Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/January-2021

• I struck this vote, editor has less than 100 edits. (per instructions on top of this page) Bammesk (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sankt gilgen 2018 1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warming stripes

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2021 at 12:23:24 (UTC)

Reason

Data visualisation that had a notable, high impact on the world (see its article). Simple, but extremely effective - and goes to the core of what en.wp FPC is about.

Articles in which this image appears

Warming stripes etc.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others

Creator

Ed Hawkins (climatologist)

• Support as nominator – MER-C 12:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Support original or alternative. MER-C 15:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would actually prefer the version with the yellow dots & curve, giving a better understanding of the trend. Of course, an SVG version of that would be even better... --Janke | Talk 12:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I will support the consensus version. --Janke | Talk 17:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support version with dots but with the same colours as the original (current colours appear more saturated). cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 12:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support any, prefer Original because currently it's in the infobox. Bammesk (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Which has become an iconic image. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original or svg --Andrei (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the alt, or any. --Gnosis (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either one of the images Lemonreader (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Promoted File:20181204 Warming stripes (global, WMO, 1850-2018) - Climate Lab Book (Ed Hawkins).png --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) train

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2021 at 04:48:26 (UTC)

Original – A nine-car Bay Area Rapid Transit train made of four C-type cars and five B-type cars. The B cars have identical windows at both ends and are strictly passenger cars. The C cars have an operator cab at one end, with narrower window, and can be used as an end car (i.e. control car).

Reason

Detailed image of a Bay Area Rapid Transit train. The image is captured with a line scan camera. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Bay Area Rapid Transit, Bay Area Rapid Transit rolling stock

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

Dllu

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting method of photography. Could be added to Strip photography article. --Janke | Talk 11:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as creator. Thanks for the nomination! dllu (t,c) 20:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Andrei (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 11:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--
  talk) 15:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I struck this vote, editor has less than 100 edits. (per instructions on top of this page) Bammesk (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Line scan photo of nine car BART C1 train in 2017.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orson Welles post-The War of the Worlds broadcast

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2021 at 05:45:07 (UTC)

Reason

The image itself is of high-quality and gives context and EV for how much mass hysteria the broadcast of War of the Worlds caused, to the point Welles had to be interviewed to clarify the intent of the program. Part of an otherwise historical moment in radio.

Articles in which this image appears

Orson Welles, The War of the Worlds (1938 radio drama), Mercury Theatre, 1938 in science fiction

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment (maybe)

Creator

Acme News Photos

• Support as nominator – GamerPro64 05:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Documents a momentous, historical occasion. --Janke | Talk 13:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Cluttered to say the least. – Sca (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't that perfectly convey the situation? According to the article, Welles was overrun by reporters... --Janke | Talk 11:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. MER-C 12:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- mcshadypl ^TC 06:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Petar Milošević (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Orson Welles War of the Worlds 1938.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hawley

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2021 at 22:58:58 (UTC)

Reason

High-quality, compelling portrait of US senator Josh Hawley, an important figure in American politics right now and likely to come. High EV to Hawley and related articles.

Articles in which this image appears

Josh Hawley, 2018 United States Senate election in Missouri, 2016 Missouri Attorney General election, List of United States senators from Missouri, United States congressional delegations from Missouri, List of new members of the 116th United States Congress, Religious affiliation in the United States Senate

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Rebecca Hammel, U.S. Senate Photographic Studio

