Oppose; sorry, this one's not quite there for me. The article's very much over-illustrated, and while it's a great picture, I don't feel that it stands out above the others in EV terms. J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 04:40:08 (UTC)
Original – Alex Salmond of the Scottish National Party, Scotland's First Minister (equivalent of the PM) since 2007 is pictured here giving a speech at the National Conversation on 14 August 2007, which basically started the independence referendum process.
Reason
High quality photo and good EV. Scotland's holding an
independence referendum
this September and Salmond has been one the main figures of Scottish nationalism in the past 25 years. If Scots vote for independence, his significance will rise even more in the history of the British Isles.
An exceptional image that vividly illustrates subject matter. Image is professional quality, high resolution, allowing very detailed inspection. Model is pristine. Photo composition and lighting are superb. Compares very favorably to other anogenital photos on wikipedia.
No. Great image, great asshole, no to front-page exposure. Call me a prude. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this can be featured without being frontpaged, I withdraw my objection. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support.
WP:NOTCENSORED. This is not obscene in the legal sense, it is not even particularly erotic, although of course tastes vary. And it is a striking and excellent image of its kind. DES(talk) 23:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose The image is an extract from File:Show Butt.jpg (part of a series copied from Flickr) and there is no verification that anal bleaching has occurred—the image has been tagged since October 2013 with "There is no evidence or source whatsoever that this anus has actually been bleached, rather than being naturally light. The creator of this derivate [is] not the author of the original image". The image metadata confirms that photo editing software has been used, however the encyclopedic value of the image relies on it being verifiably illustrative for the article in which it is used. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The model in the image is known to be 'Jenni Blaze' a porn star from southern California where anal bleaching is the overwhelming industry standard. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Something about the composition here is just very pedestrian, the red part is just so unattractive. pschemp | talk 04:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm afraid I'm not seeing any EV here. Visually interesting, though. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, both high quality and educational as well. — Cirt (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin°Talk 12:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Very Commons-friendly, but I don't really think that this is overflowing with EV. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instant change of heart. It's a great photo, so I'll stay neutral. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lighting is a bit uneven, but I think that just make the photograph more attractive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like, between the terraces in the background, the traditional dress, and even the posture of the subject, this has high EV. Good work, Cccefalon! --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HectorMoffet, if that is a !vote please be explicit so that nobody miscounts when closing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, just remember I'm new and still getting the hang of things at FPC --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 17:44:36 (UTC)
Original – William Saroyan, one of the best-known Americans of Armenian descent that achieved success in the 1930-40s. He is highly regarded in Armenia and by Armenians around the world.
Support as nominator --Երևանցիtalk 17:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of visible scratches and the composition and pose is rather awkward and artificial - is he straddling the back of a lounge chair or something? Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Solid image, and though the scan is not of as high resolution as our other Nadar pictures, I think this is certainly up to par. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 22:41:19 (UTC)
Original – Hidatsa warrior from the crazy dog society performing the dog dance in traditional regalia. Other tribes, most notably the Cheyenne, also have a dog society who were noted for wearing the same style headdress.Edit by Adam and Crisco 1492: Lots and lots of fixes.
Reason
High historic and cultural value. The image shows a Hidatsa Indian man dancing the "Dog Dance" while dressed in traditional dancing regalia. The image refers to the man as Minnetaree, a Mandan name commonly used when referring to Hidatsa people.
Support edit, assuming the white is its natural color. I'm somewhat surprised that the LoC digitization may not be faithful, but perhaps the paper just faded away or otherwise aged in such manner. Brandmeistertalk 09:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a version with a colour bar that shows it's definitely white paper. That version is otherwise a much worse version, but is enough to check. The LoC is actually really bad about colour. Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Strong degree of educational value. — Cirt (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support culturally important. Support edit.--Theparties (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While this image deserves promotion in the end, it's fairly obvious something weird is going on with the paper - pink and grey are not natural colours for it; about 99% of lithographs were printed on white paper, and the fraction printed on two-tone paper is insignificant. I'll do an edit. Adam Cuerden(talk) 04:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it's looking good, just removing some reflections on the dark areas. (Specifically, the red cloth in the lower right of the figure - it has a LOT of white reflection spots, that I'm removing at 800% zoom. But that's the only bit of restoration left.) I could use someone with Photoshop proper to do some final vignetting fixes - Photoshop makes those a lot easier - but the cleanup's almost done. Adam Cuerden(talk) 09:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit - I'm fairly sure we haven't gone too far astray in the restoration, and since the last such sketch was edited before promotion I think we should remain consistent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I did check it against a copy that had a colour bar. It's reasonably similar to what I got from the colour bar. Not exact, but then, the copy with the colour bar is really bad, and there's a tendency for that to lead to reduced colour fidelity, even with a bar. It's easier with a better scan, of course. =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 10:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit Looks great to me, the colours are much brighter and the white background looks much better and authentic to the original. Thanks. MatGTAM (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit, I agree it looks much better. Nice work! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit - great restoration work by Adam and Crisco -- Godot13 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Moenitarri warrior in the costume of the dog danse 0056v.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 22:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A high quality image of Manuel L. Quezon, second president of the Philippines. The last nomination fell one support short, but I'm fairly certain that this image is up to snuff.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 08:57:22 (UTC)
Original – Sir Noël Coward (1899–1973) was an English playwright, composer, director, actor and singer, known for his wit, flamboyance, and what Time magazine called "a sense of personal style, a combination of cheek and chic, pose and poise". This photograph was taken a year before his death.Edit - Colour balance adjustments to remove ghostly blue cast (probably caused by the black point being a shadow on the blue jacket)
Reason
High quality picture of a notable playwright (with a featured article at that!) by a notable photographer, at resolution big enough to make a poster out of. As this was a posed shot, I'm fairly certain the flower and glass of (?) are deliberate. Since they just block the sleeve, it's not a big deal in my opinion.
Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Glad to see Allan uploading at higher-res, and without the compression as he used to. (Glad to see him uploading at all, of course--his work is invaluable.)
Support -- I really like this one. It captures something about Noël Coward. Great work, Allan warren! --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might question the colour balance, but it's not atypical of older photographs. Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose - please do not promote this until this can be discussed. The original image's colours are these: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/08/20110430101425!Noel_Coward_Allan_warren.jpg They were edited, without any obvious reason, at the same time the higher-resolution copy was uploaded. That means that the strange blue-cast skin tones aren't due to fading of 70s filmstock, but are user error caused by the darkest part of the image being on a blue jacket. It's an easy mistake to have happen if you trust autolevels. It's also been cropped a little bit, but I don't mind that. That said, I think that a fix is possible, see Edit 1. Adam Cuerden(talk) 00:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm happy to support the editAdam Cuerden(talk) 05:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with this analysis by Adam Cuerden, above. I'd Support the edited version. — Cirt (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit - Good catch, edit looks good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly important cultural icon.--Theparties (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pretty amazing photo, however the little adjacent structure on the right is cut off. ///EuroCarGT 01:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is unfortunate. This was as far back as I could go to avoid a large tour group (100+) behind me.-Godot13 (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still pretty nice, I'll support. ///EuroCarGT 02:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. Don't mind the adjacent structure being cut off. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iconic image, that was to become a symbol of the Great Depression. One of the most famous photos by one of the most notable social photographers, Walker Evans. Displayed at the permanent collection of Cleveland Museum of Art. The scan is of good resolution and quality.
Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — An iconic Walker Evans pic. Sca (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High resolution, good quality, and surprisingly few (if any) obvious dust spots or hairs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Jaqeli (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Image is difficult for the viewer to 'enter' due to lack of light/dark contrast. Also appears to be slightly crooked. Sca (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose left side tilted, top has a white stripe and the bottom crop feels somewhat random. --ELEKHHT 04:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the original version for consideration. Brandmeistertalk 08:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This photo (the lower one) shows a very complex mid 19th-century Neo-Gothic decorative scheme in immense detail. It is not easy to find a photo of an interior as complex as this one, in which all the intricacies of the architectonic carvings can be seen, and the stained glass windows are actually sharp!!. In terms of describing the architecture/ interior design of the period, this photo has real encyclopedic value, despite the fact that (as Sca has pointed out) it has shortcomings as a piece of "art photography". Amandajm (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unique image. Historic/Notable (extensive discussion of image in RSes). It "illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". It's a highly-evocative and extremely effective work of art.
Support as nominator. As Jon Stewart said: "Last week, the National Reconnaissance Office launched this spy satellite into orbit; And the logo they chose for their spy rocket-- this is real-- a giant octopus sucking the face off North America". It's an genuinely exquisite piece of propaganda art. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting the original The .svg doesn't seem to be 1:1 with the original Godhulii 1985 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support original - This is cool. That the patch has had critical commentary about it just sweetens the deal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with rationale by Crisco 1492, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (original) good EV, great critical commentary. --AdmrBoltz 18:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Crisco 1492. This is a really amusing picture, yet creepy at the same time. One can only wonder how such a strange choice made it through. At least the government spooks have a sense of humor. Sn1pe!(talk)(edits) 02:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I'm not sure which image should be featured. Both the original and vector are amazing in their own way. The original is notable (see HectorMoffet's comments above), while the vector is a fine reproduction of said original and is an example of epic vector art. (Although this probably isn't really relevant) Sn1pe!(talk)(edits) 02:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, oppose vector Only one of these was actually used: Vectorization adds additional artistic decisions that aren't necessarily in the original artistic design. The colours are different, there's some realizations, and so on. I've seen this realized in paint or print a few times - by official sources - and it just doesn't look like the vector. Amongst other things: The font for "NROL-39" is obviously different; the latitude lines are missing on the globe, the gradient shading seems to be different - notably, the highlight ont he rightmost leg is different from any other version, and the octopus' shading seems a bit more slapdash than it is on other versions. The arm detail matches neither the patch nor any JPEG version; Some shapes have changed - for example, the dark triangle-like shapes moving towards the tentacle from the eye are three in number on the patch, and two on the vector, etc. Vectors are great when there isn't an official realization - coats of arms, etc - but aren't for everything. That said, if we could get a high-res JPEG to vectorise - a FOIA request should get that, if nothing else - I think this could all be fixed, but given the choice between a vector from a low-resolution JPEG, or a patch, I'll take the patch. Adam Cuerden(talk) 07:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 18:51:50 (UTC)
Original – Polaroid taken by Mary Moorman on November 22, 1963, at Dealy Plaza. President Kennedy was fatally shot an estimated 0.6 seconds after it was taken. The bullet has just impacted JFK's head while Jacqueline Kennedy leans over in concern.
Reason
This polaroid photograph by Mary Moorman is not of the best technical quality, but its historical value is immense and was achieved though astonishing luck (albeit unfortunate in context).
Comment You can make out what's happening if you look at JFK at the motorcade. There are no other photographs of the event like this one. JJARichardson (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 22:41:01 (UTC)
Original – Roaring Creek in the wintertimeEdit 1 - tilt remedied
Reason
I think this is of at least a decent technical standard. It is 3264 by 1840 pixels, so no size issues. Like I said, it is certainly a decent image and streams are underrepresented among FPs. It is under a CC-BY-SA license. This image adds encyclopedic value to Roaring Creek (Pennsylvania), where it is currently the only image. It wasn't created for the purpose of supporting original research. It has an accurate name, description and location data. Finally, the image has not been altered from its original form. All in all, I think it's a great image and it would be great if it became featured.
Comment - Looks tilted, and the tops of the trees are cut off, making this picture seem more busy than it has to be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The trees being cut off really takes away from the image, I also wonder if there is a better/more telling place along the stream to take a photo, where you can see more than just a little portion of it. Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It would be more encylopedic had it not been covered in ice. Mundane composition. -
Maybe you should try taking more pictures instead of shopping for awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.132.240 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 04:53:03 (UTC)
Original – Interior view of the Romanesque church of the Scots Monastery in Regensburg, Germany.The file with some vertical perspective returned to it. The process necessitated cropping. NOTE: I uploaded this at a much lower resolution than the original and am not suggesting this version as an alternative. See comments
Reason
High EV providing good overview of the space, excellent level of detail and interesting lighting,
Comment, as usual, my negative comment about this type of image is the same. There has been a digital adjustment on the verticals of this picture which has made them parallel. This is an over-compesation for the error caused by the camera lens. The human eye sees things in perspective. When you remove all the vertical perspective, the result is to make the upper part of the picture look as if the elements are splaying outward i.e. the columns and upper wall of this building lean out at the top. The distortion caused by the adjustment is most apparent in the capitals of the two outermost columns which have become oval.
