Support as nominator – Andrei (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – No ID. – Sca (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask what you mean by ID?--Andrei (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Identification. Name. Sca (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – We already have
Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Is it a good idea to remove it and keep only this? I think its a good idea to diversify the subject. --Andrei (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
Weak oppose. I think it's a really fantastic portrait, but I'm not really sold on the encyclopedic value. The image is not used in Kurdish culture. It is used in Nowruz, but not in the (already heavily illustrated) Newroz as celebrated by Kurds. Tough. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Its not there in the article - DreamSparrowChat 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2020 at 19:47:51 (UTC)
Original – The Hufeisensiedlung ("Horseshoe Estate") is a housing estate in Berlin, built in 1925-33. On 7 July 2008 it was inscribed as one of six estates that constitute the Berlin Modernism Housing Estates World Heritage Site.
Reason
Commons FP that shows the defining nature of a part of a World Heritage site.
Support as nominator – MER-C 19:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the building seems very off center. Could a more centered version be procured? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – good enough for an aerial photo. Would also support a more centered version. Bammesk (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Interesting, detailed, and the WHS gives it high EV. It doesn't look very far off-center to me; I think the appearance of skewness is because it's not aligned with the background buildings, but that's something inherent to the subject rather than a flaw in the photograph. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2020 at 11:54:02 (UTC)
Tromp-l'oeil of a goldfinch created by Carel Fabritius in 1654 shortly before he was tragically blown to bits. Lost for many years, it was recently brought to wider attention by being a plot device in Donna Tartt's Pulitzer winner
.
Reason
Meets all the criteria and the article on the painting will probably be FA shortly, so it would be nice to make a set. Have a read of the article, it's fascinating stuff.
Support. Good scan of high-EV painting. For a photo this would not be high-res by modern standards but it's good enough in this instance to capture the details of the brushwork, so I don't think it's a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2020 at 19:24:11 (UTC)
Original – Diamond Firetail (Stagonopleura guttata), Glen Alice, Lithgow, New South Wales, AustraliaOriginal – Diamond Firetail (Stagonopleura guttata), Glen Alice, Lithgow, New South Wales, Australia
Reason
Nominating as a set - the two images combined create greater EV than either individually and the lighting and so on is similar
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2020 at 11:52:21 (UTC)
Original – Magnification of frontal portion of a polychaete worm from the Belgian continental shelf. Coloured with eosine to facilitate sorting and identification.
Reason
Clear, informative image of this bristle worm, already a featured image on Commons
Support as nominator – Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Only partly shown, and not in natural condition (stained with eosine color). Besides, smaller than accepted minimum for FPC. --Janke | Talk 13:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean about the size, but the original file is 1,200 × 900 pixels. The worm is only partly shown because there may be 300 or more body segments; it is equivalent to a human portrait showing a head and shoulders. Staining is a normal microscopic technique. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know all that. Still, I would like to see a photo showing the natural state. Also, to elucidate re. size: The
FPC criteria (link also on top of this page) state, among other requirements: "Still images should be a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height-" --Janke | Talk 20:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose, based on size. If dying and a focus on the head are important for ID purposes, I'm not going to oppose on those grounds. I'd be open to an argument that the small size is forgivable given the small subject, but I think this falls below the bar expected for this sort of image; compare it to File:Lagis koreni (with and without tube).jpg and File:Nototropis falcatus.jpg, for example. However, it's a really striking image that we're lucky to have. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others re size. Geoffroi 01:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 19:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support high-quality image of a station that is notable architecturally, not just for its place in transportation. The bare light bulbs are blown out but what can you do about that? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --Janke | Talk 21:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work. --Gnosis (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janke | Talk 09:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the black background and flashed lighting is acceptable here - a cursory google suggests that this snake is nocturnal and the photo also seems to suggest this. P.S. It can be much easier to locate this sort of thing at night - probably it was found with
eye shine and a headtorch or similar. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Promoted File:Trimeresurus albolabris, White-lipped pit viper (female) - Kaeng Krachan National Park (27493423545).jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 13:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a great photo of what a butterfly looks like when wet, but as a species ID, I'm not so sure. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – for wow factor. I also support this set: [1], [2] if nominated. Bammesk (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGeoffroi 02:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dew limits EV, especially at thumbnail size. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGeoffroi 02:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may just be me or my monitor, but I think I slightly prefer the brighter, browner coloration of the unrestored File:Sojourner Truth, NPG.79.220.jpg to the restored version, which seems a little dull to me and makes the folds of the shawl almost disappear. TSP (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can redo this without changing the levels if others agree with TSP but I thought the highlights were overblown in the original, especially on her face and on the shawl. On my monitor the shawl is more visible in the restoration. ---
Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Support in any case - a great, historic photo in whichever coloration TSP (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2020 at 02:18:28 (UTC)
Original – James Thompson's plat of Chicago. Finished on August 4, 1830, this constitutes the first official recognition of a place known as "Chicago", which would later incorporate as a town in 1833 and as a city in 1837. According to the Chicago History Museum, this is the original copy of the plat; this is item ICHi-034284 in the Museum's collection, with restoration done to remove subsequent additions.