• Support as nominator –
  talk) 22:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose another official portrait. --Gnosis (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Now is a very poorly chosen moment to feature a picture of him as composed, official, and patriotic. It sends a message of non-neutrality, regardless of whether such a picture might be appropriate in other circumstances. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unremarkable official portrait, basically a decent yearbook photo.
  talk) 01:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Genuine Q here: how would the majority of
    talk) 21:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose – per all above. Bammesk (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – per all above. --Janke | Talk 11:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per previous. And given the current U.S. political climate, it smacks of hype/POV. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the nominator, I feel obligated to say this nomination wasn't POV, and I'm not too keen on
    talk) 21:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Not a personal attack – a comment on the import of the photo given the current climate. "Smacks of" doesn't quite mean it's intentionally POV, it means that in the current circumstances it could be interpreted as POV; a connotation rather than a denotation. (Besides, it's a boring official photo.) – Sca (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • If you want a policy to review, I suggest the one I alluded to in my comment above:
      WP:NPOV. In ordinary times, an anodyne portrait portraying a politician as a normal if boring-looking human person would be neutral enough. These are not normal times, and that portrayal is (one hopes, temporarily) not a neutral one. It is telling the world "we think that this portrayal of Hawley, and not the one of him raising his fist in support of a fascist coup attempt, is how people should be thinking of him right now, and it's so important that you forget that other image that we're going to take the step of promoting the non-fascist image to our front page". Is that really what you think we should be saying? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Comment Let me make my views on the subject clear once again. I do not like Josh Hawley. In fact, I shouldn't need to tell you this, but I in fact voted against him, twice, and in a large sense, I am sympathetic to what you are saying. However, after reviewing other photos that have been passed as FP, I do not believe that this standard you are proposing here has been equally applied at all. There are, right now, profiles of Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Andrew Jackson that have all passed FP, all of which depict their respective subjects as sage and statesmanlike. Why can't this same principle be applied to a sitting, democratically elected U.S. senator? Sure, Hawley has a now-infamous (and copyrighted and non-free) image of him raising a fist, but these figures surely have photos of mass graves and other atrocities that would reflect their tenures more accurately, and yet WP has decided to depict them this way in their infoboxes and even the Main Page. Additionally,

talk) 21:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Night in Luna Park, Coney Island (1905)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2021 at 17:55:40 (UTC)

Reason

High quality. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Luna Park (Coney Island, 1903). Coney Island, Frederic Thompson, List of defunct amusement parks in the United States, Night photography

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Detroit Publishing Company

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• comment There are white sports in the sky. Given the general exposure I'd be surprised if they were stars.©Geni (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tenerife airport disaster - wreckage

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2021 at 04:57:31 (UTC)

Reason

This shows the aftermath of the deadliest aviation incident in history, where two Boeing 747s collided in a Spanish airport on March 27, 1977, causing 583 fatalities. Somewhat of a historical value and a detailed image. Could be reasonably restored, if needed.

Articles in which this image appears

Tenerife airport disaster

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

Unknown, but was donated to the Dutch National Archives

• Support as nominator – Lemonreader (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – It needs restoration in the sky area. I am not sure about the copyright, source page says copyright holder is unknown, I see no specifics about Creative Commons CC0. Bammesk (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow-throated miner

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2021 at 12:15:26 (UTC)

Reason

Was seen on Commons FPC last week, where it was featured unanimously.

Articles in which this image appears

Yellow-throated miner

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator – MER-C 12:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Janke | Talk 18:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--
  talk) 15:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I struck this vote, editor has less than 100 edits. (per instructions on top of this page) Bammesk (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I probably would have nominated it eventually. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —kallerna 18:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Yellow-throated Miner - Sturt National Park.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Storming of the United States Capitol

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2021 at 18:27:13 (UTC)

Reason

The picture is some impressive photography that shows off the

2021 storming of the United States Capitol

. Currently in that article's infobox, greatly improving said article.

Articles in which this image appears

2021 storming of the United States Capitol, 117th United States Congress

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Tyler Merbler (on Flickr)

• Support as nominator –
  talk | contribs) 18:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Dark and fuzzy, doesn't really show any action. --Janke | Talk 18:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – It isn't sharp for a heavily photographed event. Also the
  FP criterion 5). Bammesk (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose -- mcshadypl ^TC 06:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. An important event, certainly one with plenty of encyclopedic value to lend to its images, but I don't think this photo is very informative. The level of quality is unsurprising for impromptu news photography, but an image needs to be sufficiently iconic to rise above that and be featured, and I don't think this one is. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pithecopus rohdei

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2021 at 02:16:28 (UTC)

Reason

Interesting photo, Commons picture of the year in 2017. I expanded the article some, hopefully it will get more attention.

