Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2013

Promoted File:Bush Cockroach.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles I with M. de St Antoine

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2013 at 15:26:29 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, good quality scan, notable painting

Articles in which this image appears

Charles I with M. de St Antoine, Charles I of England, +3

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Anthony van Dyck

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Google art project scans are terrific. Mattximus (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Obvious. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above reasons, Sadads (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Godot13 (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per above. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Anthony van Dyck - Charles I (1600-49) with M. de St Antoine - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2013 at 23:08:51 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, good quality, lead image of Sheep article

Articles in which this image appears

Sheep, Captivity (animal), U.S. Sheep Experiment Station (added now)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Keith Weller, Agricultural Research Service

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Godhulii 1985 (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Camera's a little crappy - the darker areas have a little chromatic distortion - but I think it's a good photo overall. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the picture is at least 9 years old. Tomer T (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Flock of sheep.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quinoa field

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2013 at 23:16:57 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV and quality. A renomination of this nomination, which failed because of instability of the image in the Quinoa article.

Quoting the original rationale by MKwek: "The image composition is perfect: a landscape full with colourful quinoa plants, with the beautiful Lake Titicaca at the background. It creates the appreciation of the Bolivian farmers' work in meeting the world demand on quinoa."

Articles in which this image appears

Quinoa, Neglected and underutilized crop

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

NusHub

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose overexposed (sky), unsharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- nice pic Godhulii 1985 (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Alchemist-hp. I think we can do better. --Pine^✉ 06:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose Soft in the foreground and the highlights are distracting at full size.Geni (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vipera dinniki

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2013 at 23:24:28 (UTC)

Reason

Good detail, high quality and high EV. The only picture in Commons of this vulnerable species.

Articles in which this image appears

Vipera dinniki

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Benny Trapp

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support has focus issues but this is good enough for identification, and I like the colors. --Pine^✉ 06:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Pretty much per Pine. There are focus issues, yes, but the detail is plenty good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Pine. JKadavoor Jee 15:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.
  talk) 11:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted File:BennyTrapp Vipera dinniki.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ducati 748

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2013 at 23:33:49 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV, good detail, excellent lighting, FP in Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Ducati 748

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

Stefan Krause (Ritchyblack)

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's featured on Commons, why not here? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good taxobox image. --Pine^✉ 06:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is it just me, or does the light reflecting off the floor look pixelated? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some lighting or texture effects on the floor that I can't make sense of but they don't bother me. They don't distract from the subject. --Pine^✉ 07:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's reflecting onto the bike, which is why I ask. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still not seeing an issue. Where exactly are you seeing pixelation? --Pine^✉ 06:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That the reflection almost looks like it's pixelated or CA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very nice and sharp and professional. Also, it's a Ducati. If you painted one in feces it should still be featured. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO...Godot13 (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Godot13 (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ducati 748 Studio.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedball

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2013 at 23:38:33 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and good EV, in both the articles Speedball and Sup'Air

Articles in which this image appears

Speedball, Sup'Air

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Stefan Krause (Ritchyblack)

• Support as nominator the pictrues are introduced as two options, but I think they both have a place, side by side, in the FP gallery. --Tomer T (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to calrify, I support all the versions. Tomer T (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I won't oppose because I think this is a cool topic, but this is probably a daily/weekend event and someone with the intention of taking an FP image of the activity can probably go out there and get superior images. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Option 1". Option 2 has a distracting flying pellet and some noise. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for option 2 edit.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment image 2 can be cropped to get rid of the distracting flying pellet. If that's done I would support these as a pair. I would oppose image 2 if it was nominated separately. --Pine^✉ 06:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added an edit. Tomer T (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as pair with option 2 edit --Pine^✉ 07:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I prefer just having image 1 (this is a team sport, after all) but a no opposition to the alt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Option 1, team pic Godhulii 1985 (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:SupAir Player.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Only option 1 has 5 supports. Option 2 has 1, and option 2 edit 3. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Power Station, Tel Aviv

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2013 at 02:22:37 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, High quality.

Viceroy of India (1921–25), chairman of the (then) Palestine Electric Corporation (1926), and briefly as U.K. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

(1931). Of the four power producing units, only “Reading D” is currently in operation.