Reason
Historically significant as the first plat of Chicago and thereby possessing EV. I withdrew the original nomination slightly more than two weeks ago over concerns of its timing and to work on the image by restoring it to remove non-contemporaneous subsequent additions. I have since learned from the Chicago History Museum that this is indeed the original plat. I have also included an altAlt 1 - brighter version over concerns of definition in the original nomination, unless I have misunderstood those concerns.
Oppose – Poor definition; visual information not readily accessible. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Fails criterion # 3 - this hardly "is among Wikipedia's best work"... However, it is useful and of good EV in the articles. --Janke | Talk 16:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sca and Janke. Perhaps this has a shot at VI on Commons? Geoffroi 22:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I can barely even see the lines. Poydoo (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Minimal contrast with (partially blurred) BG. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It feels pretty hard to win here - I have received significant opposition to images because the background was too blurry in recent months. :) JJ Harrison (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@JJ Harrison: I agree with Sca - This isn't up to your usual high quality. Geoffroi 22:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about that one. I'd be happy to delist it on the basis that this image has better resolution and lighting. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support a delist and replace, better lighting, etc. Bammesk (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A crucial piece is missing but the rest is still enough for FP. King's speech does not become PD until 2038, which is notable in and of itself and adds to the educational value of this video.
Comment – A sublime moment in U.S. history. But the 'redaction' of King's famous speech is rather off-putting, IMO. – Sca (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2020 at 04:37:13 (UTC)
Passer montanus malaccensis
), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Reason
Of excellent technical quality and provides an exemplary head-shot of the subject bird. Featured, quality, and valued on Commons. Primary head-shot in article.
Partial closure: I judge this to have succeeded in its nomination, but I'm afraid that my recent computer troubles mean I don't have access to the full closure tools.
WP:FPC#Closing procedure. MER-C 18:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Adam Cuerden For me it would be enough if you do the 1st, 7th & 8th steps manually. I'm willing to do the others. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a lot of noise here, and at least one visible stitching artifact in the sky in the upper right. And I guess fluorescent neon clothes must be in fashion? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A dayglo day dawning? – Sca (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - abstained on Commons given the noise, but EV carries it here IMO — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added a crop suggestion. I conditional Support a similar crop version. Bammesk (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support any, prefer alt. Bammesk (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cropped version: this is a dramatic shot with excellent EV. A crop removing even more of the black space at the top of the image might be superior, but the criteria are met. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support altGeoffroi 03:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support any. MER-C 10:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support either – Subject is flying, but is not a bird! – Sca (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support any but prefer original because I don't think centering her and compressing her into a smaller frame works well to convey the feeling of free motion of the original. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, prefer original per David — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bammesk It looks like there is a rough consensus that the crop should be promoted, but it doesn't really exist yet (just a css crop). Could you supply the actual file to be promoted. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 16:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop - too much empty space in the original. Kaldari (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:ESTADOS UNIDOS LEVAM OURO NA GINÁSTICA FEMININA POR EQUIPES DOS JOGOS OLÍMPICOS RIO 2016 (28849586476) (cropped).jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 15:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGeoffroi 02:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image has only been in the article for 2 days and the removed image by JJ is probably better and more encyclopaedic (bird not standing in water). Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, the removed image cannot pass FP on Commons, it has 1500px, and the edited version which was in the article has a halo on the left side of the bird's body. The nom image is a FP on Commons. Look at both images at full size (not full screen), the nom image has a lot more detail. About standing in water: our best images are birds standing in water, examples [3], [4], [5], more examples here, or standing somewhere we can't see the feet [6], [7]. About being in the article for 2 days: FP criteria says 7 days and the nomination runs 10 days, would you support if it's stable for the duration of the nom? Bammesk (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I won't support it, but I'll remove my oppose vote. Although you're right about the other not being FP material, it is still better to illustrate I article I think and I'm not a fan of the nominated image, or the alt 1. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just uploaded one of my own images since it includes the feet (Alt1). It's not as high resolution as the other image, but good enough for FP. I don't have a strong opinion on which one should be used in the article personally. Kaldari (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. It turns out that Wikipedia considers the