Articles in which this image appears

Pithecopus rohdei, Wikimedia Commons

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians

Creator

Renato Augusto Martins

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose This image has a 'Photoshopped' background and may have been created using string to hold the frog's leg up in the air. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you sure about that? --Janke | Talk 17:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This was discussed on Commons, the photographer described what he did and it passed unanimously. Charles participated and said "fine work". The background is dark because it was shot at f/22 with a (remote) flash. About "maybe string holding the leg up": I uploaded a frame from this GIF, see top view here. This is a natural pose. The forward elbow has a slight bend which wouldn't show in a lateral view. Bammesk (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I remember the discussion, though I should not have said fine work. Reading a Google translate of the photographer's comment he admits that it was a complicated set up shot. It is not natural. The photographer's comments explain how it was staged Petar Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well i hope they did not "torture" that animal for a picture. That should be prohibited. I dont understand why f/22 was used, on f/14-16 would be more than enough. Despite that Support, unless some other show up (staged etc.). --Petar Milošević (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not know that, despite my support vote there, but i did not read further text. So put one there, and they will fight for place, as someone mentioned. What is bad it become POTY, and even more bad, we had two crippled birds (from London) as POTY too. Those birds were tortured and could not fly. I remove my support vote. --Petar Milošević (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I google-translated the photographers comments: Hello everyone, thank you very much for the messages and doubts. I will try to clarify all the points questioned. Yes, the animal is wild and free-living. The technique used for this type of image with a black background is very simple, however very laborious. As previously mentioned by the colleague, in the EXIF ​​of the photo it is possible to observe the f / 22 which would be quite high! with the foreground well lit and the background in shadow or dark, we managed to make the background very black. Allied to this, we can see in the image that there is practically no shadow in the amphibians, this is the most difficult part of the photograph! There is no information in the EXIF ​​about the light source, as I use an external flash, attached to a flash radio. That alone would be enough for a black background, but to have no shadow in the image I used 3 light beaters, making the light soft and pleasant! The position of amphibians is completely natural in their habitat. Above all the Clado Phyllomedusidae, presents species that walk slowly and jump little, in the photo in question, a male disputes the branch with another male, when passing over him, an amphibian lowers itself as a form of defense as the other crosses, everything this lasted for about 4 seconds, making the image even more challenging! I hope I have helped, I am always available for further clarification. Renato Augusto Martins So this looks and feels genuine to me, and I've seen videos of frogs taking slow steps just like seen here. The link to the "faked frogs" doesn't show natural postures. Just my 2 €-cents... --Janke | Talk 17:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The translation says "very laborious". In the wild, no frog is going to hang around while a photographer does everything he says he did! It is a set up shot. 100%. He says so. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per discussion above, and the likely suggestion that this has been staged. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply – So it's not photoshopped and strung (frogs weren't forced and tortured). Now the oppose rationale is "staged" and "not in the wild". Several things: 1- Using the word "staged" on a frog implies undue manipulation (drugs, strings, etc). In this photo the frogs are doing what's natural to them. The photographer says so and I think we all agree on that. 2- A remote flash-plus-reflector isn't complicated these days, it could be a bit more elaborate than this. It doesn't mean a complicated setup. 3- The photographer has a track record with frogs-and-flash on flickr in 2010 here, more recently on Commons here. I enlarged his Commons photos and checked the
  catchlight, he uses flash-plus-reflector on many [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] +more, and flash on almost all photos. I think it's likely his shots are at a research university, animal sanctuary, zoo, etc. (on a sidenote, we don't have a policy or a precedence to oppose solely on that) 4- Yes the photographer says it's "very laborious", and he also says it's "very simple" in the same sentence. As Janke says: these are my 2 €-cents. Bammesk (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