Articles in which this image appears

Reading Power Station

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Godot13

• Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good photo. Tomer T (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per no issues. Mattximus (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice photo. WPPilot(talk)WPPilot 00:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well done. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Israel-2013-Tel Aviv 01-Reading Power Station.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

View of Jaffa

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2013 at 04:03:10 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, High quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Jaffa

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Godot13

• Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support typical view of Jaffa. But can you add notes in the Commons page, identifying the mentioned buildings? Tomer T (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I've never done that before. Please give me a day or two. Thanks.-Godot13 (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.-Godot13 (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This composition is dominated by the ugly sea wall and the beach and doesn't seem to show much of interest. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that ALT1 is an improvement I'm afraid, as it doesn't show much of obvious interest. This is a useful image and the technical standards of the photo are excellent, but the composition is not of FP standard I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree with Nick-D: this is mostly a picture of an ugly sea wall. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Added ALT version cropping out the sea wall.-Godot13 (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ALT1, very much so. That is harshly off-centre — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, reverted to the first version of the ALT. No more changes from me. It may simply not be a FP...-Godot13 (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The sea wall is pretty much unavoidable unless you were to take a photograph from a helicopter hovering over the ocean, which I doubt is going to be very feasible. That being said, the actual impact of the sea wall could be cut back by taking a photograph from a boat and then stitching a panorama of the town's coastline. A lot of the panorama images were done like that. It can turn out quite nice — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, while I like this better, I don't think it's an FP. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose alt. Graffiti or not, the sea wall is a nice curved line that draws in the viewer's eyes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In my opinion, the "ALT.1" version gives an unrealistic impression of the view from that position. 86.160.87.129 (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original would be better if sea wall would be skipped. I hope someone make it happen, till then supporting this pic Godhulii 1985 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Israel-2013-Jaffa 01.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Placed it in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy of Bathyacmaea secunda

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2013 at 06:19:31 (UTC)

Reason

SVG image is of more than adequate quality and complexity, is freely licensed, is the only such image Wikipedia is ever likely to have of this obscure deep-sea limpet

Articles in which this image appears

Bathyacmaea secunda

FP category for this image

Animals/Others

Creator

KDS444

(nominator's Wikimedia Commons username)

• Support as nominator -- KDS4444^Talk 06:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 19:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks very good, but I think it needs some orientation for this strange creature. Since there are "left" organs, it should theoretically have a front and back? Mattximus (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I will take a shot at making this clearer. Would you settle for a "head" to help orientate you? The animal has no tail, per se, and it's digestive system ends at its neck but it certainly does have a front and a back and is shown in three-quarter view here. I will create a new bracket that should clear things up. KDS4444^Talk 18:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: this splendid image looks like the best we're ever going to get about this species. It is based on the figures from the original article in the "Journal of Molluscan Studies". JoJan (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I applaud the creator for being bold enough to attempt this extremely challenging task, but I do have a few serious comments: First off I am not sure it is a good idea for someone who is not directly familiar with the anatomy of this species (or the anatomy of true limpets in general) to attempt a daring 3-D reconstruction like this from scratch, based only on straightforward "overhead" 2D drawings in the original paper; this illustration is almost guaranteed to be at least somewhat misleading, despite the many hours than have gone into the careful creation of this figure. Also, this 3-D reconstruction is purely diagrammatic, unlike the illustrations in the original paper, which were completely naturalistic. And as a result, this diagram looks considerably more weird and other-worldly than it should look if it was an accurate portrait of the anatomy of the species. If we decide to accept it as being an OK reconstruction, which to my mind is a big jump in the dark, then yes, of course the head or rather the snout should be labelled. I also think one of the tentacles should be labeled, and the label could perhaps say "without eyes", as that is a distinctive feature of the species. But I have many questions: why is the cerebral commissure shown as narrowing so much in the middle, when that is not the case in the illustrations in the original paper? And should the position of the shell in life be indicated? What is labelled "foot muscles" are I believe the shell muscles, a completely different thing, and why do they have rounded ends like bullets (I am pretty sure that is incorrect)? Why is there a grey mark extending out from the back of the animal near the lower edge? It must be at least be stated in the description that is is a diagrammatic view of the creature's anatomy as shown from a viewpoint that is neither lateral nor anterior but intermediate between the two, otherwise people will have no idea what they are looking at. The diagram is partly see-through or cut-away, and partly not. To me it is very confusing in terms of trying to understand the anatomy. Where is the foot? What is the grey blobby stuff at the bottom where the foot should be? To be honest I would have preferred it if the editor had simply redrawn the original illustrations from the paper. Sorry to be rather negative, but I feel I should be honest in expressing how I feel about this, despite it being a very brave attempt to make a synthesis from the available information. Invertzoo (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Response I understand accept the above criticism <insert knife, twist, withdraw... Ouch>. Perhaps the image requires more of a preface: like many illustrators of anatomy attempting to show distinctions between organs and systems, I have used color here as a visual aid just as much as I have used lines, gradients, and textures. I did this both to decrease ambiguity with regard to where one part/ organ leaves off and another begins as well as to capture the eye of the viewer without deceiving with regard to placement or nomenclature. The featured picture of the internal anatomy of a spider, for example, applies this same color technique, and to great effect, though it makes no real attempt at a 3D rendering. What I have tried to do here is combine the technical known facts about the creature's anatomy as given in an academic journal and recreate its appearance in 3D using color as an illustrative tool, though I will admit that descriptions such as "grey blobby stuff" are hard not to take rather personally. Criticisms with regard to the style of the cerebral commissure I can take as a request to limit my artistic license there, and can be fairly easily changed; those with regard to the colors or shading used or the "blobs" I have drawn are not as helpful to me. The animal is a soft-bodied mollusc with almost no actual color inside it, and a "faithful" rendering in that respect would have been both bland and unintelligible. Here, using color, I have placed the heart exactly where the heart should be; I have drawn the torsion of the visceral ganglion with the correct direction of twist in the commissure which is located correctly on the animal's right side just above and behind the pleural ganglia; I have faithfully shown where the intestine enters and leaves the pericardium, and have shown the correct placement and arrangement of the nephridial openings and the anus to the right side of and above the head; the lateral wall of of the foot is continuous with the shell muscles (which it appears I must relabel), so I have not drawn a separate foot; I have not tried to indicate things such as variations in the epithelium as this level of detail would be beyond the scope of a gross anatomical illustration. The image is already very complicated— if I had attempted to include a translucent outline of the pedal sole, for example, this might have added very little in terms of interesting or unique information but would have required yet another arrow and explanation— however, if others feel the image must be considered incomplete without it, they need only have said so. And if there are elements that seem superfluous and could be removed, I would welcome those thoughts as well. I have been pondering these options myself for more than three months now, and after more than a hundred hours of development and adjustment in Adobe Illustrator I eventually came to the conclusion that this version had a tolerable balance of what was most important, most necessary, and most interesting. And most correct, as best I could interpolate it, taking artistic license only where doing so added to the image's visual appeal without making it insincere.
  