I would like this picture very much more, and find it more useful if the sense of height and perspective was re-introduced by allowing the upper part of the image to taper inward slightly. Amandajm (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know this is the case? I disagree completely that it is obvious that verticals have been corrected. It's possible that it has been digitally perspective corrected, but I strongly suspect it hasn't. And the reason why I suspect it hasn't is because the horizon is roughly in the centre of the frame. When this is the case, no correction for the verticals is required because they are already vertical. It's only when you tilt the view upwards or downwards that you introduce leaning verticals. Also, just to correct you on one additional point, even if it were corrected, it would absolutely not be compensation for an error caused by the camera lens. It is a compensation for the reality of rectilinear perspective. The camera lens has absolutely nothing to do with it, except of course that the angle of view through the lens determines the degree to which perspective is a factor, and a wide angle lens is going to result in a larger angle of view. Also, you never responded to my last attempt to discuss with you the norm of correcting vericals in architectural photography. Ensuring that vertical lines are indeed vertical is quite fundamental to this style of photography. You're entitled to dislike this sort of correction, but to crusade against it as you appear to be doing is another thing entirely. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 12:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Diliff's points, the capitals of the two outermost columns appear unnatural when you zoom in because as this is a static photo the vanishing point does not change as it would if you would be in the church and rotate your eye. For that to occur we would need some VR photography as here. --ELEKHHT 22:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response - The "horizon" of this photo is not central between the horizontal plane of the floor, and the horizontal plane of the ceiling. It is much closer to the floor. This is because the photographer or the tripod was not half as high as the building. The "horizon" (direct line of the camera's eye) was just a little higher than the top of the front altar (with the white cloth) as you would expect, because the altar is up several steps. From this horizontal both the upper sections of columns and walls, and the lower section would slope inwards slightly. This is the way the eye sees. This perspective is what gives a sense of height and depth to objects.
In old architecture, such as this, architects took into account the visual perspective. The jutting horizontal cornices, the big round carved gilded bosses, the size of the beams, the large size of figures painted on the ceiling, the outward curves entasis on the columns, the slight upward curve of the centre of the floor and many other tricks were used which make the most of the building's natural perspective. One of the most famous examples is the Parthenon. One Wiki Commons contributor took an excellent photo that demonstrated all the curved lines of the building, and then (in typical Wiki-Commons fashion, digitally straightened the building out, thereby rendering his photo totally useless for demonstrating the very thing that makes the Parthenon one of the greatest works of architecture ever created. This obsession with mathematically parallel lines spoils a great number of otherwise excellent photos, because it robs the building in the pictures of their dynamic elements of space, volume, direction and mass. Amandajm (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've missed my point slightly. I was not commenting on whether the camera was situated half way between the plane of the floor and the plane of the ceiling in terms of elevation, I was talking about the fact that the camera is not significantly tilted upwards or downwards, as evidenced by the fact that the plane of the horizon (you cannot see it, obviously, because it exists beyond the interior space, but you can estimate it). This is what causes verticals to tilt, not the elevation of the camera. Elevation of the camera affects other aspects of perspective but not verticals. As long as the camera remains horizontal, vertical lines stay vertical. You are right that the central point in the image is the top of the altar, which places it slightly above the camera parallel with the horizon, but this is still not an indication of perspective correction in my opinion. It could just as easily be caused by cropping the floor, which has the effect of moving the middle of the image further up, without having any effect on the tilt of verticals. And this, to me, is why this discussion on the 'evils of correcting verticals' is so silly. The human eye never sees a scene the way a photograph captures it because it never absorbs a very wide angle scene in any coherent and consistent way. We scan our eyes around, and build up a mental image comprised of different segments, aspects and details. We don't look up at a column and see it as leaning. It's only leaning relative to the other columns, but we don't see other spatially distant columns simultaneously. We perceive them in our peripheral vision, sure, but our brain doesn't process the perspective in any meaningful way in the periphery. In fact it could be argued that we don't even consciously perceive perspective at all. It's this lack of intuition that meant that it wasn't until the Renaissance that we actually discovered how to draw scenes in such a way that took perspective into account. Here's a thought experiment to prove my point. Go to a church, stand in the middle of the aisle and look straight ahead at the altar. Then slowly scan your eyes up towards the ceiling. Do the columns start progressively leaning inwards? I suggest they don't, even though our eyes have a wide enough field of view for perspective leaning to be significant. However, verticals absolutely do lean when you scan the camera upwards because the camera has a wide field of view but you are looking at the photos with an narrow angle of view that lets you see the perspective clearly with
foveal vision. The preoccupation with keeping the verticals leaning, to me, seems more like a desire to keep photos looking as uncorrected photos 'normally' do (a familiarity, if you will), rather than anything to do with what the eyes see natively. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 11:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - See adjusted image with vertical perspective returned to it. The image immediately becomes less flat, and looks like a place in which you could walk around. Despite the fact that the image has been cropped in the process, and less ceiling is visible, the volume and height has been returned to the building. The presence of the person who is "seeing" has been put back into the image. Amandajm (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting effect you're using there, and I'm sure some will be confused by the curved columns and floor pattern. Back to your previous comment, if you look very slightly downwards than the verticals appear vertical without any magic. While I agree with you in principle that sometimes PC can spoil images, I think in this case the image gives a good sense of the spatial depth, and the chairs, steps and table give a sense of scale, including height. As Romanesque architecture is rather massive and stable, I think perspective correction does not spoil it. Ultimately any photo is just one of many possible abstractions of reality, and choosing a perspective that shows verticals appear vertical has been and remains common in architectural perspective drawing. --ELEKHHT 06:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the introduction of curvature of the horizontal lines is more of an issue than anything that was 'corrected' in the edit. Not to mention that a significant amount of the scene has been effectively cropped. It looks to me to be a simple
barrel distortion effect. I'm interested to know in what situation perspective correction does spoil an image? The main thing I can think of is simply when it introduces so much distortion at the periphery that the subject looks grotesquely warped. I have been guilty of pushing it too far with some of my images, and I am the first to admit that, but as long as the angle of view is not ridiculously wide, I honestly don't feel that it spoils an image. I feel it actually returns a more accurate sense of how we perceive an interior space, because as I said above, I don't believe we perceive leaning verticals the way photographs portray. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 11:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, I think it can be distracting when the periphery attracts undue attention. It sometimes happens with tall buildings and tight crops like this when a vertical building edge or a narrow strip of sky is close to the picture's edge, the perfectly vertical lines are reinforced by the frame, and strengthens the visual effect Amandajm is talking about that the building is perceived 'as if splaying outward'. --ELEKHHT 23:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Elekhh: "Ultimately any photo is just one of many possible abstractions of reality". Too much fuss being made here and I fail to see the supposed benefits of the alternative version. -- Colin°Talk 12:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with Colin. Regardless of the perspective correction discussion, it's clearly a quality architectural photo of the interior. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 23:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Schottenkirche St. Jakob Innenraum Unten.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 11:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
from circa 1500. Four small circles, detailing "Death of the Sinner", "Judgement", "Hell", and "Glory", surround a larger circle in which the seven deadly sins are depicted: wrath at the bottom, then (proceeding clockwise) envy, greed, gluttony, sloth, extravagance (later, lust), and pride in scenes from everyday life rather than allegorical representations of the sins.
Reason
High resolution and quality, interesting painting; I am unaware of any of the artist's other work being featured
Weak oppose Some inscriptions in the lower left circle are illegible at full size (at least to me). Btw, his The Garden of Earthly Delights is featured. Brandmeistertalk 10:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. Fair point about the inscriptions; any estimate on their size in RL? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the painting's height is 120 cm, it seems that their height is about 1-2 cm at best. Perhaps the scanner should have high dpi or something like that since even the 4000x3411 version doesn't render them readable to me. Brandmeistertalk 13:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I thin it unlikely that a better image of this particular artwork will be produced for some time. The painting is under glass, which makes it hard to photograph without reflection. There is some minor compromise to clarity in the four outer roundels, most noticeable in the one with text.The text itself, being painted in white (more granular paint) over the darker (and therefore shinier smoother) surfaces, is the part that is most subject to damage by abrasion to the finished work. Amandajm (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Amandajm--Godot13 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Amandajm. I would prefer higher resolution, though. Adam Cuerden(talk) 11:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 23:46:41 (UTC)
Louis XVI was the king of France between 1774 and 1792. He was toppled in the French Revolution and later executed by guillotine
. He was "the only King of France ever to be executed, and his death brought an end to more than a thousand years of continuous French monarchy."
Reason
There are several scans of this painting, but this one has the highest resolution and seems to be the closest to the original colors (since its from the Google Art Project).
Promoted File:Antoine-François Callet - Louis XVI, roi de France et de Navarre (1754-1793), revêtu du grand costume royal en 1779 - Google Art Project.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 02:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not very detailed or clear photo, and the colours are quite faded. I've
Adonis Blue rather than Common Blue but it's possible I'm wrong and it is indeed the Common Blue) and I think mine is significantly better. It has the same issues of focus at the tips of the wings but is otherwise a far more detailed image and a better specimen. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 13:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
Oppose as per Diliff's stunning photograph. After comparing, it's very hard to support nom. And just as a personal bias, I love seeing pairs (male and female) of these photos nominated when there is significant sexual dimorphism. Mattximus (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 07:24:38 (UTC)
1. "I can tell a woman's age in half a minute—and I do!"
2. "Must we, till then, in prison cell be thrust?"
3. Enter Princess, reading.
4. Enter the "Daughters of the Plough," bearing Luncheon.
5. Frontispiece
6. The Gate yields. Hildebrand and Soldiers rush in.
7. "Though I am but a girl, / Defiance thus I hurl."
8. "Where are your rifles, pray?"
Reason
A fine set of images, taken from the first edition of the work. This book contains four operas, but I'm going to nominate them separately for ease of review, and because they're a bit of a nightmare to sort out. There is some half-toning, but the originals apparently haven't been available to the public since the 1960s, and are broken up and scattered. Now, we don't - at this time - have an article on the book itself. I'm working on that, but want to get my sources together first, and that will, unfortunately, take a while. Hopefully by the next set from this book. If necessary, I'm fine with breaking up the set; I think 1, at the very least, should pass without question?
Support set. Nice to see you back, Adam. Colour halftones must have been a nightmare to sort out. My own efforts with black and white weren't all that good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually somewhat easier with very early half-toning. It gets funny spots, and there's scratches, but the rest isn't too bad. Adam Cuerden(talk) 05:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. They seem a tad on the dark side. Is it just me? Kaldari (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's in the original. When I looked carefully at the originals, they were a little dark. I spent a huge amount of time trying to match the exact colours, with reasonable success, I think. Do you want me to reevaluate any in particular? Adam Cuerden(talk) 21:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They all look pretty dark, but I guess "Daughters of the Plough" especially. If you could double-check them, I would be satisfied with that. Kaldari (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Checking, I'd say they're about right, I'm afraid. If anything, a smidgen light, but I don't think I'll act on that. Adam Cuerden(talk) 10:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess I'll have to support then :) Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I can't imagine all eight images as a TFP. Sca (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, either one is chosen as a main image, or there's a script that can show different images throughout the day. We had a 20-image set last year for Puck of Pook's Hill. Adam Cuerden(talk) 23:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those things that readers don't know or care about, but I (or whoever handles POTD when these run in about a year and a half [assuming they pass]) have to worry about. It's very doable. We've also done montages, such as with the Extermination of Evil set (Howcheng set that one up). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Re FP- these have little to do with Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Theatre. Despite the fact that they illustrate plays, they have have not been produced for anything to do with theatrical production. They are not theatre posters, and do not belong to the scripts that actors would use. They are essentially book illustrations, for home reading and fit into exactly the same category as the contemporary Edmund Dulac's illustrations to "Arabian Night's, Kai Nielsens illustrations to "East of the Sun and West of the Moon" and Arthur Rackham's "Peter Pan and Wendy". If there is a class for "Literary illustrations", then that is where they belong. Amandajm (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a large number of Shakespeare works in the Theatre category that likewise don't come from productions; I think people looking for illustrations of a play will not make the distinction you're making, and would be very surprised to find these in the Literary illustrations category. Given the categories always have ambiguity, I'm pretty sure fitting unambiguously into them shouldn't be an FP criterion. We'd lose too many good images. Adam Cuerden(talk) 09:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would go for a much more encyclopedic degree of accuracy in the cataloguing. I would put photos of productions, and theatrical posters and the like under "Theatre" and everything in this class under illustration. Where do you draw the line between an illustration to J.M. Barrie's novel "Peter Pan" and J.M. Barrie's play of "Peter Pan"? Likewise all the countless 19th century oil paintings based on Shakespearian subjects are not substantially different to all the similar pictures based on
Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales". They are first and foremost narrative paintings that are about the characters and stories of the plays. They are not theatrical, in the sense of being associated with the theatre. In fact, in common with all the other works that I have mentioned, most people who know Shakespeare's plays well, know them from reading them rather than from seeing theatrical productions. If book Illustrations for publications and paintings based on the subjects are usually categorised under "Theatre" then this needs to be re-thought and the works sorted into a different category. The might belong under a category named "Shakespeare" but they do not belong under the category "Theatre". These present works do not belong under "Theatre" either. They belong under "Book illustration". Amandajm (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
In any case, this is getting off-topic, as the categorization is, in the end, up tot he closer, and has nothing to do with the FP. If you want to discuss it further, let's do it on the talk page. Adam Cuerden(talk) 10:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with Crisco 1492, above, that it is good to see such high quality contributions from Adam Cuerden, again. Hope all is well by both of you, — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support- though I agree that the colours are rather dark. My observation of illustrated books of this date is that the intensity of colour in the prints can vary from book to book, and sometimes within a book. Amandajm (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is, indeed true. However, not having access to a second copy, I can only judge off of my own. =) If I get to go to Wikimania this year, I think I might well bring my copy and see what people think. Adam Cuerden(talk) 10:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 1.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 2.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 3.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 4.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 5 (Frontispiece).jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 6.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 7.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 8.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 23:36:32 (UTC)
Original – NASA astronaut Neil Armstrong photographed by Buzz Aldrin aboard Apollo 11, after having completed extra-vehicular activity making him the first human being in history to step foot on another planet. (cropped version of original) [A]
Reason
A striking high quality portrait with immense historical significance.