so you agree, staged! Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the 39 supports on Commons, which includes you, so I agree with your vote on Commons. Bammesk (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC) . . . . I agree the frogs are doing what's natural to them. I agree there was no undue manipulation (drugs, strings, etc). He said the frogs are wild and free-living, he didn't say he shot this in the wild. I think he had time, he knows what frogs do, he was hoping he get a good shot and he got it. I think he is legit, he doesn't do fake shots. I think you want to oppose, first fake background, now "staged" as a synonym for fake. By the way "not in the wild" and "staged" are not sufficient oppose rationales, we are an encyclopedia, not a wild life magazine. Example: [13] Bammesk (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The photo has considerable artistic merit. But this is not Commons. You believe an encyclopaedia should celebrate a photo which purports to be natural, but where the frog must have been placed on the branch by the photographer's assistant? I don't agree. I know quite a lot about frogs' behaviour. Do you? I was eventually happy last time as I had not read the English translation of the photographer's explanation of the lengthy set up. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You actually supported this twice on Commons, once before [14] and then after [15] reading the photographer's explanations. So you think this is a well-done shot: technically, humanely (since you know frogs), compositionally, etc. I don't know frogs but handling this type is easy [16]. They could have been placed on the branch. I am Ok with "well done" set up shots, we are an encyclopedia, and animals aren't an exception. I don't see undue manipulation in capturing this photo, so I am Ok with it. I see the frogs having a natural dispute. I don't see cruelty, given the unanimous supports on Commons including your support there. Bammesk (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Looks artificial, staged, faked. – Sca (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Faked? Frogs do move in funny ways... example: [[17]] --Janke | Talk 19:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm inclined to agree with Bammesk. --Muhammad(talk) 06:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Me, too. Frogs move just like that, so the posture is certainly not artificially staged, even though the "complicated" flash setup can be called "staging". I think this discussion went off the rails due to the first oppose (now struck), and is worth reconsidering by opposers. I see no reason this "climbing over" could not happen in the wild, without any interference at all (such as photographer placing frog/frogs on a branch - and we even don't know if that happend). --Janke | Talk 14:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The flash isn't complicated, his camera and flash have wireless built-in [18] [19]. The frogs are ~1.8 inch [20], image width is ~4 inch, lens is 105mm, so camera is ~1.5 ft away. Looking at the
  catchlight I am pretty confident it's 3 surfaces, as opposed to 3 reflectors; something like 4.5x1.5 ft in area folded into 3 sections, not as small as I previously thought. According to the file description [21] this was shot at the Michelin Reserve in Brazil, which is a protected nature reserve and research area [22]. Bammesk (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support Good photo of frogs in action; I haven't seen any evidence that this is unacceptably staged, and the photographer has explained in some detail how it was taken. TSP (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Ivar (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  All I can say is ribbit! – Sca (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no consensus for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vysotsky

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2021 at 00:42:54 (UTC)

Reason

Good composition. High quality

Articles in which this image appears

Vysotsky (skyscraper)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

A.Savin

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Perspective looks distorted/exaggerated. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I am Ok with the perspective, the edges of the building are vertical. The foreground/bottom is a bit too chaotic though. Bammesk (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo, Sri Lanka

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2021 at 00:56:38 (UTC)

Reason

Good composition and ilustration.