  Having said all that, if it is confusing then it is confusing and I would rather withdraw my nomination of it for candidacy rather than have a completed work of mine be considered unuseful. I welcome additional input on that front from other editors— I have stared at it so long that I am certain I can no longer see it with fresh eyes. KDS4444^Talk 13:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment I apologize sincerely that I hurt your feelings KDS444; I understand that you worked extremely hard on this image for a very long time, and I certainly have no problem at all with the false color. I do believe that the image is quite useful, but I am concerned it is potentially a bit misleading in a few ways, and therefore I personally feel it should not get Featured status. I am also a little bit concerned that making a 3-D construction from the original 2-D drawings in the paper may perhaps represent too much of a "synthesis". Others can of course feel free to disagree with me, and I am not certain I am right on all the points I have raised. Thanks for all your hard work. Invertzoo (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered writing the original authors, asking them to review it? With their approval, this would pass easily. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with this suggestion. That would be really terrific. In my experience most malacologists are willing to do something like that. The primary author of the original 2006 paper is Takenori Sasaki, and his email is sasaki{at}um.u-tokyo.ac.jp . If KDS4444 (or anyone else) would like some help with contacting Sasaki, I am more than willing to assist. I have nearly 40 publications myself (I am a semi-professional malacologist and therefore part of the field) but it is not necessary to be in the field in order to contact an author like this. Invertzoo (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wat Arun Ordination Hall Interior

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2013 at 11:44:36 (UTC)

Reason

This photo, of the interior of the ordination hall has also been used on the Thai version of Wikipedia in a number of place, high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Phra ubosot

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 11:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Picture seems to be taken through a fish eye, also the subject isn't centered. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 19:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Raykyogrou0 Mattximus (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing wrong with a fish-eye shot: it works here, in a slightly psychedelic way. It could have been fishier, as far as I'm concerned. And the depth of field is nice too. No, I like this photo--and would support it if it were centered. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puma face

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2013 at 19:41:18 (UTC)

Reason

Beautiful high resolution close-up picture of a puma. Hard to believe it wasn't already featured.