Articles in which this image appears
Neil Armstrong
FP category for this image
People/Science and engineering or Space/Getting there
Support. Iconic. High EV, High quality image. Also, SCIENCE!!! — Cirt (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow-- this has to be one of the most historic images in human history. Good nom! --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HectorMoffet, if that is a !vote please be explicit so that nobody miscounts when closing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was my way of saying Support, but I'm new so I don't know the criteria as well as others. :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Interesting historical shot, but could be cropped more tightly. I want to tell the photographer to take One Small Step forward... Sca (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a cropped version and included it in the nom. JJARichardson (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to quibble, but suggest taking a bit more off the top, which is outta focus anyway. (At full res. Armstrong's stubbly face is interesting.) Sca (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is that better? I've focused on the face while avoiding cropping out the NASA logo on his spacesuit. JJARichardson (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I've decided to change my nomination to the cropped version. JJARichardson (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I like it — good work! Sca (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: the votes above JJARichardson's "Update" above relate to the image now labeled "alternative."
Note — The closeup version labeled original above is actually the 2nd cropped version, i.e. the one we're talking about at this point, per nominator JJARichardson. Sca (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Cirt's and HectorMoffet's votes are about the other one. This is why changing your nomination in the middle was not the best idea.
So, one is not allowed to change one's mind? Sca (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure one is. One just shouldn't change the image marked "original", otherwise it will look like one is misrepresenting previous opinions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing semantics, all right — That's why I added the note above. Sca (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative - I don't like the cropped version; the module in the background adds value IMO. --CyberXRef☎ 04:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer I have marked the two as A and B. At the time that JJARichardson, Cirt, and HectorMoffet cast support votes, only B was visible, so were all clearly voting for that one. It is unclear which version
Comment -- I support B. I regret I didn't include the alt in the conventional way, but I was swayed by enthusiasm! JJARichardson (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support B, Oppose A - The focus on this is not a portrait of Neil Armstrong, it's Armstrong after the moonwalk. We need enough context to establish the location. Adam Cuerden(talk) 06:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Face behind him is distracting. Why is this black and white when it was taken in 1982? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is the face, can't we process that out. If it is the black and white, nothing we can do.--
WP:FP? #8: "Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Support
Comment- The image is in back and white because it is an image that is dependent on texture for effect, not upon colour. Crisco 1492, as an artist and photographer, I find the fact that you are asking that question about a black and white image very disturbing. Black and White is a valid choice made by the photographer as artist.
The background image gives depth and context to the foreground face. Amandajm (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not addressing this as an artistic work, but as an encyclopedic photograph (not everything at Wikipedia's FPC is about the photograph as a work of art, Amanda, and that question was rhetorical anyways). Skin tone, eye colour, and hair colour are among the most standard requirements for identifying an individual, none of which are depicted here. Considering how common colour photography was in the 1980s, opposing black and white in preference of a colour photograph is entirely acceptable. You'll find that many other b&w portraits from the 1970s up have had a hard time at FPC (though some do pass).
As for the face giving depth and context, it's entirely doable without a face (which has distracting lines and tones which do not contrast very well with another face). I much prefer the use of the cabinet in Warren's picture of Coward (below). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response, I would argue that in a bald grey-headed ageing man with dark eyes and bushy eyebrows, skin tone, eye colour, and hair colour are not among the most standard requirements for identifying the person as an individual. Colour is significantly less important as a person ages, which is the reason that many portrait photos of older people are in Black and white. The structure, form and texture of the features are always significant in portraiture, and become increasingly significant as the person ages. This picture conveys those elements extremely well, and, moreover, conveys "character". If this forum has been in the habit of rejecting portrait photos on the grounds that they are in black and white, then you need to reconsider your values. Would you reject an 19th century engraved portrait because it was an engraving, on the grounds that you would prefer a 19th century watercolour? Amandajm (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously comparing two different mediums (apples and oranges) to two different varieties of one medium (Macintosh and Pink Lady)? Wow.
Yes, detail on the face is important (and the possibilities of fine grain B&W were obviously a consideration when this photograph was taken). Hair colour may have less value for identification as a person ages (assuming they do not dye it), but that is not to say all colour loses value. Again, we are not debating the value of this photograph as an artistic work. We are discussing it in the context for being featured on the English Wikipedia, which emphasizes encyclopedic work. There are many, myself included, who find black & white lacking. Don't get me wrong though, if there weren't a distracting face in the background, I'd have likely stayed neutral (and quiet) or voted a weak support (worth half a !vote). I try not to oppose simply because an image is B&W.
As for "If this forum has been in the habit of rejecting portrait photos on the grounds that they are in black and white,", I said they generally have trouble. I never said they are routinely rejected. Many just get more opposes than colour images would have. Stop putting words in my mouth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. While I do actually like this photo, like Chris, I am not keen on the greyscale; it's something we should be avoiding in recent photographs. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Recent" is always relative. Relative to the development and widespread adoption of colour photography, I consider 1982 "recent". J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Sharp image of an artistic face full of character. Sca (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the picture, it's very clear. I don't think the fact that it's grayscale hurts it a slight bit. --CyberXRef☎ 03:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Black and white film was still used in 1982 for a lot of things, this doesn't look like a mere desaturated image. Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lede image in the English Wikipedia article, colours look nice, etc. However, did Diego forget to calibrate his camera when coming to the US? It's hard to believe he got that kind of lighting at 10:30 PM, in Chicago, in October. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even usually adjust for daylight savings let alone trips across the pond.--
Support, Lovely picture. I like the combinations of different buildings and foliage, and the way the pic is framed by the trees on one side and the curve of the path on the other. Amandajm (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously high quality as featured on Commons. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The buildings and scenery are the perfect match in this photo. ///EuroCarGT 21:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also like this one, and agree with you that there is a kind of harmony between the buildings and the foliage. Crisco: yes, unfortunately I forgot. It happened a few times and sometimes I realized it just one day later. The local time was 3:41 pm Poco2 10:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll update the page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 03.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 08:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Right now I'm not seeing much EV, as the article is a tad over-illustrated. Technically it's very nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Banaue Philippines Batad-Rice-Terraces-02.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Sca (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I did not nominate this because it is "beautiful" but because it is "ugly". Sometimes to see the truth that is where you look.--Theparties (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks a little dark, but then, not every day is bright and sunny. Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, certainly most educational and encyclopedic. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support,--In the name effort and Art — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.198 (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Visible JPG artefacting, looks like it was cleaned but ... definitely digital manipulation (that font at the bottom... no way it's a 16th century font) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, priestess is spelled incorrectly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- I have no idea what the "chart" was created for, when it was created or why. The original images of the Boxer Codex, as they appear on the article's page, are beautiful and interesting. This image, combining figures from the codex, is far less valuable than the codex illustrations themselves. Amandajm (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for the weird text. J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 22:52:23 (UTC)
Original – "Map of Armenia and the Roman client states in eastern Asia Minor, ca. 50 AD, before the Roman-Parthian War and the annexation of the client kingdoms into the Empire"
Reason
Nicely made vector map of high encyclopedic value.
Support as nominator --Երևանցիtalk 22:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree that it has high encyclopedic value. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was a little shocked Mtskheta is spelt correctly, but, as it is, I see no reason whatsoever not to support. Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to Cplakidas, one of the greatest users I know. Misspellings of geographic names of this region are quite common, but how else would they spell Mtskheta? --Երևանցիtalk 18:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's that I've never seen the name before, and it has five consonants in a row, so - as I do not know much about the languages of that part of the world - it looked wrong. Adam Cuerden(talk) 11:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In reality it's 3 consecutive consonants (m, ts, kh), but since English doesn't have those letters, they are converted into two-letters each. --Երևանցիtalk 19:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, my ignorance of Georgian aside, it's a fantastic map. Adam Cuerden(talk) 01:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Solid SVG map. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Late to the party.--Theparties (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How precise are these boundaries? My concern is that representing them with double continuous lines makes them appear very precise, while in fact might be less so, but I am not familiar with the history.
In terms of graphics I think the map could be clearer if the labels of cities were placed within the territory to which they belong if there is pace for that. For instance the map shows Amida to be in Sophene, but the label was placed in the KoA, although there is enough space in Sophene to display it there. Also I don't see why overlapping labels across borders when is not necessary, such as in the case of "Doliche". A minor issue: the "200" on the scale bar has a different font size than the "0". --ELEKHHT 23:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Cute, but it's a gimmicky posed shot of political figure by a photographer who works for him. Where politicians are concerned, candid shots are much preferred. Sca (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not in Obama's article, but in the gymnasts. This shows her meeting the president, which is generally a decent indication of national recognition (especially when the president copies your signature move!) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine to include it in McKayla Maroney, but I don't think it's appropriate for TFP. Sca (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Picture of the Day. Not all FPs will be POTD, though all POTDs must be FPs. They are different processes. Please familiarize yourself with the distinction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Support Not a fully posed shot. We can see distracting moving people behind in the original version. Jee 16:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong EV for the McKayla Maroney article and a well-executed photo, and it would also be useful in articles on how modern politicians present themselves. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't know. It feels a bit twee... We seem to love showing Obama left, right and centre, and this just feels like more of the same. I'm not necessarily convinced that her being next to Obama is actually that great- she's not a politician- I'd rather see her with a coach. J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the image is also in List of Internet phenomena, I'd argue that this is not emphasizing Obama as a person, but the president as an office, showing how far the meme went. Same goes for sporting: meme, not athletics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:J Milburn. Practically any photo of a sitting president (with practically anyone else) emphasizes that person. This pic, basically a PR shot, is just too cute — "twee" indeed. (Disclaimer: The preceding opinion has nothing to do with my politics.) Sca (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Showcases an Olympic athlete, a President of the USA and an Internet meme. That's more EV than a featured clothes iron.
Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
But what a clothes iron! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
[reply]
Oppose for now. Stunning portrait, but we're going to need to see OTRS permission; this is an image that Kimm uses as a publicity photo. J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we get the license out of the way what about her publicity rights?
Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Conditional Support until license issues clarified. Tomer T (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until license is established to be correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The photo is nice, not sure about the focus, if there is one.Oppose Boring.--Theparties (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Poignant. Sca (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support — I like the image. The focus is obviously the girl in the middle. She is reasonably sharp and the straight into-the-camera look while she grasps and partly hides herself behind the boy next to her really makes a beautiful photo that urges me to read an article about these kids. The problem is, the EV is thin and spread widely. Both the
Pashtun people. The latter also uses a crop of the picture in this image that is also used in a few other articles like Pashtunistan and Pashtun_diaspora. Since these kids cannot really be identified as Pashtun people by the reader (no traditional dress or similar characteristics) their EV lies in their story, i.e. how they got to Camp Clark where this photo was taken. Without an article on Camp Clark or on the US-operation that got these kids there the EV is limited. --Ebertakis (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Support, agree it is poignant. — Cirt (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ebertakis - limited EV. Tomer T (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm also failing to see any real EV here. A great press photo, not so great for an encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak supportOppose While it is nice to have a photo of her, I don't know if I want to see her armpits.--Theparties (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Six years old. I don't particularly like the arm waving off the frame — distracting. Sca (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support well executed. Tomer T (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Face is great, do agree with Sca about the arm, though. Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high quality image. — Cirt (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Useful digitization of a notable painting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Crisco. Not my favourite painting, but what does that have to do with EV? Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's a good image; although the lack of references (only 3) makes me question the notability status of that painting just a little. --CyberXRef☎ 17:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rather interesting architecture. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Unusual and mysterious artifact of distant times, not widely known in the U.S. (Could be cropped more tightly top & bottom.) Sca (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Interesting and good EV, is it possible to remove the CA on the top edges?-Godot13 (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Featured Picture on Commons, and Picture of the Day Selection on Commons. — Cirt (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Always amazed how popular are reflections on Commons. Noting that the
criteria here is different, I think EV is limited as the image neither does show the whole building, or even the whole base of the building, nor does it provide high level of detail of the facade. I also find the framing less than ideal, as the base is cropped (both the stairs on the left and on the right), the top crop appears bit random and the hand rail in the lower-left corner does not help either. --ELEKHHT 00:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose I'm not a fan of the composition of this piece. The tight vertical crop leaves me without a clear picture of exactly how tall this building is, while the tight horizontal crop leaves me without any other objects through which I can judge this building's scale.
Comment: Well, I do also like reflexions but rather as an artistic touch which is not always married with high EV. The building itself is not shown fully and was not the idea, either. Therefore, I share your comments, Sven and Elekhh. Poco2 10:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has modest EV for the articles it illustrates. I think people often confuse encyclopaedic value with their own personal interest in the subject. If people are interested in knowing what the bridge looks like, how better could you describe it than with a high resolution photo clearly showing the bridge and its surroundings? Ðiliff«»(Talk) 07:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support I'm not really a modern photography expert - the perspective looks a little odd, insofar as the bridge looks slightly twisted - you can almost see the roadway on the left, but not as you move right. Is that normal for this type of image? Given a reassurance, I'm happy to support. Adam Cuerden(talk) 01:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it looks strange, but I suspect it's simply because the bridge is slightly curved at that end (Google Maps evidence to back me up). Because of the bend in the road, it is
cambered. This is pretty normal in road building, and helps make driving more comfortable around bends. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 07:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you, that's all I needed to know. =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 18:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I appreciate the effort of EurocarGT to try to improve the photo but in my opinion, I don't think it is necessary, and nor has the edit actually improved the image. It now has halos in the sky typical of HDR processing or the overuse of the Shadow/Highlight tool in Photoshop, and doesn't look as realistic to my eye. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 07:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then is the original the best way to go? ///EuroCarGT 16:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is yes, the original is fine. It could be brightened ever so slightly perhaps, but it would be better for me to go back to the original file and do it properly. Even so, I don't think it's necessary. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 22:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Support Original. This FP in Commons may be also worth to consider even though I prefer Diliff's version. Jee 08:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that there was already an FP on Commons. I may be biased but I prefer my version too, it shows the bridge and the ocean below more completely, although the lighting is quite different. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original only too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Bixby Creek Bridge, California, USA - May 2013.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 02:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just one of the users, who !voted before the addition of the edit, expressed a positive opinion about it, and every user afterward supported the original only. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 02:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A rare example of freely licensed video game cover art. Even rarer is that it's by a notable artist, Bryan Lee O'Malley. High resolution and delightful, it captures the theme and spirit of the game.
Support Agree with nom. Straight from the press kit so I'm not sure if this can ever be improved upon. Mattximus (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I agree that it's about the best such picture we'll ever get. Tezero (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's nice to see that, at least among indie developers, we're finally getting freely licensed visual assets (previously screenshots, now also a cover). I will continue to support them here (and nominate them here, when I'm the person that secures them), because I think that there is high encyclopedic value in them, and because once these start hitting the main page, it might encourage other studios to also release visual assets under free licenses.
Support. I'd maybe think twice about putting on the main page (perhaps make sure it's alongside a TFA on a traditional, scholarly topic!) but I'm certainly happy to see pictures like this featured. J Milburn (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hot damn! I think Bencherlite would enjoy having a reason to avoid a video game TFA. I don't think this would be too promotional as POTD, especially since we have screenshots too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (uploader). High-quality box art → high EV. The article's well on its way to FA, and just wait until you see the other media in the pipeline (the composer is compiling a medley). I've had a bunch of indie studios release assets recently, so I suppose I could bring more of them here. By the way, I didn't get a notification about the nom... just happened to run into this page. czar
It works, but only after creating the initial page (i.e. you'd have had to ping Czar after creating this page). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree with all reasons given by nominator,
Support - Very colorful, free work, high resolution, and by a notable artist. I definitely approve of this. --Nicereddy (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, an amazing cover work with a smooth and colourful artwork. ///EuroCarGT 04:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a featured picture on commons and has been commons POTD. It appears to be technically meritorious. There are no distortions and the picture is framed so as to give it a finished look. I also like the unique colors in the sky from what is likely dusk in this westward picture.
Support The sunset looks amazing! Wide shot with the skyscrapers and buildings in the middle ground is simply ideal for a FP. ///EuroCarGT 21:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a handsome shot which clearly deserves its featured status at Commons, but the EV for the Petrillo Music Shell article (the only article in which it's used) seems weak given that the music shell doesn't stand out at all: this is really a photo of the skyline at sunset. Nick-D (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have to agree with Nick. If I would have to provide the best article for this shot it would rather be Architecture of Chicago IMHO, the Music Shell is not really in focus here. Poco2 09:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was rationalizing image use in Legacy Tower earlier today, and I think this would do a really good job in that article. The article really needs some expansion, mind you, but it's a decent start class, and, after the earlier rationalization, this is image 2 and shows a substantially different aspect than image 1 - and the sunset actually has an encyclopedic purpose, as the Legacy Tower is meant to reflect the sky. I think this adds enough EV to allow a Support. Adam Cuerden(talk) 18:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the EV is very strong in that article either given that the tower is at the extreme right of the photo and doesn't really stand out much. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd consider that an advantage. We want to show it in context, this shows the part least covered in the other image, but in a way that makes it easy to quickly point it out in the caption. Adam Cuerden(talk) 17:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nick-D. --ELEKHHT 23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 10:53:09 (UTC)
Original – The Philippine Navy's newest ship, BRP Gregorio del Pilar (PF-15), arrives at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam during a scheduled port visit. The ship, a former U.S. Coast Guard cutter, is on its maiden voyage to the Republic of the Philippines to join the Philippine Navy Fleet. As a multi-mission surface combatant ship, Gregorio del Pilar becomes the first gas-turbine jet engine-powered vessel in the Philippine Navy fleet.
Reason
There is no image of ship from the Philippines yet to be featured despite being a maritime country.
Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class (SW) Mark Logico (US Navy)
Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I like it a lot (even despite the white-on-white); my only reservation is that it's a little small. Also, are they members of the Philippines Navy onboard, or are they Americans? J Milburn (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Horizon is not horizontal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that it's been straightened. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Needs rotation. Adam Cuerden(talk) 18:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I trust this is acceptable? May need to purge your cache. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 10:53:13 (UTC)
Original – Philippine Tarsier (Tarsius syrichta), one of the smallest primates. This one is about 5 inches long with a tail longer than its body. Photo taken in Bohol, Philippines.
Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Colors and contrast are better in this one than in the one above. Sca (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tail is missing completely, the background is blown and there isn't a single thing in sharp focus in the image. --Ebertakis (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The quality's really below the bar on this one. Compare it to the recently promoted File:Squirrel posing.jpg- that's what we'd be looking for, here. File:Drymoreomys albimaculatus 002.jpg is a bit weaker than the squirrel shot, but it was promoted because of the extreme rarity of photos of the species. J Milburn (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creator = mtoz; not Flickr upload bot. Pick creator from the author field than from the upload log. Jee 07:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ebertakis and J Milburn, and suggest speedy close. This has been placed into the above articles on the day of nomination, sometimes in quite unfitting articles or sections, as well as poor captions. I would suggest the nominator to read more carefully
WP:FP?, in particular #5, and pay attention when crediting the author per Jee above. --ELEKHHT 23:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... in favor of the other shot below. Sca (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support due to tail cut-off, but I prefer this photo over the one below. Anyway I hope sooner or later we'll feature this animal. Brandmeistertalk 17:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit better than the one below but very noisy. --Ebertakis (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; nice, but noisy. I think the colours may be a bit off, too. J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Not bad, but could be more contrasty. Sca (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really do not like the crop; the original crop has much better composition, as it gives a sense of depth. Adam Cuerden(talk) 00:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 17:48:41 (UTC)
Original – The Chicago Loop portion of the Chicago skyline surrounding East Monroe Street includes Legacy Tower.
Reason
This is a featured picture on commons and a former commons POTD. These recognitions denote the good execution of the photo. It has EV by adding context as a supplementary picture at Legacy Tower. I think it is as important as the main image in that use.
Support Presuming that the perspective isn't too distorting - and it looks fine, I just don't know Chicago - this is one of the most unique and compelling images I've seen of a city in some time. Article usages are acceptable, could be more prominent, but good enough to add value. Adam Cuerden(talk) 09:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and rationalized the images in Legacy Tower. This one's clearly the best, and shows things far better than any of the other images did. Adam Cuerden(talk) 09:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also like this picture very much. That stretched Hummer was the perfect chance to balance the composition against the skyscrapers with a little help of a wide angle lens. Poco2 09:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice shot, and agree with Poc that the Hummer helps the composition. Currently the EV is dispersed in several articles and there is no article about East Monroe Street where it would have the highest EV (if notable). However the EV in Legacy Tower is sufficient. As it seems that this image was taken from the Nichols pedestrian bridge, I think this should be specified in the file description. --ELEKHHT 23:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Calle E Monroe St, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 04.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 18:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit Edit has made the picture more vivid. ///EuroCarGT 02:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. Think I might have a poke at this one. Keep voting, though, I'll let everyone know when I'm done, if changes happen. Adam Cuerden(talk) 04:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — You don't see many depictions of 19th century German warships that predated the WWI navy. Historically interesting. Sca (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, certainly most unique, per Sca note, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I love the image, but there's a LOT of JPEG artefacting and it's tilted. The first of these can't be fixed, really, without a better copy. That said some playing with https://ia600204.us.archive.org/10/items/ibis49brit/ MIGHT find a higher resolution copy in one of the zipped files. Adam Cuerden(talk) 09:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No opinion yet on the picture, but, if promoted, this should go in Animals/Birds. It's useful as a likeness of the bird, not as a literary illustration. J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --—ШαмıQ✍ @ 09:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Halftoned and blurry. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I assume this has been scanned from a newspaper? No matter how high the resolution of the scan, the source material isn't exactly ideal. J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not directly from a newspaper, but from a book which has pictures taken from newspapers.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 14:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
URAA problems: Pakistan was founded in 1947. Pakistan copyright law says photographs keep copyright 50 years past publication. This means that nothing went out of copyright in Pakistan before the U.S. implemented the
URAA, giving it a U.S. Copyright, and making it ineligible for Wikipedia. This is an awful situation, but not one that we can do anything about. Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Hmm... I have some questions regarding this: When does that US copyright expire? And if this copyright is assumed, are no images created in Pakistan (after 1947) eligible to be used on Commons? (I was planning of uploading a dozen or so images of really historic events) —ШαмıQ✍ @ 14:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry, poor quality photograph, with low EV. Mattximus (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2014 at 14:42:28 (UTC)
Original – The Streatham Portrait, discovered at the beginning of the 21st century and believed to be a copy of a contemporary portrait of Lady Jane Grey, de facto queen of England for 9 days in 1553
Reason
High resolution, nice and sharp, near-contemporary (40 years difference for this copy, the original portrait may have been closer). Interesting information about provenance will allow for a good POTD blurb. A big thank you to Dcoetzee for purchasing this digitization
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2014 at 22:37:26 (UTC)
Original – 1856 daguerreotype of transcendentalist philosopher Henry David Thoreau by Benjamin D. Maxham
Reason
The image size is below the preferred dimensions, but I believe that the picture is iconic and historically important enough to warrant featuring. It is strikingly clear for a daguerreotype. I have seen it reproduced in a manner similar to Guerrillero Heroico.
