A (crappy) version of this has been lead image in Oscar Wilde for years, so having a good copy seems worth it. This is an especially good print for the period. Very smooth, not too much grain.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2023 at 15:33:06 (UTC)
Original – Portrait of Nithya MenenAlt – Portrait of Nithya Menen
Reason
Good quality, very smooth lighting, good composition and best available portrait. Rare to get such a picture of a public figure. The photograph was taken when she spotted in a public event at Kochi.
At least that light on left could be out - messy background. --Petar Milošević (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- because of the picture behind her head. --Janke | Talk 19:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a studio shot though it looks like one, the photograph was taken during her public appearance at Lulu Marriott, Kochi in connection with her movie promotion. That is why the background comes in that way. I did not feel to remove it thinking that the original character of the photo will be lost. Moreover, getting such a close up picture for the article, as far as I feel, is a luck too since all other public appearance of the actress will be crowded and I am damn sure that I will not get another chance to take a picture of her like this. Do you seriously think the quality and EV are affected by this background Janke, Petar Milošević ? DreamSparrowChat 06:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask, I don't think it fulfills FPC criterion #3, i.e. regardless of its EV, it is not among Wikipedia's best work. --Janke | Talk 09:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think it's comparable in quality to political portraits of the Obamas and such? Kymothoë (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wild about the close crop; it's awkward. Cropping the lamp and perhaps a very small bit of the top for proportion would be better; I'd support that (though it might be more suitable as a renomination.) Kymothoë (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Petar that the crop is too loose. Petar's proposed crop, or something similar but looser, is an improvement IMO. Bammesk (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a cropped version. Removing the distraction as suggested. DreamSparrowChat 07:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt, I prefer a tighter crop. Check this in a sandbox for example: {{CSS image crop|Image = Nithya Menen 2023.jpg|bSize = 300|cWidth = 200|cHeight = 274|oTop = 44|oLeft = 49|Location = right|Description = caption}} Her face is what makes the composition. The surrounding was bland and took away from the composition. I also support Petar's crop suggestion. (on a sidenote: lifting the brightness/shadows on the left side of her face may be an improvement, just a suggestion) Bammesk (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC) . . . . . After looking at this again, I changed my vote to a full support. I think a tighter crop particularly on top would be an improvement. Bammesk (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt Really better. Yann (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, though I'd suggest making your vote explicit, DreamSparrow, to make sure it gets counted towards the alt as well (though I think Armbrust can spot you made the alt.).
Support --Wow (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ideally, a featured picture should actually contain a photograph of the subject in question, no? This is merely a digital rendering. – Howard🌽33 23:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no photo will show the interior structure of the telescope as this detailed design render. Artem.G (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found dad's shirts from working on building the GMT and LSST (now the Vera C. Rubin Observatory. The GMT one might creep under {{
Not enough encyclopedic value Wow (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably better than most. I'd probably go with Weak support. But you are right - every U.S. Senator and Representative in the last 15 years has a photo in this rough composition.
Support --Wow (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as Adam noted, there are hundreds of such portraits, so it's not unique, not especially interesting, and does not have high EV. Artem.G (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – There are too many U.S. politicians with high quality government issued portraits. There has to be a compelling reason to nominate (or support) such a photo. I don't see it here. Bammesk (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A rather good photo of a somewhat obscure topic: The inventor who created a business selling one of the first machine guns (albeit based on another person's initial idea).
C.M. Bell (Which, as this photo is from just after Charles Milton Bell's death, was a company being run by his wife, Annie Bell, née Colley; and his sons, Charles Milton Bell, Jr. and Colley Wood Bell); restored by Adam Cuerden
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2023 at 07:18:06 (UTC)
Original – That Two-Thousand Yard Stare, also called Marines Call It That 2,000 Yard Stare by Thomas C. Lea III, the work that popularised knowledge of and the name of the thousand-yard stare.