Articles in which this image appears

Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo, List of Archaeological Protected Monuments in Gampaha District

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

A.Savin

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Perspective looks distorted/exaggerated. – Sca (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No wonder, with a 13mm lens... ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baker's Falls

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2021 at 01:04:01 (UTC)

Reason

Good composition. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

List of waterfalls of Sri Lanka

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

A.Savin

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 19:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Subject fully in shadow. —kallerna 08:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose would have more EV if taken under different light conditions (t · c) buidhe 04:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It's even possible the falls are never fully sunlit due to the terrain, and with only partial sunlight, the photo would look a lot worse. The lit background gives a dimension not possible in overcast light. --Janke | Talk 17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Galle Lighthouse

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2021 at 00:48:33 (UTC)

Reason

High quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Galle Lighthouse

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

A.Savin

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Perspective looks distorted/exaggerated. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I agree it looks distorted but it works IMO, good lighting, some history, even a marine radar next to it! Bammesk (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wow (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:SL Galle Fort asv2020-01 img24.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kourion

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2021 at 01:18:35 (UTC)

Reason

Good composition. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Kourion, List of World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom, Romanization of Anatolia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

A.Savin

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 19:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Episkopi 01-2017 img06 Kourion.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Parade

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2021 at 14:08:27 (UTC)

Reason

This is a high-quality reproduction of the now-public domain silent film The Big Parade, featuring the most complete runtime available. (The 1931 score by William Axt is still copyrighted and is thus not included in the file.)

Articles in which this image appears

The Big Parade, King Vidor

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment

Creator

King Vidor

• Support as nominator – PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This upload was done less than a week ago. Also I'm not sure if it not having the score hinders it to be a Featured Picture. GamerPro64 05:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Besides the low bitrate (621 kbps at the time of the upload), the video resolution (480p) is particularly low compared to the Blu-ray source. I assume the upload is a direct conversion of the .mp4 file (754.4 MB) from the archive.org link without the 25 second black background at the beginning and the "edition credits" at the end. The archive.org from which the video is sourced also contains two video files which seem to have higher quality than the current quality of the upload:

• a 1.3 GB
  .mkv
  file which, based from my experiences using archive.org, its the one the website automatically used to directly create the .mp4 file with downscaled quality.
• an uncompressed 30 GB .m2ts file, that was directly extracted from the official Blu-ray.

I suggest using the .mkv file to make a higher quality upload than the one we currently have.--Mayimbú (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Negress

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2021 at 15:59:37 (UTC)

Reason

great quality, ev

Articles in which this image appears

Anna Bilińska-Bohdanowicz, History of art, Murzyn, Women artists

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Anna Bilińska-Bohdanowicz, uploaded by User:BotMultichillT

• Support as nominator. For info: its a new upload to substitute this file of a low quality. – Andrei (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I think some details from ref 3 can be added to the article. Bammesk (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Petar Milošević (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palauenc05 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 19:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose assuming the height and width dimensions have been reversed its only around 165DPI.©Geni (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a reason to oppose. FPC counts pixels, not dpi. This is over 3K by 4K pixels, well over requirements. --Janke | Talk 22:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Geni: and yet your screen has around 96 dpi. Than how come to judge higher dpi !? Must be some new "rule". PP are just photographers "by birth". --Petar Milošević (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Insufficient DPI is surely (in principle) a reason to oppose. You might think that it's not a good reason to oppose in this case (no opinion on that), but saying "pixels matter, not DPI" is hardly convincing. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 15:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Anna Bilińska-Bohdanowiczowa - Black girl - MP 5531 - National Museum in Warsaw.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Arcimboldo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2021 at 17:26:41 (UTC)

Reason

good quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Giuseppe Arcimboldo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Giuseppe Arcimboldo/Google Art Project

• Support as nominator – Andrei (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Petar Milošević (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've been a fan of his art since I was a kid! --Janke | Talk 12:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 19:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 15:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Giuseppe Arcimboldo - Self Portrait - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Added image to People/Artists and writers instead, as there is no article about the artwork. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radiated tortoise

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2021 at 14:44:23 (UTC)

Reason

Was seen on Commons FPC last week where it was featured unanimously. Critically endangered.