Oppose - Aside from resolution, the image looks a bit jpg artefacted. Also, there are higher resolution images of him elsewhere, such as at the LOC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this restored version to the nom as an alternate choice. JJARichardson (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have also fixed the awkward tilt of the alt version. JJARichardson (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it, but I don't like the crop: It's too tight at the top. Adam Cuerden(talk)
I've reverted to what was there when J. Milburn suggested the file, per the pertinent guideline (i.e. as a VI this should not be overwritten). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- I much prefer the alternative. Amandajm (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both versions. We have significantly sharper images from the 1850s, so I'm not willing to overlook the obvious damage to the alternate just because of its age. As to the original, I agree with the above posters.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2014 at 23:34:23 (UTC)
Original – 12 August 1941: the first successful use of Jet-Assisted Take-Off (JATO) propulsion technology, invented by the Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology (GALCIT)
Reason
Take-off of America's first "rocket-assisted" airplane, an Ercoupe fitted with a GALCIT developed solid propellent 28 pound thrust JATO (Jet Assisted Take-Off) booster. High resolution image with significant historical and educational value.
Articles in which this image appears
Jack Parsons (rocket propulsion engineer), ERCO Ercoupe
Comment - Considerable dust and some scratching. I may get to it if I have time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Restoration uploaded over the original. Looks better now. Technical issues can be forgiven owing to the uniqueness of this image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: this is a duplicate !vote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Crisco. That said, can something be done about the thumbprint/scuffmarks on the seat of the trousers of the third person from the left? Very, very distracting. Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 00:42:34 (UTC)
Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres's The Turkish Bath, a 108 cm × 108 cm (43 in × 43 in) oil on wood painting completed in 1862. Though originally rectangular, it was modified into the current tondo format by the artist in 1863Alt (unretouched)
Alt 2 (brightened somewhat)
Reason
Very high resolution, high quality, notable painting
Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT 2 as well. Agree with Chick that the palimpsest effect is useful for seeing the history of the work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! I've changed my mind. --Theparties (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, support alt (unretouched). Removing the corners of the canvas was a poor decision. The palimpsestic effect is important, carries a lot of information since it reveals how the original rectangular painting was converted to a tondo, and is also just extremely interesting. White backgrounds in general are not a great way to display tondo paintings, but particularly this one!
Support orig. — Not impressed by palimpsestic aspect, and I don't think most readers/viewers would be either. For what it's worth, French, Spanish and Dutch Wikis all use the retouched version in their entries on The Turkish Bath (as does English Wiki). Iconic. Sca (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both original and Alt1. This may sound ridiculous, but can we not have something between the two? Both have their merits... J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done, though this is a much more conservative edit than the original (which introduced too much green in my view).
That's the kind of thing I was meaning. Neutral for now. J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise — I'm OK with Alt. 2. Sca (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To make things easier for the closer, I'd suggest explicitly writing "Support ALT2". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt. 2 — Sca (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose---The cropped version is the more useful for almost all practical purposes, although the uncropped version would have purpose in an article specifically about this particular painting. In a general article on French painting, on Classical painting or of the artist, the cropped version is to be preferred as indicated above. On the other hand, the cropped version has been brightened to a state where the coloration of the shadows on the principal figure has been lost. I can't support either state. Amandajm (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the three images has enough support for promotion (2/5 for the original, 1/3 for alt and 4/5 for alt 2). ArmbrustTheHomunculus 05:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — CROP! But even if cropped, why? Sca (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added a cropped version to the nom, which I give my support to. JJARichardson (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While having the Palácio da Alvorada in the background is in principle a good idea, the composition is very poor, as the building is too blurred to be easily recognizable (note how in one of the previous failed FPCs it has been mistaken for the Palácio do Planalto without anyone noticing it), while the composition is too busy, with the background distracting from the subject. Furthermore, the harsh flash light makes it look like a collage (as already pointed out in the two failed FPCs). --ELEKHHT 22:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ELEKHH. Cropped version is better, but still too much 'noise' (we don't really need to see his sash or whatever it is). Sca (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 10:34:46 (UTC)
Original – The Battle of Lepanto of 1571 waged by Don John of Austria. Don Juan of Austria in battle, at the bow of the ship, painted by Juan Luna y Novicio. (1887)
Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a very poor reproduction of the painting. For just one problem, look at the dark areas in the bottom left. J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per preceding comment by J Milburn. Looks amateurish. Sca (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it looks like a photograph of a photograph of a painting. Mattximus (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 11:09:59 (UTC)
Original – Pure (99.9 %), argon arc remelted hafnium-ingots with visible crystalline structures. View of the front- and backside. Colors are a thin film effect in the oxide layer.
Reason
a nice and high resolution view of remelted hafnium pellets
Question - Would a pure white background work better? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A true white background looks always overexposed for me. This image was taken on a frosted glass plate (milk glass plate?). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Though I'd like to see your reply to Hahnchen before !voting, as I agree that the second image is quite nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right too. But the other image don't show us the main: the crystalline struckture of this material. It is "normal" to see the colorful thin oxide layer at remelted hafnium metal samples. Also at ebeam remelted material, because Hf is a very good Getter material. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support OOF around his face and the mic is in the way (resolution is rather small too). However, the pose is quite nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with a caveat The image is quite good, but the usage could be a bit better. Normally, images in galleries are only allowed if they're part of a large set, but I think this gallery is particularly well-used - illustrating each aspect of the plant with a different image - so am happy make an exception. Adam Cuerden(talk) 10:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rather grainy and bad composition: Jackie's head obstructs a good portion of John's face, that in combination with his dark glasses renders him almost unrecognizable. In addition, Jackie's navy-blue dress and John's also navy-blue sweater blend almost seamlessly thus making Jackie look as if she has grown a hand out of her back. This is just a retro-looking celebrity snapshot. --Ebertakis (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. I like the idea, with the background resembling a nineteenth-century oil painting of a naval battle. But the actual photo is problematic, as noted above, with a partially obscured face and a bothersome piece of plywood with a map on it in front of Mrs. Kennedy. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2014 at 19:30:50 (UTC)
Original – December 21,1970: U.S. President Richard Nixon meets musician Elvis Presley in the Oval Office; Elvis was motivated to contact Nixon by his contempt for the hippie drug culture and support for Nixon's War on Drugs
Reason
This was nominated six years ago without consensus. I want to give it another shot. It is a high quality and iconic photograph of significant cultural and historical value. Features "two of the two greatest recording artists of the 20th century". *wink* (If Obama and McKayla can be featured, then why not this?)
Comment -- Added a cropped version to the nom. JJARichardson (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Tighter! (Who cares about the flags? Here we have two famous faces ... or should I say, one infamous and one famous face?) Sca (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative — A nice, if gritty, juxtapositioning of two rather haunting historical / cultural figures known the world over. Sca (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, oppose alt - The context is half the story. This is not "Tricky Dick went somewhere, saw Elvis". This is "Tricky Dick invited Elvis to the oval office" (if I recall the story, after Elvis said he wanted to work for Nixon...). That and the original is the most widely reproduced version. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For 1970 I think it's a mediocre quality (fuzzy and black-'n'-white), Elvis deserves a color photo. Brandmeistertalk 09:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have done an image search and found no decent colour version. JJARichardson (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is grainy, but the subjects outweigh that. Still support cropped version, which remains identifiably White-House-ish. Sca (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support either version for basic quality and historical meaning. I see Crisco's point, but that's a messy Oval Office. Problem with the cropped version is that the flags are a bit distracting; problem with the other is that the bookcase is distracting. Can't win 'em all, I suppose: both versions are important. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm honestly not convinced of particularly high EV, here. Possibly in the film article, but it's hardly well-developed... J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is a great characterisation of the two significant people. The uncropped picture is well composed and gives real context, which the cropped version doesn't. The cropped version is badly composed because of the tightness of the cropping. I strongly oppose using the cropped version. Amandajm (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hate the cutoff legs, but... y'know, both dead, can't retake... Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do feel that the image could use a bit of a clean, but this would potentially be a fantastic TFP for International Women's Day, if we haven't got anything else lined up. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing yet, though I'd love to schedule this. I have someone over for the next week, but perhaps Adam Cuerden would have time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high resolution --Երևանցիtalk 18:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. This is one of the early photographic types, which means it's a bit low-contrast, but what are we going to do? Go back in time? It'd be misleading to misrepresent the photo. Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it needs to be in use in articles on English Wikipedia to be eligible for featured picture here. I think the easiest way forwards would be if you worked with someone to make a really well-sourced article on yourself, which this and other images could then be added into. (It would also provide context that could be linked to from Ed Koch's page). Now, obviously, you'll need to be a little careful: writing your own article is frowned upon, but, so long as you mainly act as a supplier of reliable sources to show your notability and such, it should be fine. A quick web search shows ample evidence that you're notable. Adam Cuerden(talk) 04:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, Adam. I nominated this picture because in Featured picture criteria it is not specified that an article must be in English, and cannot be in Russian. If you can, please support this nomination.
User:ГатиловСергей who published the two articles above is a curator who worked with me on several exhibitions. Maybe he will publish an English one too.DmitryBorshch (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I hardly believe other wikipedians will vote for this pic because it's not in any en.wikipedia.org page...Godhulii 1985 (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until used. EV on the English Wikipedia is not derived from the Russian Wikipedia. It's that simple. Or should a POTD blurb be in Russian? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Hi Crisco, since you've admin right so please modify Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article texts of Criteria for featured pic page. Mentioning that the picture must be used in english wikipedia would be helpful. No-7 mention about file description being in english, not about being used in en.wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godhulii 1985 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's perfectly clear. This is the featured picture process on the English Wikipedia, for featured picture status on the English Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2014 at 23:58:15 (UTC)
Original – Paris Street; Rainy Day is a 212.2 cm x 276 cm oil painting by the French artist Gustave Caillebotte, completed in 1877. The piece depicts the Place de Dublin, an intersection near the Gare Saint-Lazare, a railroad station in north Paris.
Support — Iconic, and a nice illustration of the rule of thirds. Sca (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing --Երևանցիtalk 18:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent illustration. --Carioca (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good to me. As per above. Mattximus (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--It is an excellent reproduction of an extremely odd painting. It is, in fact, a great demonstration as to how the formal concept of a rule of thirds may not be applied by an artist who dares challenge it. What we have here is a painting divided precisely down the middle by a lamppost, separating the near from the far. This division is then further divided into quarters. The face of the young woman is in the middle of the right side, both horizontally and vertically. In the left side, a small distant couple occupies the same position, one quarter of the way across the painting. The single notable object that occupies a "thirds" position is the umbrella that shelters the righthand couple. It is all very tidy, very challenging and a little surreal. Amandajm (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my possibly benighted view, the eye focuses on the gentleman under the umbrella, and he is about two-thirds of the way across the canvas. However, I concede that some of Caillebotte's other works [1] more readily illustrate the rule of thirds. Sca (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Gustave Caillebotte - Paris Street; Rainy Day - Google Art Project.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 23:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think incomplete photo is passable - indeed, seems to be cut-off at the bottom, compared to the map. Nice though. Brandmeistertalk 15:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd take about 300px off the top — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to see more than one shirt button, either. Sca (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'd be that drastic. This is close to a quarter-length portrait, which is acceptable enough to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will you suggest an edit? Tomer T (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uploading a crop over this one. If I'm reverted I'll upload separately. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support cropped version (right now marked Original) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. I'm not fussed about crops, but I can only support if (firstly) an English description is added to Commons and (secondly) the article is beefed a little further (at the least, a couple of decent sources are added to a further reading list). J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really don't like the choice of background here. It's too distracting.
Support. Agree that the background could have been better separated, but I don't find it too distracting. Detail is good, and the pose is pleasant. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 18:29:09 (UTC)
Original – Edward Gibbon (1737-94) was an English historian, whose The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is considered a major historical work of the Enlightenment. "Because of its relative objectivity and heavy use of primary sources, at the time its methodology became a model for [all] later historians."
Support-- The painting has been reproduced in English books on Rembrandt for the last 150 years at least, always with the English name "Jeremiah lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalem". I can't understand why the caption is in Dutch. Amandajm (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But Rembrandt was, in fact, Dutch, so it does seemt he Dutch should be favoured. Adam Cuerden(talk) 05:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia and all that. Of course, the article on the painting (if written) would have the original Dutch in addition to the English title. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the by, I think verwoesting may be more accurately translated as "devastation." It's a cognate of the German Verwüstung, incorporating the word for desert (Dutch: woestijn; German: Wüste) — and thus implies reducing something to a wasteland.