Reason
Probably one of the most famous paintings of its very specific type. And, hey, the folks at
WP:MILHIST
will be glad to not see my name next to one of their FPs (although Philip IV, below, will also do that. Just trying to avoid any false attribution to me as most of my noms are my restorations).
Comment: Lea was employed by Life magazine when he created this image. By what provenance is it deemed to be in the Public Domain? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's now owned by the army, and there seems to be a lot of sources saying it's been released or expired, but I'm not finding much about instrument of release or expiration. The trouble with found images on Commons, I suppose. It might well not have had its copyright renewed, but I don't quite remember how that works for magazine images.
Support. MER-C 17:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support A chilling depiction. Utterly iconic. – Howard🌽33 23:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source given on Commons is a Reddit post on the 'MilitaryPorn' community(!). I think that better sourcing is needed. Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what it was called? I just googled to find a high-definition scan since the other one uploaded was kinda meh. Didn't pay that much attention, since the Bridgeman ruling.
An artifact of engineering history. The Maybach Mb.IVa was one of the first aircraft engines designed for a ~6000 foot altitude, a high altitude at the time, 1916. The engine was used during and post WWI. The article lists the many aircraft that used the engine. On a sidenote: it looks like the dark background was edited in post-process, but it can use a touch-up (around the periphery of the engine). I will touch it up if the nom gets a few supports or conditional supports.
Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – As an old aviation history nut I myself find this sort of thing interesting, but one must wonder whether many readers would. Although the name Maybach is famous, this century-old motor seems rather obscure. (Not opposed, tho.) – Sca (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have FPs of 1800-1920 opera singers, obscure suffragettes... it illustrates an article on itself. That's enough. Support
Support per Adam. Different readers have different interests; FPC should cast a wide net. And although I have zero interest in the history of internal combustion engines, it's a handsome piece of metalwork and a nice example of early 20th-century industrial design. Choliamb (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Huge, interesting structure that's probably not widely known in the West. First target article is spare but there's enough for a copy block. Good detail that shows people for scale. – Sca (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A good action shot of Street football. A popular hobby in many parts of the world. The unedited version is FP on Commons. I edited out the more obvious sharpening halos.
High-quality picture of a Chevrotain, an uncommon and interesting-looking animal. So rare in the wild that it's unknown what their population status is.
Support as nominator – Vixtani (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't this picture look a bit grainy? – Howard🌽33 15:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The quality isn't there when viewed at full size. It isn't sharp and shallow Depth of field. It shouldn't be hard to capture a better photo of an animal in captivity. Bammesk (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Howard🌽33 15:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is literally trash. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah? That’s the point. The articles are supposed to about the burial of the Atari games. That’s why the picture is encyclopaedic in my opinion. Howard🌽33 14:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Andrew. Crude image with IMO zero EV. – Sca (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is trash, is the purpose. Because it is displaying the Atari video game burial. This is trash, yes, but it is notable trash. Howard🌽33 18:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, little visual interest. -- Sca (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Atari video game crash of the 80s is kind of a thing of legend in the history of video gaming, and the burying of unsold E.T. games - They made more than there were Atari consoles sold, I believe - was a longstanding urban legend that was proven real by digging up trash like this. Highly notable! "Trash" from this dig is literally in the Smithsonian now. I know I'm probably one of the older contributors here, but still...