Articles in which this image appears

Radiated tortoise, Astrochelys

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – MER-C 14:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, hope that it will end up on the main page and more people will learn about the turtle. --Andrei (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the green fringing on top of the shell is iridescence and not a camera artefact.©Geni (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thanks for the nom, and I agree not artefacts. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 15:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Radiated tortoise (Astrochelys radiata) Tsimanampetsotsa.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Ngauruhoe

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2021 at 17:45:53 (UTC)

Original – Panoramic view of Mount Ngauruhoe as seen from Mount Tongariro, with Mount Ruapehu in the background.

Reason

Panorama of Mount Ngauruhoe and surroundings in New Zealand, with Mount Ruapehu in the background. FP on Commons. According to the article, it is designated as an active volcano. Last eruption was in 1977 and minor activity alerts in 2006 and 2015.

Articles in which this image appears

Mount Ngauruhoe

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

KennyOMG

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 19:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wow (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - --Janke | Talk 17:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 15:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tongariro02.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2021 at 11:08:38 (UTC)

Reason

File was nominated in 2006 but didn't pass because it was too small at the time. Now, the resolution is high enough to see the cracks. The only FPs of Washington are engravings, so it would be nice to see a painting of him become an FP.

Articles in which this image appears

George Washington

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Gilbert Stuart

• Support as nominator – Wow (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't show his wooden teeth, though. – Sca (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck vote of sock puppet. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - --Janke | Talk 17:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. —TheFreeWorld (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 15:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gilbert Stuart Williamstown Portrait of George Washington.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prehnite

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2021 at 19:28:26 (UTC)

Reason

Was seen on Commons FPC last week, where it was featured unanimously.

Articles in which this image appears

Prehnite

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Geology

Creator

Ivar Leidus

• Support as nominator – MER-C 19:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ScienceFan66 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck vote of sock puppet. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Wow (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 15:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Prehnite - Southbury, Connecticut, USA.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Sleeping Gypsy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2021 at 21:28:21 (UTC)

Reason

High quality. FP on Commons

Articles in which this image appears

The Sleeping Gypsy, Henri Rousseau

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Henri Rousseau

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Enough detail at 69 pixels per inch. EXIF says ISO 5000 but it's not noisy! Bammesk (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Famous painting. Does DPI really matter? I've always thought FPC has a pixel size requirement, not DPI on the original. (Larger is always better, of course, but this is already 3.4K x 5.4K...) --Janke | Talk 09:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It shouldn't matter as long as the scan captures the details of a painting or drawing. For example a line drawn by pencil can easily be 0.5mm wide (0.020 inch) or less, so a resolution of 50 pixels per inch would barely capture such a line or detail. Bammesk (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This is a big canvas, so even more resolution would be good for getting fine detail on the brushwork, but this is good enough for FP for now and we can replace if we ever get a really high-res scan. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck vote of sock puppet. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 15:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Gnosis (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:La Bohémienne endormie.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hohenwerfen Castle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2021 at 07:57:37 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV, showing nicely the surroundings of the castle

Articles in which this image appears

Hohenwerfen Castle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Arne Müseler

• Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is unfortunate that the castle blends so well into the background that the photo looks rather uninteresting in small size (as it would, on the Main Page). --Janke | Talk 11:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Poor composition, too much environmental context. In effect, you can't see the castle for the trees. We don't really need the lower walls & battlements (Flankierungstürme?). Tut mir Leid. – Sca (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck vote of sock puppet. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pontia edusa

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2021 at 08:27:08 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Pontia edusa

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Sven Damerow

• Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Eye looks out of focus. If this is a focus stack image, it could probably be improved? I also wonder, is it natural dew, or from a spray bottle... --Janke | Talk 11:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - ScienceFan66 (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Genuine early morning shot, but a few stacking errors. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck vote of sock puppet. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Wow (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 15:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – already FP on Commons. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Resedafalter am Morgen.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]