation exist giving guidance on file types? If so, where might I look to find it? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Commons:File types Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. The page is unambiguous. "TIFF files are not supported by most Internet browsers. They are an archival format, and should never be used for images intended to be displayed." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492 and Armbrust: I did a file conversion to PNG. Does the image now meet technical requirements for review here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Problem is, I didn't say PNG. PNG has the same thumbnailing issue as TIF. "Note that currently JPEG thumbnails receive extra sharpening, while PNG thumbnails don't. Hence, uploading in both formats may be a good idea if the PNG thumbnails look a bit blurry." I'll upload a JPG. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Try comparing them on this page. The JPG is much more crisp than the PNG or TIF. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492 Thanks for converting to JPG. I mis-read or did not read. I apologize for my oversight. Yes - the PNG and TIF smaller images look exactly the same. The JPG image is clearer, and for example, I can read the text on the device more easily in the JPG version. It seems that I should convert any raster TIF image to a JPG if it should go in a Wikipedia article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I'm wondering somewhat why it's a coffeemaker from a Japanese company. In my experience – certainly not a scientific sample – most people have U.S. or German coffeemakers. (Nothing against the Japanese, of course, but I didn't think coffee was particularly part of their tradition.) Sca (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zojirushi Corporation is a respected brand. Japan does have a coffee culture, and so far as I know, Hario coffee equipment including their "Skerton" grinder is among the more popular brands in the United States. Other countries may have more history of coffee culture but I also think it is safe to say that Japanese products for coffee making are well respected. I personally liked the look of this coffeemaker, but the choice was a little arbitrary. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support ALT2 (JPG)  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – FIXED. the darker shade of the background, at the base of the coffee-maker, needs some work. It didn't blend well with the rest of the background, visible at full size, for example at x,y=3810,3575 pixels relative to top left corner. Bammesk (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT2 (JPG) – Bammesk (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 2 (JPEG) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian bullfinch

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2016 at 18:57:19 (UTC)

Original

The Eurasian bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula) is a small passerine bird in the finch family.

Reason

high quality photographs of a notable bird species and therefore high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Eurasian bullfinch, Pyrrhula

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Baresi franco

• Support as nominator – Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Fantastic. I may be asking too much, but I believe any species that is sexually dimorphic should be nominated as a pair exactly like this one. Mattximus (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great images. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Supporting the pair. --Janke | Talk 07:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Supporting the pair again. Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both - very high quality images, with strong EV Nick-D (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both, per nom. --Dэя-Бøяg 16:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice images, pair adds to EV.--Godot13 (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both – Jobas (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bullfinch male.jpg --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Pyrrhula pyrrhula female 2.jpg Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transit of Mercury (2016)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2016 at 08:30:44 (UTC)

Reason

This is a tranist of Mercury in 2016.

Articles in which this image appears

Transit of Mercury, Mercury (planet)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

Wolfgang Ellsässer

• Support as nominator – PlanetUser (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – there is another FP of the same [5] in the article. Bammesk (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is higher res, but not colorized. Anyways the image needs more black space around.
    Nergaal (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT - PlanetUser (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on procedural grounds. Since there is already a FP of the exact same image, it should be nominated as a "Delist and replace", otherwise if this passes we will end up with 2 identical FP of the same thing. Mattximus (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Sālote Tupou III of Tonga

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2016 at 14:57:46 (UTC)

Reason

A fine picture, very nicely reproduced, of a highly notable person

Articles in which this image appears

Sālote Tupou III

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility

Creator

Unknown photographer; Restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – very nice restoration. Bammesk (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC) Side note: source link [6] has the name of the photographer and gives the date as circa 1910, where does 1908 come from?[reply]
• Comment - Very nice picture and lovely restoration, but I question the EV for this picture. She was not Queen at that age, so it's essentially a picture of a child. We don't nominate pictures of Churchill, or John Lennon at age 8... I'm not sure I understand why a picture of someone famous as a child would be included in an encyclopedia. Mattximus (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As biographies, in addition to the subject's prime years, we do cover their youth and later years if the info is available. We do include images at various stages, for example [7]. Whether non-prime-year images should be nominated for FP is a valid question though. My two cents about this particular case: the image is of the daughter of a monarch who became queen. In the absence of a quality image showing her in her prime, I see no harm in nominating a quality image from her youth. Bammesk (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC) Side note: something to think about, if there were no quality images of Churchill or John Lennon in their prime years, would it be Ok to nominate a quality image of them in their youth? I think the answer is yes, but I could be wrong.[reply]

Oppose - After further consideration, and with full respect to the restoration and quality of the image, I don't think there is any encyclopedic value in a photograph of a person when they were not notable. To me it doesn't really make sense, I can't think of any real life encyclopedia that would include a photo of a famous world figure... as a child. Unless of course they did something notable as a child. Mattximus (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a section of the article dedicated to her childhood. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I don't mind showing her before she began her reign. Fantastic image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per Chris.--Godot13 (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-at the time of the picture,she was(and had been since birth)Crown Princess of Tonga.For me,that's notable enough to justify the picture. Lemon martini (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – @Adam Cuerden: photographer name is Herman John Schmidt per [8]. Also source says circa 1910, where does 8 March 1908 come from? Bammesk (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Salote Tupou III of Tonga in 1908.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mieke Wijaya

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2016 at 11:23:43 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of a notable, Citra Award-winning actress who remained active for almost sixty years. This image is from c. 1960, shortly after Wijaya rose to widespread fame for her role in Tiga Dara. This is also my last image from the first set of Tati Studio promotional photographs I bought (a second set still needs restoration).