Support – per Adam. Also, I think the nom image would make a better infobox image in the primary article. Bammesk (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I remember nominating another picture of the burial excavation years ago and this is a significant moment in video game history. To dismiss it as trash misses the point of a moment in time that was part of the video game crash of 1983. What once was believed to be a myth turned out to be real and for that reason alone is absolutely high EV. GamerPro64 05:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though I hate video games. I grew up in the pinball era, when playing an arcade game meant the manipulation of real physical objects in a beautifully designed and carefully engineered physical space, rather than moving tiny pixels around on a flat screen. The rapid growth of arcade video games completely destroyed the pinball arcades that I loved as a kid, and the few home video games I tried seemed to me a stupid and pointless waste of time, as they still do today. But you don't have to be interested in video games to consider the Alamagordo Atari excavation a fascinating story and well worth the coverage it received in the national press. Most archaeology is the study of other people's trash, and I see very high EV here. – Choliamb (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per what others have said. While yes, it is quite literally trash, trash can be significant, and when an event as important to the video game industry as this is represented by said trash, I don't think there is any reason why this shouldn't be a featured picture. NegativeMP1 23:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per others. Yann (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Atari E.T. Dig- Alamogordo, New Mexico (14036097792).jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 22:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Argenberg (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Dramatic geologic formation. Decent detail for 14 years ago. Leads infobox. (Might be croppable from bottom or right). – Sca (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support could be, i would put some more sky, but questionable if you saw LCD screen on that UV - suppose you didnt have viewfinder. --Petar Milošević (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the framing is awful tight at top. but it's still an impressive mountain. -- Sca (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The composition was a deliberate choice as far as I can remember. I like how the curving lines of Cholatse outline, Chola moraine, valley slopes on the right, and the rocky Khumbu/Lobuche river at the bottom interconnect, echo, play and counter-balance each other. And the Cholatse peak when almost scratching the top, nearly spearing the top, looks more imposing and commanding to me. The scene shows the mountain in all its glory, but also provides enough important surrounding context. While reprocessing the image, I was thinking about the crop, and the only crop that worked was a slight 10% crop on the right. However, the original framing looked just as good to me, so I ended up leaving it as it is. --Argenberg (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2023 at 09:37:01 (UTC)
Original – Charles Nettleton, an Australian photographer perhaps most famous for his photo of bushranger Ned Kelly. He also has the recentish FP of Captain Moonlite attributed to him, though apparently with less certainty
Reason
There's something about a photograph of a photographer that's very interesting. We have a few -
Frances Benjamin Johnson, Jeremiah Gurney, George N. Barnard, and Alfred Waud and, while I don't actually see them in the category I'd consider sensible, I'm pretty sure we have Ansel Adams too. Mind, given all the others are restorations by me, of course they'd be in the category I consider sensible. However, unless I'm missing something (I am: Julia Margaret Cameron, also by me), this will be the first photograph of a non-American photographer (which means I should probably do that photo of Nadar in my queue, and see about Dorothea Lange
, who I thought must already have an FP. I mean, she's American, but still.
Restoration notes
Miscellaneous gibbering madness. This was kinda awful, in a really annoying way. That elbow...
A well preserved artifact from the Minoan civilization. The civilization flourished in the 2nd millennium BC on the island of Crete. This disc is 6 inches in diameter. It was discovered in 1908 and is housed at the Heraklion Archaeological Museum. The inscribed characters remain undeciphered. See the articles for details. The backgrounds in the images are somewhat distracting, but the photos are sharp and detailed where it counts.
Support as nominator, Original or Set – Bammesk (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps this image would be better if it was split into two separate images? You could then nominate it as a set of featured pictures. Ideally a single picture should not be a gallery in my opinion. – Howard🌽33 20:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to split it into two. Consider it done, once the Set gets sufficient support votes. I added the Set to the nom as a voting option (as temporary 'CSS image crops' for now). I updated my vote. As far as your argument, it's a judgement call. There are many composite FPs [1][2][3][4], on the other hand there are many set FPs [5][6]. The nom item being a 6 inch disc, I thought it's appropriate to have a composite, as in a coin [7]. I go with the consensus either way. Bammesk (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Set I believe in the composite FPs, such as coins, the background is the same between both images. Whereas in this image, they are clearly two separate backgrounds. Howard🌽33 14:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not used elsewhere on Eng. Wiki – notably, not in Fall of man article. – Sca (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; used only in a gallery. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to, reluctantly, agree. There's a reason a lot of featured pictures of art have their own articles: Unless they're used as exemplars of the artist (ideally talked about explicitly, at least used as a good example of the art being discussed), it's hard to get enough context otherwise. Oppose
Comment. I share some of the reservations expressed by Charles and Adam. This seems to me a decent but unremarkable photo of a common and easily photographed species, and it's a little surprising to me that there aren't a lot of clearly superior photos in the Commons. My take on the EV: the photo offers excellent views of the wing bars, primary projection, and underside of the bill; the head shape is better shown in the user's other photo of the same bird, File:Eastern wood pewee (71100).jpg, but there the upper parts are blurrier. If I were going to pick a lead image for the article, of the choices available at the Commons, I would probably go with File:Eastern Wood-Pewee (2022).jpg, which doesn't show the wings very well at all, but captures the posture and typical appearnce of the bird in the field better than the nominated photo IMO. Choliamb (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 07:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Sparse and technical target article. Not used elsewhere on Eng. Wiki. – Sca (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm too worried about the article text and subject as such, but the complete lack of inline citations, though... I think there needs to be a reasonable assumption the article can pass AFD, and without some work, it's not quite there. Oppose.
