Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/May-2022

• Support per Adam and in part, due to F&f's ridiculously orientalist arguments — lacking basis in any policy — which would have put Naipaul to shame. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I note that at the moment of writing TrangsBellam supports the picture in part they say because they oppose my arguments, but I have not voted Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 04:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This picture has been edited from another one, apparently to remove some text naming the peaks. I find that unobjectionable. But there are other editing artifacts that show up as well. The one it was edited from had what looks like a stitching artifact where the mountain background was brighter on one side of a pole in the lower left than on the other side; this has been reduced but not eliminated. And all of the mountain ridgetops have heavy black outlines, probably from too much unsharp mask. The nominator speaks above about blithely cloning out objects visible in scenes (unobjectionable when the subject is a person and the cloning is something irrelevant in background, but more problematic when the subject is the scene itself). Some odd bright red stains on the lower left edge have been replaced with odd grey-brown stains that are harder to spot. It makes me wonder how much more manipulation there is that I am not seeing. But it also makes me skeptical that this image is GA quality. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the input. The image has also had some red and blue chromatic aberrations removed, all edits performed by me. I’d just like to point out that removing objects that distract from the scene, correcting stitching errors, etc are routine, uncontroversial fixes. Especially in FP nominations, such fixes are frequently requested by the voters themselves. I can point to several nominations on both Commons:FPC and here where this is the case. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, the cloning out remark was in reference to a particular previous nomination, not a “blithe” suggestion to indiscriminately clone out objects visible in scenes. :) UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Sorry but the composition doesn't work IMO. With all the sky on top, the village looks squeezed in the bottom (the framing looks unbalanced). The lighting and the bright sky makes everything look dark. Also, I am not sure about the pinkish sky, it looks a bit overdone or unnatural. Bammesk (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sagittarius A*

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 May 2022 at 19:09:05 (UTC)

Reason

Nothing to see here, move along.

Historic image of an important astronomical object. We already have an EHT image of a black hole. Both are notable in their own right: the other is the first image of a black hole, this one is in and a key part of our Galaxy.

Articles in which this image appears

Sagittarius A*, Milky Way etc.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

Event Horizon Telescope

• Support as nominator – MER-C 19:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - obviously! --Janke | Talk 19:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As an artistic work, it's terrible, as a scientific achievement, wow!
  FPs 19:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 04:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:EHT Saggitarius A black hole.tif --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Navy Yard

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2022 at 01:56:45 (UTC)

Reason

Just a gorgeous aerial photo, and I'd say quite an achievement for 1918.

Articles in which this image appears

Brooklyn Navy Yard

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

Unknown photographer, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator –
  FPs 01:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. MER-C 11:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 04:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well executed, especially for its time, and very high EV as it depicts how one of the most important military shipyards in the world at the time was set out. Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Nick! Saw this - can't remember what I was looking for at the time - and knew Wikipedia absolutely had to have it.

  FPs 06:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Promoted File:Navy Yard, Brooklyn. New York. 1918 - NH 117794.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stellate puffer

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2022 at 11:24:01 (UTC)

Reason

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

Articles in which this image appears

Arothron stellatus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish

Creator

Diego Delso

• Support as nominator – MER-C 11:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets my standards for underwater shots.
  FPs 17:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 04:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pez globo (Arothron stellatus), Ras Katy, Sharm el-Sheij, Egipto, 2022-03-26, DD 119.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Södermanland Runic Inscription 113

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 May 2022 at 22:32:23 (UTC)

runologist Otto von Friesen

Reason

I think this is a fine image. High quality, attractive background, and rather easier to read than the modern photograph.

Articles in which this image appears

Södermanland Runic Inscription 113, Otto von Friesen

FP category for this image

It doesn't have an obvious category. Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others? Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture?

Creator

Otto von Friesen, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator –
  FPs 22:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support quality (t · c) buidhe 03:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There's some damage still remaining in the grass on the left side about 85% of the way down. MER-C 18:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The black scratch? Got it. Sorry, that grass does my head in a bit when I was looking for damage in it.
    FPs 21:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • There were quite a few black spots too. MER-C 15:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @
        FPs 19:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Support High quality and high ev. Spongie555 (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Otto von Friesen - Runsten Sö 113 Kolunda, Stenkvista socken - Alvin record 110815.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruddigore revival, 1921

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2022 at 21:14:12 (UTC)

Reason

Some theatrical works have their reputation focus on their première. Ruddigore, however, was a relative failure on its first run, and then entered the canon on the back of the first revival (which started as a touring production in 1920, and then had its London run in the 1921-22 season (pictured). This also has a lot of other strengths. I believe this is the highest-resolution image I've ever restored, and it's a compelling, full colour image. It's by a notable artist, and one of only two of his illustrations in his article, and far more detailed than the, admittedly iconic, but relatively simple poster for The Sorcerer. Not to say you won't see the other eventually.