Articles in which this image appears

Mieke Wijaya +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Tati Studios, restored by  — Chris Woodrich (talk)

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - There is a bit of a focus issue and a strange indentation on her left shoulder, but given the source and the quality of the restoration it's very much worth featured picture status. Great EV as well. Mattximus (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If the indentation is the one I see, it appears to be a fold in the fabric of her shirt, with the light snowflake pattern right at the edge of the light background. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I'm a big fan of these images; exactly the kind of thing I personally want to see coming through FPC. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice restoration, good EV.--Godot13 (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I marked two minor points, but they are VERY minor points. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple more in response, that seem to have gotten brought out by the work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Think I got them. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mieke Wijaya, c. 1960, from Tati Photo Studio.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damselfly intra-male sperm translocation

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 06:15:44 (UTC)

Reason

Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand Damselfly#Reproduction

Articles in which this image appears

Damselfly#Reproduction

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Jeevan Jose

• Support as nominator – Jee 06:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it worth increasing the exposure a bit? This strikes me as slightly dark. Very useful image, however. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris Woodrich, does this better? Jee 10:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that bright. More like +0.40. See the new edit uploaded over your edit. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried again; but not better than your version. So adding it as "alt". :) Jee 13:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris, file size of the alternate edit is almost 1/3 the original, a redo perhaps? Bammesk (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Bammesk (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd recommend just doing it from the RAW. Are you using Lightroom? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Have only RawTherapee. PM you the raw file. Jee 02:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the update. Jee 03:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Unfortunately, the subject is cut off, which spoils the photo for me. --Janke | Talk 15:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC) - - Edit: Apparently, there is an uncropped version available... Edit 2: Which needs some cropping for balance...[reply]
• Oppose – Jobas (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn as it is easier to retake. Will be back later. Jee 16:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmanian tiger

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2016 at 17:29:47 (UTC)

Reason

The only 5 surviving clips showing footage of the extinct Tasmanian tiger/Tasmanian wolf

Articles in which this image appears

Thylacine

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

"Mr. Williamson"/David Fleay/unknown

• Support as nominator –
  Nergaal (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Not too sure we should have a digital watermark here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anybody capable of removing it?
    Nergaal (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2016 at 07:58:51 (UTC)

Reason

I dare to say this is one of the most iconic drawings related to wikipedia. Resolution is the same as the original source.

Articles in which this image appears

List of Internet phenomena, Wikipedia in culture, Randall Munroe

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others

Creator

Randall Munroe

• Support as nominator –
  Nergaal (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per nom  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I love this comic. Renata (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not going to sink this nomination, but I do feel that I should express my reservations about this appearing on the MP. A tiny self-referential webcomic doesn't really sell Wikipedia, I don't think. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Webcomic xkcd - Wikipedian protester.png --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Long

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2016 at 10:35:35 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality despite the high ISO

Articles in which this image appears

Ma Long (table tennis)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Pierre-Yves Beaudouin

• Support as nominator –
  talk) 10:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Valuable, but I'm not so keen on the composition. I don't think it's on a par with our other portraits/sports photography. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Josh: this is certainly a very useful photo, but the composition isn't of FP standard. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - MITB --- MITB_talk 14:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Nice picture, and I don't mind the framing. But I've seen much more clear sports photographs, his neck/face seem to blur together. Mattximus (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – good subject, good nomination, but his face is slightly out of focus, and I wish there was a little more wow factor. Bammesk (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Poor composition ... but then this passed, so what do I know about composition of sporting photos?? 86.179.177.180 (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile brown pelican in flight

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 00:24:49 (UTC)

Reason

Best available shot of a juvenile brown pelican in flight that I know of

Articles in which this image appears

Brown pelican

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Frank Schulenburg

• Support as nominator – Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Leaning to support, but there is an unnatural looking bright spot on the head at x,y=1540,856 relative to top left corner. Is it natural, should it be fixed? Bammesk (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pinging creator: @Frank Schulenburg:. Bammesk (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. It's a water droplet. I prefer not to remove it. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Bammesk (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Jobas (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support perfect shoot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – j.reed (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - MITB --- MITB_talk 09:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Marvellous Spider-Man 12:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Juvenile pelecanus occidentalis in flight.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]