I see no chance of it getting deleted at AFD. It is notable and has four sources (the sources look solid). It certainly needs inline citations. The first source and the first external link are online, and I think enough to cite at least half of the content. Bammesk (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden:@Bammesk: OK, I've added six solid references with inline citations and removed the unhelpful general references that were not actually cited (all popular natural history guides with no specific pages indicated). I also expanded the description slightly. Interestingly, and contrary to what I expected when I first saw this image, the seahorse is evidently not food, but just an accidental by-catch. Unlike sea anemones, Sabellid worms do not capture and digest large prey; they eat only tiny particles that are small enough to be fanned by the cilia on the tentacles and carried to the mouth of the worm down in the tube. So the photo, while dramatic, is somewhat misleading. Choliamb (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I wonder how accurate it is to describe this seahorse as "captured". I'm not a marine biologist, but the seahorse doesn't look obviously dead or trapped (i.e., entangled in the radioles) to me. Is it possible that he's just passing the time here for some reason? Choliamb (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Choliamb, thanks for all the work. I am not a marine biologist either (and I know much less than you, given your comments above), but I think that in the image captions (in article and in nom) changing the description from "captured" to "entangled" (or similar) makes sense, as you suggested. Sometimes words like "captured" and "entangles" are mistakenly used for one another, or mistranslated, when the author (en-Wiki editor) isn't fluent in English. FWIW, the Italian description on the image page doesn't say captured, nor entangled. Bammesk (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know that the original photographer made no claim that the seahorse was captured. I've edited the image caption here and in the article to remove that word. I've also corrected the typo in the Latin name and changed the peacock worms to plural, since two are shown in the photo (or three, if you count the one partly visible in the left background.) – Choliamb (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now adding my Support. Choliamb (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with Choliamb's comment needing dealt with.
Last nomination was during a slow period, but nearly passed, just didn't reach quorum. Originators of the roles (in a revival three years after the first run). Crop not ideal, but, well, that's an artefact of the time, particularly the aspect ratios of carte-de-visite photos: two people in a carte-de-visite don't tend to fit well; with three, you can tilt it on its side, but with two, either you have ridiculous head room or they're tiny, and given they aren't really that big of photo as originally printed...
Support as at first nomination. Choliamb (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Rowland Buckstone and Cissy Grahame in the revival of F. C. Burnand's The Colonel.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 21:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2023 at 20:48:22 (UTC)
Gerewol festival, a competitive courtship ritual that takes place annually in Wodaabe communities in Niger
.
Reason
This is a beautiful photograph, which meets technical criteria and is a valuable document of a cultural practice, highlighting the often ignored female role in the ritual (most photographs focus on the male contestants and not the judging maidens)
FP criterion #2, 1500 pixel minimum in height. Bammesk (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose per above (what Yann, Adam, and Bamesk said). The picture is small and its resolution is even less than 0.5 MB. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2023 at 11:40:07 (UTC)
Original – Detour (1945), an American independent film noir by Edgar G. Ulmer, starring Tom Neal and Ann Savage
Reason
very good copy of a notable film (1,480 × 1,080 pixels, 1.89 Mbps overall), selected by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". Quotes from the article: "Critical response to the film decades after its release is almost universally positive." "Detour remains a masterpiece of its kind."
Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also watchable here. -- Sca (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there are several copies on YT, but how is this relevant here? BTW the copy I nominated is much better than the one you linked to. Yann (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merci beaucoup for your instructive collegial comment, Yann. -- Sca (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2023 at 11:47:19 (UTC)
Original – A peripheral drift illusion
Reason
Despite being the majority coordinator for POTD, I don't often nominate FPCs and I'm not even really an image expert... but this one looks quite impressive to me - the illusion is very profound when the picture is expanded, it seems like it has solid EV as a good illustration of both Peripheral drift illusion and Illusory motion. As an expandable svg it is technically sound too, so I think most of WP:Featured picture criteria would be met. Interested what you guys think of this.
Support as nominator – — Amakuru (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as illustrator — Thanks, @Amakuru:Illusion similar to Primrose Field by Kitaoka AkiyoshiComment — May I recommend this anomalous motion illusion instead, which works even at small sizes, and curiously stops working when the device it is on is rotated 45°? File:Sunburst_peripheral_drift_illusion_fixed.svg has also an interesting effect, but may be too painful for some. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 12:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Leaning to support, but I have a question. The original by Paul Nasca [8] displays as a 27 x 20 cell matrix (with a corresponding vector field here [9]). The nom SVX displays as a 20 x 15 cell matrix. Does that affect anything regarding the perception or illusion? I can't tell with my eyes. Second, personally I like to see Paul Nasca's name mentioned in some way in the file page of the SVG. Bammesk (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Nasca's name added as requested.
I'm no expert in this field and Google couldn't find analysis on its effect. My original-research opinion is that one needs a minimum number to work (2×2 likely won't) but not so many that detail is lost due to limited display or eye resolution e.g. in a thumbnail. The amount of field of view it spans seems far more important.
Support – Interesting subject. Some images in the article work better than others, as far as my eyes are concerned ! Bammesk (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to support, but I'd like answers to the above questions.
Promoted File:Minnie Tittell Brune as the Duke of Reichstadt in Edmond Rostand's play L'Aiglon - Talma & Co.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 02:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (Although the four-sentence article really needs some work.) Choliamb (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC) (edited by Choliamb (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: The picture's fantastic, but it's a real shame that we don't have articles about the genus or the species. Surely it wouldn't be too trick to put some together? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little known about the genus, Josh Milburn. These are endemic to a small part of the Andes mountains in Colombia. I think it is important for an encyclopaedia to show the World what rare animals look like. If people see the photo, who knows, some young researcher might be encouraged to investigate. FP status might help this. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've created Rhytidochrota risaraldae, but I can't do more than a couple of sentences unless I'm willing to put some quite technical French through a translator. Hopefully it's better than nothing... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; let me know when you have posted the translation and I will proof read it! Merci... Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 08:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Giles chose another image for FP nomination at Commons. This is a very static action shot, if that makes sense.. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And there's another 'mating' nominee below. -- Sca (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:035 Uganda kobs mating at Queen Elizabeth National Park Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 19:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 11:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Impressive at full size. There are a couple of stitching errors, but not big enough to hold it back given the huge pixel count. Bammesk (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my vote. The stitching errors can be cloned out. I gave it a try and it's rather easy to do. Bammesk (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Large size does not forgive stitching errors in the water. And the lighting is dull. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Too much foreground. Agree with Charles re dull lighting. – Sca (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weather not so great, stong CA on trees. --Petar Milošević (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Charles and Petar. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2023 at 11:53:39 (UTC)
Original – The Hitch-Hiker, a 1953 American film noir thriller co-written and directed by Ida Lupino, starring Edmond O'Brien, William Talman and Frank Lovejoy, about two friends taken hostage by a hitchhiker during an automobile trip to Mexico.