In any case, there's no need to capitalize "Destruction." Sca (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you consider it part of a proper noun, like "Battle of Shiloh". It's a subtly different meaning capitalized and uncapitalized. Doesn't mean I know which one is right, of course. Adam Cuerden(talk) 18:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we're considering this the title of a work or art, it would seem that "lamenting" also should be capitalized.... Sca (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. In short, there are as many ways to capitalize the title of this work as I have cousins. I don't think it detracts from the value of the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many cousins do you have? Sca (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the count is 12 or 13 now. French-Canadian family. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Jeremia treurend over de verwoesting van Jeruzalem - Google Art Project.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 19:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
High resolution photo of significant historical event in 20th century culture. They also line up from left to right nicely: John, Paul, George and Ringo.
Comment Do you think we should crop a little bit of the bottom, where the perspective deistortion is particularly strong? Adam Cuerden(talk) 15:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How much are you thinking? I think losing the seats would be a bad idea. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd have to be somewhere around the nearest group of spectators to the camera. Anything too radical would look odd, but removing as much of the distorted section as is practical would help. Adam Cuerden(talk) 23:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Iiboharz (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is too tight (I'd say a meter to your left and a lens length of 35 mm would have been better for framing) and it looks like the high f number caused significant enough diffraction. Looks noisier than I'd have expected as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning oppose. The framing is indeed a bit bothersome. The noise doesn't bother me so much (or, what noise?); it rather suggests a narrative. Pleasing, but not outstanding. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Crisco, the aperture of f/22 is a significant factor in the softness of the image. I would have also liked to have seen a slightly different composition (the sheds more centred with more grass and less sky), but that's just me. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 11:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2014 at 15:29:16 (UTC)
Original – Self-Portrait with Physalis, a 1912 self-portrait by Egon Schiele; the artist is best known for his self-portraits and is considered an early proponent of Expressionism.
Reason
High resolution scan of a free work by a notable artist which is used in several major articles about painting.
Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although I generally think that Google Art errs on the side of too little brightness (probably in an effort to avoid any glare off the paint texture), in this case it doesn't make much difference since most of the painting is basically white or light gray. Kaldari (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support although he did tons of self-portraits, this seems to be the most suitable for the infobox, and is high quality. --ELEKHHT 12:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I'd be inclined to put it under paintings. Adam Cuerden(talk) 11:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As this also serves as an example of the artist's work, that wouldn't be a travesty. J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, it's on the border between the two, but given his article has a photograph of him as well from about the same period, I'd lean towards considering the primary EV as painting. Adam Cuerden(talk) 00:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Egon Schiele - Self-Portrait with Physalis - Google Art Project.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Framing is a little tight, and it looks soft to me. The historicity of this image makes me feel like supporting though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Striking the "weak". Amanda's convinced me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support for reasons mentioned by Crisco. The photo is better than decent, but not outstanding in any way that I see. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- I often read the comment here that pictures are not sufficiently "encyclopedic" for one reason or another. This is a very useful purely "encyclopedic" photograph of its subject. My only hesitation was that the thatch appears blurry. I have just looked at other pictures of this thatch and I'm sufficiently convinced that it has been created using a type of straw that has fluffy heads, so that the entire surface of the roof has a homogenous appearance that one does not usually see unless the thatch is quite decayed. This contrasts where the straw is cropped at the ends. Amandajm (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Amanda. Adam Cuerden(talk) 23:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support high EV, very nice picture; this tomb was burnt down, so new photos might not even be possible --CyberXRef☎ 11:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This strikes me as having questionable EV. It's only used as a set in a gallery, midway through a page littered with galleries (so much so that I would advocate removing some, like the Series 1914 district seals). They're very nice, but unless the article on Federal Reserve Notes is split into several articles based on series, I don't think that this, as a set, is going to be prominent enough. I am leaning oppose but will await a response.
Sven- I do understand your concern. This particular article posed real difficulty in trying to figure out how to make a complete set stand out given the clutter. I thought about trying to turn the whole article into a list, but Federal Reserve Notes are the most populous issue of all US currency and there is no way I could ever complete a comprehensive end product. I'm not sure the Series of 1914 has enough pizazz to warrant its own article. However, the series was continued with 4 more notes in 1918 (a $500, $1000, $5000, and $10000, all blue seal only) making these 14 types the only large-size Federal Reserve Notes. Would you recommend withdrawing pending creation of a short list/article devoted to these images? -- Godot13 (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd try and write an article. There are likely sources. I mean, have you seen how long coin articles can be? I doubt a national issue of "paper" currency would not get some attention. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492, just to clarify, are you suggesting that you will try writing an article or that I should? (I was reading the above as I should).-Godot13 (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You. "(If I were you,) I would try"... I don't have access to sources like that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! That's what I thought. I have a few things I'm currently working on so I'd like to either put this nomination on hold (for a while) or withdraw it with the intention of renominating down the road.-Godot13 (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn until a specific article can be written. - Godot13 (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Why? Are we going to run official pix of all 535 members of the U.S. Congress? I doubt it. (Disclaimer: This comment has nothing to do with my politics.) Sca (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, some of the official portraits are terrible. But if we have good photographs, why the hell shouldn't we? Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I just don't see any journalistic or encyclopedic point in running official pix of politicians in a stand-alone, featurey format. Official pix are meant to be suitable for promotional purposes. Where politicos are concerned, timely candid shots are much more legitimate as illustrations of life on Planet Earth. This one is already five years old. Sca (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We already have featured images which are studio shots of American politicians. I fail to see how this is any different. JJARichardson (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's interesting about it? Sca (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sca. --ELEKHHT 05:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see an issue with using studio shots, so long as the quality is there. We promoted studio shots of Civil War generals (a ton of them), the President of Brazil, some US Military and US political figures, and a handful of notable entertainers. For the process to at all be credible, we can't say that studio shots of entertainers are okay, but studio shots of politicians aren't. That being said, this is a particularly bad shot of John McCain. The facial expression isn't natural and there is some weird distortions between the side of his face and the flag.
Running official (and probably Photoshopped) photos of serving politicians amounts to free political advertising. Sca (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't oppose the nomination of Mr. Torvald, a Finn, because he's not a U.S. politician and thus rather beyond my scope. (I am somewhat knowledgeable about German politics, however.)
In the U.S., at least, politicians are always assumed to be running for reelection and thus eager for free publicity/exposure.
Not running official photos of serving politicians — except as mugshots with, or illustrations of, stories featuring said politicians — is journalism ethics, to avoid the appearance of pandering to their interests. But if candid news shots are available, they are preferred even in such cases.
Support as nominator --Soham 06:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Little visual interest, except perhaps to civil engineers. Sca (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Diagrams can be very useful, and this one shows the structure nicely, but is too much simplified. For instance the clearance in the middle is 8.8m whereas at the shore is 5.5m, thus the base line is not horizontal. This is clearly visible in all the pictures, but misrepresented here. The diagram should also indicate the unit of measurement as "metres" to avoid confusions, as the article often indicates dimensions in feet. The "Tramway" label would be much better positioned below the bridge structure, to avoid unnecessary interference. --ELEKHHT 22:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Elekhh and ~"wikipedia's best work". Just a suggestion: the tramway label should be translated to english if possible Godhulii 1985 (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Also, units of measurement would be nice to have. Mattximus (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without units these values are absolutely useless; this hurts its EV. As per above, the label about a tram really needs to be in English. --CyberXRef☎ 08:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded a new version. Is that better? --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I have a feeling that a better shot is still possible. Right now the image is not in the article (removed as "Not sure its a better photo as too dark to see statue detail") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can this nomination be suspended until
this discussion comes to a conclusion? Lewis Hulbert (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose — Suggest fotog gets closer and shoots from an oblique angle of some kind. Sca (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not FP level: the large tree in the background is distracting, although avoidable if different angle is chosen. --ELEKHHT 22:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutral I would love to see this topic featured, but this image does not portray it properly. This just happens to show some computer waste, but it otherwise looks like a regular junkyard. There are car parts (doors, tires) and household waste (desk, probably also a refrigerator) present as well and the computer parts make roughly only half of the image. Also, the colorful shed attracts too much attention in an rather dark picture. --Ebertakis (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I find the reasons for opposition in the comment above to be inappropriate. Life on the edge of a garbage heap is not just about recycling computers. This shows how computers are recycled in one situation. It shows how people live and work, in this situation. The topic is not "computer recycling". That is merely one aspect of what is shown here. Amandajm (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The place is notable because it is "known as a destination for legal and illegal exportation and environmental dumping of electronic waste" according to the first sentence of its article. The picture is also used in Computer recycling, Data erasure and Electronic waste. This is why I assumed that the EV lies in "computer recycling" and I thought the picture does a poor job showing this. Thousands of communities around the world are near garbage heaps, and their issues deserve attention, but I didn't get that message because I was looking in the picture for the computers. If the topic is the living conditions then the other picture in the article is much more powerful. Anyway, I switched to neutral because I'm new here, but this is how I saw things. --Ebertakis (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there a reason that this picture is not the main picture for the Lagoon Nebula? They look very different, I am not an expert so cannot say which one is more "real" or if that is even a question to ask... Mattximus (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --WPPilot 02:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment - Not straight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you suggest that I skew it? 'WPPilot (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking at the photo, in Photo shop the horizon is level, perhaps it is a optical distortion from the aperture and short lens..WPPilot (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look at your verticals, not simply the horizon. That being said, the horizon is not exactly straight either, by the looks of it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The tilt isn't that concerning to me (I think there's a slight perspective tilt, with buildings leaning inwards due to tilting the camera upwards slightly), but bigger problems for me are that the exposure just isn't very good (would have been better to take it earlier in the evening when there was some residual glow in the sky to fill the shadows with more detail, and to avoid overexposure of the building lighting), and there's an overall softness of the image that I've also noticed in WPPilot's aerial images. Not sure if the same lens was used but it's noticeable to me. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 12:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do have (on my computer) other versions of the nominated photo that I took with 4 different lens. I will upload another version after the gym. For the most part my aerial photos are shot now on Leica or Nikon. On Nikon I use prime lenses and I have a lot of them. ECIF on the photo I posted shows it was a wide angle lens (15mm). When doing the aerial photos I am also flying the plane that creates a lot of harmonic vibration, so I could see it resulting in a little "softness" as you referred to it, but that night shot was set on a tripod, with a brand new Nikon D 7100 in aperture priority mode with a remote shutter release. My Lens selections proved me with no more the F1.8 so I have plenty of glass. --WPPilot 15:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)(talk)
You're right that there doesn't seem to be any reasonable explanation for the softness in this image, and yet, there it is. It could be exacerbated by the high(ish) ISO you used. Given you had the camera set up on a tripod, there was no need to bump up the ISO above 100. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 23:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — It's a fairly good and an interesting photo when viewed in larger size, but at this res. detail is lost. As usual, my suggestion is crop tighter — the dark foreground below the octagonal structure, and the dark or black sky (including left & right sides of frame) add zero visual interest, IMO. Sca (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt., although it could be cropped further on on the right, leaving out the bldg. with the four lights. Sca (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find myself squinting, wishing it was brighter so I can see the details of this building and the grounds. I do like the framing, and the quality is acceptable, but I really believe the night shot is not very encyclopaedic. Mattximus (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This facility operates 24/7 with its casino and other activities. This view is far more spectacular then the same view, during daylight hours as you can see in the daylight photo taken from the same location. HERE--WPPilot 20:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)talk
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2014 at 11:26:43 (UTC)
Original – Willow Tit, Poecile montanus
Reason
High resolution pic of Poecile montanus with clean background. EV because it is a good ID pic of a species that is suffering dramatic population decline across Europe, and esp in Britain, where it is a RSPB 'red status' bird. Shows features that may differentiate it from similar, but more common, Marsh Tit: sooty cap, untidy bib, pale wing panel, larger white cheek, lack of pale patch on upper mandible. Definitive ID obtained from call.