Lava Heron a separate species than the Striated heron (although very few other sources do). Kaldari (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I reverted that edit on the linked file. It was pretty terrible. Also can probably provide higher resolution some time in the next few days. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it has been removed from the article. If it gets readded, then support. MER-C 17:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to stability issues. This oppose holds even if it does get readded; there are enough question marks that I can't support. If it's re-added and is stable for a few months, maybe then we can revisit. (Also, I find some of the comments on this page a bit weird. Who cares what is and isn't eligible for Commons FPC?) Josh Milburn (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: I will assume that you legitimately do not understand the purpose of COM:FPC; Commons FPC is an excellent benchmark of technical quality. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't patronise me. Commons is a different project with different expectations and norms. If there are good reasons to think something is a good or bad picture, offer those reasons. "Some other people somewhere else thought it was good" is not a particularly good reason. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ah yes, the awkward relationship between FPC and normal article editing. Since this is now not about this image but a comparison between two that's splintered across two pages (the article and here), I'll just say that I tend to agree that there are good arguments for both images. the amount and quality of light is better in the older image, and the resolution clearly better in this one. the exposure could be adjusted, but would probably need to happen in a separate file since this is already promoted on Commons. IMO it could be adjusted to be sufficiently better than JJ's image, but that one has a good lighting advantage. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – OK for a textbook, I guess, but I don't see it fulfilling Criterion 3. – Sca (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I disagree; I think it's a fine image, of its type. But it has very limited EV for its use in sedimentary rock (since most of it is not sedimentary rock) and is not used anywhere else. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My comment also was meant to express limited EV – and IMO limited visual interest. Technically it may be "fine" as you say, but not of general interest. – Sca (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I second David Eppstein's comment. Very nice picture that we should be pleased to have, but very limited EV in its current usage. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added the image to article Sand, by replacing a less informative image by the same photographer. It is a lead image and has a descriptive caption. Pinging participants for a second look @Sca, David Eppstein, and J Milburn:. Bammesk (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the varied colors and textures make this quite eye-catching, it's technically of high quality, and I think that by replacing another similar image by the same photographer, the new usage in sand arguably meets the exception for the 7-day waiting period in criterion 5. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Not of general interest. – Sca (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Armbrust: out of curiosity, when you close these discussions, do you weigh !votes that have absolutely no basis in the FP criteria that same as everything else? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It works the same way as on Commons. More than five supports and 2/3 of the votes in support of promotion. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 13:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I ask is there's a big difference in the way the rules are written. Specifically, ours says "five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor". It goes on to say what consensus is generally regarded to be in numeric terms, but links to
WP:CONSENSUS, which isn't about numbers, so it could also mean something similar to most other vote-like processes on Wikipedia, where strength of arguments matters (e.g. RfA, where it's largely determined by numbers, but when it's close it comes down to strength of arguments, with particular scrutiny on opposition arguments). Perhaps too much of a shift from the way things have long been done. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
In the lead of
WP:FPC it says "Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; ". ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I know. I'm asking because of the "generally regarded" rather than "defined". I would be surprised to see consensus on Wikipedia defined by an absolute numeric majority regardless of the content. I brought it up because the use of "consensus" is different here. If there are no exceptions to the two-third majority, to bring it in line with every other usage of that term, maybe it should be worded more similarly to Commons? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I agree with David Eppstein (again). I strongly disagree with Sca; not only do I not really buy the whole "general interest" thing (is this part of the criteria?), but I think it's really interesting. It's not really clear to me how we can "settle" this disagreement, which I think is part of the reason that it's not part of the criteria. Not very scientific, but I showed it to my partner, and she said something to the effect of "yeah, it's really interesting - I love those zoomed in pictures. It's very Wikipedia - that's just what you want from an encyclopedia". Josh Milburn (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To each his/her own. I find it only slightly more interesting than the pattern in the linoleum on my bathroom floor. But beauty is in the eye. – Sca (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beauty's a different thing again - and very explicitly not part of the FP criteria. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as long as it stays in Sand - I think this image is a good illustration of the differences between Commons FPC and this FPC. The EV is that is shows that sand is not a homogenous concept and that there are different grades. MER-C 17:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---
Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Support - Largely agree with MER-C, but I wouldn't rule out this sort of "poster" for Commons FPC either. Certainly more at home here, though. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Minuscule amount of motion blurring, causing some feather-ghosting. Not sure if it can still be considered for WP:FP but worth a shot. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The image hasn't been stable in the article for any time at all, really, and this is a heavily illustrated article. I'm not sure how much "staying power" the image will have. You've really captured a moment, and it's a well-composed photo (slightly distracting background, perhaps), but I am not sure the technical quality is where we've come to expect bird photos to be - especially for such a common species living in such close proximity to humans. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: True, you have a point there. But looking at the category of C. splendens photos, I reckon this is still the highest quality image in the wiki at the moment. I haven't gone out for photography in some time and the crows have seemingly forgotten me, but I'll try to take a clearer shot soon, if possible. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't disagree with Josh's points, but the dramatic composition leads me to Support (assuming image is stable during nomination). Bammesk (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bar for bird FPs is a little higher than this (sorry, we've been spoilt). That said, I might be persuaded to support if the fish can be IDed. MER-C 20:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2020 at 21:42:03 (UTC)
Original – The
Disney
and other studios.
Reason
This short video clearly demonstrates the effect of depth attainable in an animated movie by using a Multiplane camera. The unique visual result is very difficult to convey in the article text or a still photo, thus high EV. (Created from my own artwork made for a 16 mm film I produced way back in 1974, thus free use. It would be impossible to use an example from a commercial source. Added to the article over a week ago, thus eligible.)
I don't see that as a valid reason for opposing the video itself. (Please tell me what public domain format should be used? I could then re-code from the original ProRes file...) --Janke | Talk 17:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't have the option... Does it really matter? --Janke | Talk 17:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It matters. But for some reason, the FPC audience ignores it for video, yet would never feature a photograph in GIF format. VP9 is objectively better than VP8 and Theora. AV1 is upcoming, and should be even better. But if we are to feature video, it should use the highest quality free encoder at that time. Upload your ProRes file to Youtube, and have it take care of the VP9 encoding if you cannot make it work on your machine. -
OK, now WebM VP9! Found a newer converter that managed it. (Thanks for the info - I'm not at all familiar with web video codecs.) --Janke | Talk 20:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take a look at the quality settings of your encoder. Both the bitrate and the quality is lower. Is that what you wanted? If you encode with VP9 output the filesize as VP8, the VP9 file will be higher quality. -
I used a web-based converter, with no choice of settings. Since this is a demonstration of the MP effect, and a tiny loss of detail (mostly theoretical, since the original is after all only SD quality) is immaterial, don't you agree? --Janke | Talk 16:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---
Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Obv. not a requirement for FPC here, but is there a reason this isn't on Commons? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to move it there... ;-) --Janke | Talk 20:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sure, it would be better to get one of the prominent examples from Disney, or something higher resolution, but it seems like a great encyclopedic demonstration. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Disney is a no-no here, as much as we would love to have better samples (other than very low-res stills as fair use in certain articles). I shot this film on 16mm, thus only SD resolution. The entire movie can be seen here: [[8]] - uploaded 12 years ago at only 240p... --Janke | Talk 20:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support provided that the video is re-encoded. MER-C 17:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - see above. I also added a freeze-frame at the end of the video - at least in my browser, Wiki videos end very abruptly in a white frame... --Janke | Talk 20:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGeoffroi 17:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
_-_Kaeng_Krachan_National_Park_(27493423545).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Melitaea_cinxia_MHNT_CUT_2013_3_27_Avilly-Saint-L%C3%A9onard_dorsal.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Melitaea_cinxia_MHNT_CUT_2013_3_27_Avilly-Saint-L%C3%A9onard_ventral.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Long-billed_curlew_at_Drakes_Beach,_Point_Reyes.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Himantopus_leucocephalus_-_Hexham.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erythrogonys_cinctus_-_Chiltern.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leucosarcia_melanoleuca_-_Brunkerville.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Common_Redshank_Tringa_totanus.jpg){kind=link}