Reason
high quality copy of a notable film (1,920 × 1,080 pixels, 2.55 Mbps), selected for preservation in the US National Film Registry as being "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant". Quote from the article: "The film has been widely praised in the years since its release." It was the first American mainstream film noir directed by a woman.
Oppose – Image is grainy at best, fading to blurry in BG due to short DOF. The large fire that caused the damage shown probably was significant in South Africa, but casualties were limited to five firemen being hospitalized. It doesn't appear to have generated very wide coverage elsewhere, and thus would seem to be of little EV. – Sca (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it's not clear what is important on that photo - there is a meal on a table with some huts and benches in the background, but it's hard to say what's _important_ there - a meal, a table, these huts? I definitely wouldn't call it an "eyecatching image". Artem.G (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. – Yann (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a newspaper/documentary photo, I kind of like it. It shows the suddenness of people leaving: The idea of "food on the table, partially eaten, but no-one there" has a lot of resonance. But I'm not sure encyclopedias are really able to do the storytelling that a newspaper could do with this sort of image. At the very least, the caption isn't quite catching the idea well. Also, a focus stack would have really helped to bring the devastation and uneaten food into a coherent single image.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2023 at 00:01:08 (UTC)
Original – Dost Mohammad Khan, Emir of Afghanistan from 1823—1863.
Reason
It is a historical quality picture that is for a significant ruler who shaped Central Asian politics for over four decades, his reign having significant coverage and importance.
Support as nominator – Noorullah (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1 Welcome Mr Noorullah. This is a good drawing of "Dost Mohammad Khan"; but the quality of the drawing's picture is poor, i.e with less than 200 kb. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 As a continuation of the previous comment, I'd like to inform you that, e.g, this picture of Sher Ali Khan (with some edits/optimizations) could be much suitable for being candidated here. Regards, Hamid Hassani (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...I'm on it. Though the British Library is down, and I insist on checking the original source first.
Comment – The usual reservations regarding official govt. pix. Promotional, boring, scant EV. And this one is artificially inky. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree, Don't like the smug expression, nor the vignetting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A smug mug? -- Sca (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't understand why he's hiding in the shadows. It's not even a good official portrait by the standards of that genre. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2023 at 18:53:20 (UTC)
Jefferson Medical College
students.
Reason
While this image has been nominated before, that image was too small and was the unrestored version of the artwork. The image has now been improved and has already been shown in numerous articles due to its importance and even has two dedicated to the artwork itself.
Promoted File:Thomas Eakins, American - Portrait of Dr. Samuel D. Gross (The Gross Clinic) - Google Art Project.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 23:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much of the bird is hidden Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know. It's the subject's habitat. -- Sca (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
? Most birds sit in trees. Doesn't mean you have to allow the leaves to block the view of the birds. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:017 Great blue turaco at Kibale forest National Park Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 03:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2023 at 16:36:10 (UTC)
Original – Fish farm, off the coast of Euboea island, Greece
Reason
Good depiction of a fish farm, it includes the service facility. The first nom didn't pass because of the overhead power lines. I edited out the power lines. The unedited version is FP on Commons.
Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this nomination, even if I disagree with the concept of « featured pictures » in various Wikipedias. Irefer a nomination in « Commons »… Anyway, I accept the nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebulon (talk • contribs)
Oppose – Visual information is not readily intelligible to general readers/viewers. – Sca (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not an arresting photo of its subject, and I'm not comfortable with stuff being editing out of the photo. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
,_side_B_(bottom).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Common_blue_damselflies_(Enallagma_cyathigerum)_mating_composite.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syrphidae_poster.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Strombus_sinuatus_2010_G1.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carpocoris_purpureipennis_fifth_instar_nymph_(top_view)_-_Kulna.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carpocoris_purpureipennis_fifth_instar_nymph_(bottom_view)_-_Kulna.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japan_1870_20_Yen_(alt).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anomalous_motion_illusion1.png){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anomalous_motion_illusion2.png){kind=link}
_mating.jpg)
.jpg)