Support Lovely. Though I'm going to have the song stuck in my head all day now. Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice. —Bruce1eetalk 12:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Nice, but one wonders why the background is orange-ish. Autumnal shot? Sca (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No, not Autumn - it was taken very recently. The background is brick - Accrington Brick, in fact, which is famously orangey-red.--Baresi franco (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just as another example - here is the same brick background in a different shot, but this time in bright sunlight, which renders it almost peach-y (what do I know, I'm colour-blind anyway…)--Baresi franco (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Some space was added on the left edge that manipulated the branch. The bird was also selectively sharpened, which, depending on taste, could be deemed excessive. Still within the boundaries allowed by the criteria, I guess --Ebertakis (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I think you're right - I've eased off the sharpening a touch --Baresi franco (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Goldfinch
Weak support for the Willow tilt, Support for the European Goldfinch (why wasn't it nominated?).--Theparties (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bit of room added on the left made the difference to me. Nice work.
Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Promoted File:Poecile montanus kleinschmidti.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 11:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2014 at 11:51:43 (UTC)
Original – Nils Torvalds, Member of the European Parliament for Finland in Strasbourg, France.
Reason
I was recently involved in a Wikimedia project to visit the European Parliament in Strasbourg and photograph the ~750 Members of Parliament in advance of the upcoming EU Elections. While the vast majority of the images we took are of good technical standard, it wasn't easy to take photos with 'character' as the politicians were often quite stiff and our makeshift 'studio' set up was not really geared towards aesthetics. This photo, of Nils Torvalds, a Finnish politician and coincidentally Linus Torvalds' father, is probably my favourite.
Support as nominator --Ðiliff«»(Talk) 11:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, Support. You were part of this? Heck of an experience, I think, although a couple of images were too tightly framed in my opinion (or tightly cropped afterwards). Article needs some serious work, but not part of the criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was, and it was an amazing experience! Great team to work with too. Yeah, I share your concerns about the framing, but every time I tried to allow a bit more room, I was encouraged to crop it tighter. Call it peer group pressure. :-) I think the tight crops work well for thumbnails, but viewed at 100%, I agree some can be a little tight. I haven't put together a gallery for my images from Strasbourg, but you can check my recent uploads to Commons here. The vast majority are from the EU Parliament project. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 13:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, that framing in the Salvatore Caronna photo is far too tight. Also the focus was missed so his facial features are not as sharp as they could be. Nevermind. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 17:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is an excellent photo (not that this is particularly surprising from Diliff, one of our best photographers). Also, Crisco, couldn't we just synthesize some more background in at the top in the worst case? Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it would be possibly to synthesise some background, but it gets trickier when the crop is tight such that both sides of the jacket/shoulders are already cropped. It's slightly unethical (and also runs the risk of looking weird) if you start to synthesise part of the subject just to widen the framing. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 13:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't do it, to be quite honest, and the aspect ratio is already a little too vertical IMHO. If it were just blank space, sure, but when we have the subject as well... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, absolutely brilliant picture; I echo the above concerns about the article. Perhaps best to keep it off the MP until at least a few tweaks are made to the article. J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, for those who are interested: my 5 minutes of fame in a French TV news report on our visit. I'm the photographer in most of the video footage, although in actual fact there was a regular rotation of about 10 photographers and a lot of assistants to give everyone a chance to rest and process the images. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 22:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2014 at 11:54:45 (UTC)
Original – SMS Odin, the lead ship and namesake of the Odin-class coastal defense ships. We actually have a number of lovely images for the pre-WWI German ironclads, which are very hard to resist. A PNG version is available, but is 125 megabytes, so I'll need help getting it uploaded. Border can be removed, if this is considered desirable, but please let me do it, as I have the lossless copy, and want to upload it as a different filename
Reason
It's a gorgeous lithograph, high resolution, and completes the set of Odin-class ships. Also, if anyone's wandering about the page title, it's from a Gilbert and Sullivan song about the end of the tall ship era and emergence of ironclads.
Support - Wow. Just wow. Regarding file size, haven't you tried Commons:Chunked uploads with the Upload Wizard on Commons? I've used it to upload files of 300–600 mb in size. Maximum is one gig. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I almost never use the Upload Wizard, but I shall have to for things like this. Uploading, will probably have to jigger filenames after. ETA: I did! Mind you, I have no idea what you're meant to do if you find a problem after the initial upload. Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. I've never had to do it, but it could be necessary... perhaps you could ping someone at Commons? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Historically interesting in the manner of
Danzig, which is now Gdańsk, Poland. If Odin is promoted, suggest running Agir and Odin some weeks apart. Sca (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm really reluctant to crop out bits of an artwork, especially as it would make it have a different aspect ratio with other images in the set. Not so concerned about the border, though, except that it's actually kind of a pain to get a clean crop: to get as much of the image as possible into the crop, you usually have to edit out a couple wedges of border. Adam Cuerden(talk) 14:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talking to the person who's been improving the articles, looks like he likes the borders. Since article use is the FP goal, probably best to go with the bordered version. =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 16:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Restoration looks sharp and fresh. --Godot13 (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, in a large part, that's because it's a very good lithograph, well-reproduced. I can't claim all credit for that. =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 18:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear to be a real picture frame to me, just a graphic device imposed digitally. Sca (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's definitely real. Trust me. That gold stuff spread onto the image in places, there were some giant stains on it, and the paper of it had lifted slightly, making it blurry at full resolution in a couple places. I've done my best to mitigate these issues, mostly successfully, I think, though the edges are still a little blurry in a few places at full 105 megapixel resolution. The Ägir one had major, major blurriness on the right hand side, hence why I cut from that one.
That said, I think it might actually be a separate piece of paper to the image itself. It's a common way of mounting an image, including in books. Adam Cuerden(talk) 22:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, Adam, the frame adds nothing to the composition. Sca (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the people working on the articles like it, so... um... really not sure what to tell you. We can't promote a version not used in articles, after all. Adam Cuerden(talk) 01:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone were to change the one used in the article. (Oops, I said the C-word!) Sca (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously, but I don't think we're engaged in a currently-fairly-successful project to bring all articles on these ships up to Featured Article status, so a little bit of deferring is appropriate, I think. =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 15:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SMS Odin
Mag sein. German Wiki uses a different image without a border, but it's not nearly as good as the one you nominated. (Oddly enough, our pic seems to show only one funnel, whereas the Ger. pic, from a period postcard, shows two — ??) Sca (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the ship was rebuilt in 1901-1903 (lead of SMS Odin); that may be one of the changes. From the dates on the signature of the other illustrations in this set, the one nominated here is almost certainly from about 1899. Adam Cuerden(talk) 19:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Odin was built with only one funnel and had a second one added during the 1901-03 reconstruction to match Ägir. I'll have to include that detail when I go back through and expand the article (though that will be some time from now, as these come first). And for what it's worth, I do like the border, if only for the extra bit of color it adds to otherwise generally drab articles. But I'm not wedded to it or anything if consensus favors no border. Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting — Usually it's the other way around, fewer funnels r.t. more. Sca (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, yes, but when the new boilers were installed, they doubled the number from 4 to 8, thus you need another funnel for good ventilation. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this is by far the best frame out of the ones I've seen, I'm slightly concerned that we've cropped the frames out of the other two. If these images were ever to be presented as a set at a later point, the frame would stand out conspicuously. I'm not saying "remove it", but it might be a good idea to have a non-frame version for use in a gallery on the artist's page, should
I'll prepare one, but until these are a coherent set, it probably doesn't matter. Adam Cuerden(talk) 11:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent work, I'd support a version without a border more but the image is stunning as is. Miyagawa (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agreed that one without a border would be better, but that's a quibble, it's a wonderful image. - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:S.M. Küstenpanzerschiff Odin im Salut - restoration.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 11:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2014 at 16:36:15 (UTC)
Original – American anarchist and feminist campaigner Voltairine de Cleyre (circa 1900, retouched by User:Centpacrr and User:Hohum)
Reason
An image easily on par with the one of the same subject probably about to be featured. Multiple featuring of the same subject is not without precedent, such as the two we have of Ronald Reagan.
Comment: Multiple featured pictures of the same subject should really show something very different about the same subject. I'm not convinced that there's much to be said in favour of multiple portraits of the same person unless the portraits themselves are notable, they show the subject at different times in their lives or some such. I'm not convinced that this is the case here. At some point, a decision has been made to use the other image rather than this one to lead the article- that says a lot. J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the (almost certain to pass) image below is considerably more interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, some better documentation would help with this. For example, File:Cleyere.jpg - clearly the same image - gives the year of this as 1891 (as does the caption at Voltairine de Cleyre, which, frankly, is quite a bit more believable than 1900: she does look quite a bit more than a mere one year younger in this than in the other image. It also explains the photography a bit, this is a pretty good and typical photo style for the early 1890s. Probably meant either for a book or as a calling card. If we knew how this image was used, that documentation would probably be enough to distinguish it a bit. Adam Cuerden(talk) 02:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 01:48:13 (UTC)
Original – Take-off of America's first "rocket-assisted" airplane, an Ercoupe fitted with a GALCIT developed solid propellent 28 pound thrust JATO (Jet Assisted Take-Off) booster
Reason
I feel guilty, as if my lengthy delay in restoring the image caused the previous nomination to go bottoms up. Decent quality for the age and candidness, EV is quite high.
Articles in which this image appears
Jack Parsons (rocket propulsion engineer), ERCO Ercoupe
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 06:02:19 (UTC)
Original – Beer Can Races Newport Beach California
Reason
4k super clear aerial photo shot on "RED: Epic Dragon" of larger sailing yachts racing up a narrow channel in Newport Beach, California. Super rare view and perspective as this airspace is directly in the departure path of commercial traffic. To the right is the end of Lido Isle, on the left is Dover Shores and the former home of John Wayne at the top.
Support as nominator --WPPilot 06:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose It's hard to see what's going on in this image: it depicts a channel with some tiny boats in it which aren't clearly racing one another (one of them is heading in entirely the wrong direction). There's nothing that grabs the viewer's attention. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These are 40 to 50 foot racing sailing boats. In sailing you can not sail into the wind and that boat that is "Going the wrong direction" is tacking so it does not hit the parked boats... You must not sail, look for a Beer Can Race near you to learn how... :) If you look at the article linked it will give more to work with. A link to the tiny boats is HERE--WPPilot 04:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)talk
Oppose sharpness is lacking. At this distance a 4k shot of such small objects is unlikely to be good enough. --Pine✉ 20:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose file was added to the article only today (needs at least 7 days in the article), and it replaced an already existing FP, which has much better EV and composition: File:Carcar.jpg. Tomer T (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Tomer. Replacing leading image of the article (which is also a featured pic) and immediately nominating the pic cannot be supported. There is no hurry to nominate Godhulii 1985 (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 06:48:43 (UTC)
Original – Bay Island, Newport Beach, California, the most expensive home property values in California. 23 residences on this very private island includes a botanical garden, vast natural courtyard garden, tennis court, as well as a large private beach on each side of the island.
Support as nominator --WPPilot 06:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The composition isn't great (the island doesn't really stand out here), and there's an obvious smudge on the upper-left corner and what might be another smudge on the upper right corner. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agreeing with Nick-D about the upper left corner. Also, sharpness is lacking. --Pine✉ 20:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm a little disappointed by the rather weak article. I've asked if someone may be up for working on improving it. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I would support this fine photo of an unusual-style church, but our article consists of only one paragraph. Even the Swedish WP article is quite short at 275 words,[3] but perhaps someone could translate it? Sca (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Although I note with dismay that the tree is covering up part of the church. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also looks slightly skewed to right. Sca (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 19:18:53 (UTC)
Original – The brazilian model, actress and television presenter Fernanda Lima with her six medals of nominations to the International Emmy Awards in 2012.
OpposeSupport - As it stand today, the entire article is pretty much that image; There is just one sentence on that page "Fernanda Lima is a Brazilian actress, model and television hostess.". I can't accept that. For an article about an actress who appears to have been in almost 20 shows/films, we can't get even a half-baked biography? --CyberXRef☎ 01:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can work on it if you want.--Theparties (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret criteria 5 & 6 as having somewhat a strong cohesiveness between the article and the image that's aiding it - included in 1+ articles, verifiable, supported by facts in the article. I don't really consider articles that are pretty much empty as real articles. Note that I've changed my vote to support since Theparties did an amazing job improving that article. (realistically speaking I was just looking for more than one sentence.) --CyberXRef☎ 18:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work with the lighting, color combinations & composition WPPilot 07:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC) (talk)
Support. Great stuff- really nice work on the expansion. J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — ZZZzzzz. Sca (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What did you expect her to do? Jump in the place? Tomer T (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think Sca doesn't like any posed portraits and would only support a candid one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, I liked Ben Franklin on the $100 bill when I saw one once. But Fernanda's outfit is too flashy for my taste. (Are those slacks fluorescent?) Sca (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it was the aesthetic value of the portrait, I dare say. Yes, admittedly a little flashy, but then... so is much of Brazilian urban fashion, from what little I've seen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding encyclopaedic value. --ELEKHHT 05:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This strikes me as being decidedly too bright. The original version (see upload history) was probably too dark, but it was taken too far in the opposite direction by the rebalanced. It also feels fuzzy to me, although that could be because the image is a decade old. Places where I'd expect the image to be crisp just aren't all that crisp.