Articles in which this image appears

Ruddigore, H. M. Brock, Geoffrey Toye

FP category for this image

WP:FP/THEATRE

Creator

H. M. Brock, restored by Adam Cuerden, with stitching assistance by Colin

• Support as nominator –
  FPs 21:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support – but the file page says "source" is The Sphere !? Bammesk (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OOps!
    FPs 06:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support. MER-C 18:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:H. M. Brock - Gilbert and Sullivan - D'Oyly Carte Opera Company Ruddigore revival 1921.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Set:Monsoon in Western Ghats

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2022 at 00:22:31 (UTC)

Western Ghats near Matheran in Maharashtra, during the dry season in late May (above) and during peak monsoon season

in late August (below)

Western Ghats near Matheran in Maharashtra, during the dry season in late May (above) and during peak monsoon season

in late August (below)
Cropped to remove the un-fixable cloning and stitching errors

Reason

What happens when the monsoon hits the Western Ghats? Well, this. Good quality and very high EV when seen side by side.

Articles in which this image appears

Monsoon of South Asia, Monsoon, Season

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather

Creator

Arne Hückelheim

• Support as nominator – UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt — UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support While the quality of it isn't perfect, the comparison between them is fantastic.
  FPs 21:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Since you did a great job so far, can you look at the lower left corner of the rain season one, where where's still a small stitching error? Support alt otherwise.

FPs 22:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Done :) UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt. providing that cloning errors are eliminated or at least improved. Top EV for the pair! --Janke | Talk 11:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt Very captivating image. Well done.Taxin609 (Talk To Me) 00:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Taxin609: Due to errors in the original, a cropped alt has been uploaded, please update your vote accordingly. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Bammesk (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I stuck my support vote. I had not seen the stitch lines on the bottom image. Also the top image has dark patches along its top and bottom edge (artifact of stitching). These can be fixed/improved with some careful cloning, and I would support if that's done. Oppose as is (i.e. the original nominated versions). Bammesk (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bammesk: Could you please strike out the now redundant oppose, so that it isn’t accidentally counted? UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Bammesk (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I can't overlook the dreadful cloning in the bottom corners of both images. MER-C 18:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'll try to fix the stitching errors of the top and the cloning problems in the bottom tomorrow. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve attempted to fix them. @Adam Cuerden and Bammesk: Should something else/more be done? Or perhaps these just aren’t FP. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• On the bottom image, the lower left corner is still too obvious (going from the darker grass to the lighter grass). It may be hard to fix. You can also renominate these at a later time, if you care to spend time on them. The top image still has two dark patched on its bottom edge (you may have to zoom in to see them). Bammesk (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think, as Adam Cuerden suggested above, slight cropping on the sides and bottom of the monsoon image might be better. The dry one is easier to fix. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ll upload the cropped versions and renominate. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Aye, just crop them both the same, which probably means dropping the rainy season one to remove the weird green blob, then taking the same off dry season.

  FPs 20:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

•  Comment: Per the suggestions, I have uploaded the cropped versions as alt. Please recast your votes based on it if you wish to. Thanks! UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt – Bammesk (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt TheFreeWorld (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose cloning errors in corners. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:MatheranPanoramaPointDrySeasonCrop.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:MatheranPanoramaPointMonsoonCrop.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Large Hadron Collider

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2022 at 22:02:58 (UTC)

Reason

Quality image of the Large Hadron Collider, actually a section of it, because it is 17 miles long and in an underground tunnel. "The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world's largest and highest-energy particle collider. It lies in a tunnel 27 kilometres (17 mi) in circumference and as deep as 175 metres (574 ft) beneath the France–Switzerland border near Geneva." [1] The LHC was built approximately 20 years ago, it's currently operational and is used for making discoveries in particle or subatomic physics.

Articles in which this image appears

Large Hadron Collider

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others

Creator

Maximilien Brice, CERN

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I certainly see the value, but I find the depth of field disappointing. Still, the limited access makes me lean support.
  FPs 09:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The only way to get more DOF is focus stack (this is already at f/16 and a very high quality lens). Not sure focus stack should be the norm at FPC. And not saying DOF isn't a criterion. Bammesk (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but the focus is also quite close, roughly around the ring at the back of the nearest blue section, so most of the image is quite a bit out of focus. Nearer the middle would have let it fall off more elegantly. (and it puts the visual emphasis on the least interesting component).
    FPs 07:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• When the main subject doesn't fit in the DOF, the rule of thumb is to focus the lens for a sharp nearside, and let the far side drift out of focus (and into the bokeh). The opposite isn't the norm and the opposite generally looks terrible. Same with the mid-section being sharp and the nearside being out of focus. The camera used and the lens tells me the photographer is most likely a pro. IMO this is as good as it gets focus-wise, absent of focus stacking. Bammesk (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This doesn't add much to the article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Better lighting than the other, similar (but flash) photo. --Janke | Talk 15:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Views of the LHC tunnel sector 3-4, tirage 2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. ^ It's an opera. What did you expect?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/May-2022&oldid=1090876898"