Comment — I hafta ask, what's interesting about it? It doesn't really illustrate operation of the machine. Sca (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is too hard to display the machine's operation in a single photo, unless it is shown cut in half. I'm personally torn with this one, because it has nice composition and a beautiful sky, but it is grainy and the increased contrast of the nominated version makes the light look harsh. --Ebertakis (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing this was the subject of a current featured article candidate, I couldn't resist helping out with a restoration of the lead image. It's not quite as good of a scan as Odin, but it's still a 105 megapixel scan, so there's quite sufficient quality. PNG will go up after any comments are dealt with.
Support either as nominator --Adam Cuerden(talk) 02:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a borderless version of this one tomorrow. The border's a lot more worn on this one, so I think it's more of a candidate for a crop. Adam Cuerden(talk) 03:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree that losing the border may be best here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree also that the border needs to go. Officially no vote at the moment, as I don't vote on versions I haven't seen yet, and I'd likely oppose the current version if I had to make a choice.
Support — Alt. 1 (sans frame). Much better, meiner Meinung. Sca (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Alt. 1 Really lovely work, but I think the image works better without the frame/border. Miyagawa (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 03:25:44 (UTC)
Original – The kite experiment was a scientific experiment proposed and later conducted by Benjamin Franklin with assistance from his son William Franklin. The experiment's purpose was to uncover then unknown facts about the nature of lightning and electricity.
Reason
A Bald Eagle swooned over the canvas, giving birth to an electric celebration of red white and blue, as Uncle Sam stuck his middle finger up at Zeus above, and Ben Franklin (surrounded by angels, because why not) tamed the Greek god with but a string, a key, and a kite. Erm, what? This isn't a comedy website? I mean, this image is of high resolution, by a notable artist, and is solid testament to the quasi-legendary status of the topic and subject.
Significant damage to the scan, or the painting? As this is not being nominated with an article on the painting, that oppose is (somewhat) justifiable, but if an article were written on the painting itself (entirely possible) I don't think such a rationale would be acceptable (digital restoration would be misrepresentative of the painting). — Crisco 1492 (talk)
When I first wrote this, I meant restoration as in digital restoration, but looking again, it would have to be a restoration to the work itself, with actual paint. While this is not at all unheard of, it doesn't seem likely to happen.
I personally don't see much of a difference between digitally removing cracks from a painting and digitally removing other types of damage, which we accept as routine here. Look, for example at this Featured picture and the image it came from. A crack was removed in that, and it also had a stain removed and a good deal of age discoloration reversed. Ultimately, if a restoration results in an image of what the work looked like when it was first created, I don't see that as a misrepresentation. It would not be what the work looks like today, but what the work looks like now is itself a misrepresentation, just a more traditionally accepted one. Such issues are, I suppose, something that we will have to work out as digital editing software becomes more and more powerful.
All that being said, looking at this again, I feel that the damage is so great that a digital restoration might be impossible. As such, I don't see any scenario (aside from the painting itself being restored and rescanned), in which I could support this work as an FP. Is this a high quality scan that is faithful to the painting as it exists today? Yes. Is it Wikipedia's best work? No, the damage precludes that. I suspect that this is a highly controversial opinion, but it is the opinion that I hold.
The main difference, in my opinion, is that the photographs promoted are generally (not always, but generally) photographic representations of objects or persons, rather than photographs as photographs or as notable works of art (and even then very few are only known from one print, unlike paintings). The one you link to was promoted for its representation of an event in the history of submarines, whereas something like the Nautilus, whereas the admittedly yellowed File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg was promoted as an accurate reproduction of a painting as a painting/work of art, one of which there is only one. The sitter is not the source of encyclopedic value; it is the entire canvas, and changing that canvas in any way would misrepresent the object. Anyways, that's neither here nor there for this nomination, and I recognize that we are unlikely to agree on this point. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --WPPilot 07:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose sorry, but although it is a useful image, the composition and quality aren't FP worthy. Tomer T (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very cool creature, but unfortunately this is not an encyclopaedic photograph as it does not present a good representation of the animal itself due to poor composition and quality. I have replaced the main image of sawtooth with one that shows the whole animal, to get a better idea of the shape. Mattximus (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Agree with the two preceding comments. Sca (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very dynamic sports image. One of the best ones I've seen in many ways. The poses pull you in quickly, composition is good, and, since the faces can't be seen, but the image still has a lot of interest, it makes a good universal image for the sport. Adam Cuerden(talk) 23:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have to ask.... Is the guy on the right urinating?! There's a stream of what looks like liquid coming from his crotch - too much to be dripping sweat. It's a little off-putting for what would otherwise be an excellent sports photo. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 19:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or is it a seam in the billboard behind him? Sca (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, because you can follow it all the way into the sand. I really think we've got some inadvertent bladder control issues in the photo. Should we be featuring something potentially embarrassing like that? Hmm. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 17:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, thanks for confirming! That makes sense, and it's a good example of why it's better to ask the photographer than to make assumptions. :-) Ðiliff«»(Talk) 22:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query, are there other similar images that don't have the sun-glare on the ocean on the eastern part of the image? - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestl, if I found anything better, I would have nominated that one.--Theparties (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The night/day line is needlessly distracting unfortunately. Mattximus (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2014 at 08:54:25 (UTC)
Curiosity
on Mars in 2012. Sojourner is 65 cm (2.13 ft) long. The Mars Exploration Rovers (MER) are 1.6 m (5.2 ft) long. Curiosity on the right is 3 m (9.8 ft) long.
Reason
Good quality and very high EV. Commons FP. Text taken from Curiosity (rover).
Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A unique image showing the size and shape of the three NASA rovers in relation to each other and a human for scale. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 09:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a very nice photo that puts the evolution of the rovers into prospective. I do have one question, is there a reason why we left out, Matthew Robinson and Wesley Kuykendall, the names of the two JPL engineers? --CyberXRef☎ 11:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Names added. Tomer T (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lighting is too harsh, background is distracting. Also, noisy. Very, very, very, very noisy. I'm not very good with portraits yet, but I suspect shooting at f/5 or f/4 would have helped the presentation a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Crisco.
Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose — Nothing against Ms. Dunham, about whom I know nothing, but her tattoo isn't mentioned in Lena Dunham except in the cutline accompanying this photo. Sca (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A nice subject, but...well, the only way I can describe the picture is "run of the mill". There's nothing outstanding here that makes me think it should be Featured. - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have two issues with this. First of all, the lighting seems off to me. The center of his face is well lit, but the left side of his face is poorly lit. The light pointing on the wall off to the left side of his head makes it seem like the light source itself is to his left, which makes unlit the left side of his face is feel, as I said, off. (Note that I'm talking his left, our right facing the image). The other thing that bothers me is how out of focus half of the collar is. I can understand the arm being out of focus, but not the collar; it's too close to the face for it to be that blurry.
The collar is in the correct amount of focus for the image. The plane of focus is almost directly on his eyes (if I had to guess, I would say it is directly on the tip of his nose); the front of the collar extends into its depth as it reaches forward. By contrast, the back edge of the collar is behind his head. If you want a reference as to how shallow the DOF for this image is, look at his left ear-it's out of focus but scarcely more than 2 inches back. The shallow plane here is obviously deliberate; focussing an image this precisely is not easy. Likewise, others noted that the the lighting is artificial, or at least counter-intuitive (in a world that typically has one light source-the sun), but this is hardly unexpected as it is a studio shot, and likely not purposeless either (it highlights the gleam of his jacket, puts an ambiguous shadow over his face, sharpens his features) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.132.240 (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't a lot of that kind of the point? The movie is called "The Wild One", the lighting will be meant to be a little disturbing. Adam Cuerden(talk) 07:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Yeah, the lighting is very artificial-looking. Sca (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a fine picture, but I wouldn't put it over the FP bar. - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FP? specifies that light in images must have a single point of origin and shadows must logically follow the light source.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Support Yes, the light looks a bit weird by our modern standards, but who cares? It makes a dramatic shot that is otherwise a very good portrait. --Ebertakis (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Has someone actually verified that this was not renewed? (I mean, opened up the renewals list?). We've already lost one FP to a deletion based on there being no confirmation that the image lacked a notice, and I'm not letting it happen again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now for something completely different! But not yet! This is both a good image of the ship, a rather attractive background, and a nice example of the author's work (I think it's the only really good one we have, really). It has a lot of artistic merit as well, in my opinion.
Support - Obviously. And knowing Parsecboy, once he really buckles down on the article, we'll have FPs in FAs, and later FPs in FAs in an FT. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work as with the others, and the image has an interesting composition too. Miyagawa (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing scan and restoration, good quality and large resolution. --///EuroCarGT 14:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I don't like this one as well as the other two because the composition is full of distractions or 'noise.' Too much going on! (It would be better without the hokey beams from Miss Liberty's lamp.) Sca (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's an illustration of its period, although somewhat ahead of its time - you see a lot of this sort of thing about two decades later. In any case, it illustrates the artist well. Adam Cuerden(talk) 17:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, both a fine image of the ship and a stunning example of the art style. - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Kaiserin Augusta verlässt Newyork, Chromo-Lithographie von C. Saltzmann 95, nr13 aus G. Wislicenus, Unsre Kriegsflotte - restored, borderless.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 02:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 23:00:35 (UTC)
Original – North American B-25 Mitchell production in Kansas City in 1942. The yellow color is due to zinc chromate, applied to prevent corrosion of aluminum.
Reason
Technically excellent, historic, irreplaceable, high encyclopedic value. Clearly illustrates the condition and appearance of an aircraft factory in World War II, as well as the use of zinc chromate to prevent corrosion.
Thanks for pointing that out. I did not see the existing featured picture. I'd change this to a delist and replace nomination, but I'm not too sure how to. dllu(t,c) 10:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best would be, that you initiate the delist & replace nomination on another subpage, and then withdraw this one. (The current FP is BTW not used in any articles.) ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin°Talk 22:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Was any microscopy done to confirm this ID? Stereum ostrea is not distinguishable from the widely distributed Stereum hirsutum (also known as the "false turkey tail") without micro work. Sasata (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Investigating further, I'm not sure this species is even found in Europe. I have Courtecuisses's (1999) Mushrooms of Britain and Europe, Laessoe's (2002) Mushrooms (which describes European species) and Gruenert & Reid's (1995) Field Guide to Mushrooms of Britain and Europe, and none of them mention this species, but they all have S. hirsutum. Sasata (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not distinguishable without micro work, does it really reduce from the EV? Anyways if it was the other species the picture would have looked the same. By the way, the article may need some work, because it mentions this species as "false turkey-tail". Tomer T (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a picturesque example of the S. hirsutum–S. ostreaspecies complex, but it's misleading to pass it off as the latter when we're not even sure if that species is found in the location where the picture was taken! Sasata (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, per Sasata. I suggest that this nomination is put on hold until we have worked this out. J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not this should be an FP is clear. However, this should not run on the MP until identification is certain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File has been renamed to Stereum hirsutum and image has been moved from the S. ostrea article. Julia\talk 17:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The restoration of the background looks very unnatural for this sort of photo - it looks like someone just threw a blur on it and said "done". There's still a fair bit of damage left, as well. Adam Cuerden(talk) 16:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
.JPG)
_Edit1.JPG)
1. "I can tell a woman's age in half a minute—and I do!"
2. "Must we, till then, in prison cell be thrust?"
3. Enter Princess, reading.
4. Enter the "Daughters of the Plough," bearing Luncheon.
5. Frontispiece
6. The Gate yields. Hildebrand and Soldiers rush in.
7. "Though I am but a girl, / Defiance thus I hurl."
8. "Where are your rifles, pray?"
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comment: I also like this one, and agree with you that there is a kind of harmony between the buildings and the foliage. Crisco: yes, unfortunately I forgot. It happened a few times and sometimes I realized it just one day later. The local time was 3:41 pm Poco2 10:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
_cover_art.png)
.jpg)
_-_Original.png)
.jpg)
_-_Google_Art_Project_2.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Benjamin_Franklin_Drawing_Electricity_from_the_Sky_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