Articles in which this image appears

Cougar, Who's That Girl (1987 film)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Bas Lammers

• Support as nominator --Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 19:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the ears are cut off giving a rather unrealistic appearance to the animal's face. Mattximus (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree. The balance in the photo is nice, but the cropping is not. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Set: Original Edition's Illustrations to Puck of Pook's Hill

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2013 at 03:19:50 (UTC)

• Illustrations to the First Edition of Rudyard Kipling's Puck of Pook's Hill
• 
  Frontispiece: They saw a small, brown ... pointy-eared person ... step quietly into the Ring
• 
  Weland's Sword: Then he made a sword
• 
  Young Men at the Manor: 'At this she cried that I was a Norman thief'
• 
  Young Men at the Manor: Said he, 'I have it all from the child here'
• 
  Young Men at the Manor: 'Sir Richard, will it please you enter your Great Hall?'
• 
  The Knights of the Joyous Venture: 'And we two tumbled aboard the Dane'
• 
  The Knights of the Joyous Venture: Thorkild had given back before his Devil, till the bowmen on the ship could shoot it all full of arrows
• 
  The Knights of the Joyous Venture: 'So we called no more'
• 
  Old Men at Pevensey: 'A' God's Name write her free, before she deafens me!'
• 
  Old Men at Pevensey: He drew his dagger on Jehan, who threw him down the stairway
• 
  A Centurion of the Thirtieth: 'You put the bullet into that loop'
• 
  On the Great Wall: 'And that is the Wall!'
• 
  The Winged Hats: 'Hail, Caesar!'
• 
  The Winged Hats: 'We dealt with them thoroughly through a long day'
• 
  The Winged Hats: 'The Wall must be won at a price'
• 
  The Winged Hats: Where they had suffered most, there they charged in most hotly
• 
  Hal o' the Draft: 'I reckon you'll find her middlin' heavy,' he says
• 
  'Dymchurch Flit': 'I know what sort o' man you be,' old Hobden grunted, groping for the potatoes
• 
  The Treasure and the Law: Doors shut, candles lit
• 
  The Treasure and the Law: 'They drove me across the drawbridge'

Reason

I've been trying for more completeness. So I did all 20 original illustrations. They're scanned at 800dpi, so might look a little weird at full resolution - one doesn't normally zoom in on ink that much - but they're high-quality and I've put a lot of work into them - as in, all of September. It's reasonably consistent - I had to tweak the crop dimensions in a few cases because the images themselves aren't entirely consistent nor rectangular, but, insofar as I could, I kept things the same size.

Articles in which this image appears

Harold Robert Millar

FP category for this image

WP:Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations

Creator

H. R. Millar, restored by User:Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, solid set. The blacks are a little fuzzy because of the high DPI, but considering we can get a two meter poster out of these with good quality, rather than just a full page or so, I think that's acceptable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. Ink looks a little weird at 800 dpi. The original size is... well, quite easily calculated, actually. 3332/800 by 5140/800, so 4.2" by 6.4", less borders, so not huge. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for high quality and complete set. Mattximus (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 18:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a lovely set and delighted to see them completed. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I pointed out some weird coloring on the borders that Adam fixed, so it's only fair that I follow through and support this here now that everything is all fixed up. Also, while I'm here, I feel the need to point out that the guy in slide 9 looks a lot like He-Man to me...
  Wha? 23:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Wonderful work. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 1.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 2.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 3.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 4.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 5.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 6.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 7.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 8.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 9.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 10.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 11.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 12.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 13.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 14.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 15.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 16.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 17.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 18.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 19.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:H. R. Millar - Rudyard Kipling - Puck of Pook's Hill 20.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican City map

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2013 at 13:13:30 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, well used, easy to read, featured on Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Geography of Vatican City +6

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps

Creator

Thoroe

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - which way is north? Having some compass indication would move me to a stronger support. Chris857 (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: On every map without any indication of the direction north is at the upper side of the map. This is cartography standard. Here the upper side is north, so a compass indication is needless. NNW (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either way I've pinged the creator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree with NordNordWest, a small north arrow should be added. Mattximus (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What for? NNW (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I wondered which way was north, Chris857 above wondered which way was north. Presumably we are not the only ones... Mattximus (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I never wondered that. As said, a cartography standard (which I believe is taught in high schools). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nicely done. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks great and highly usable as a map. Kreig67 (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Beautiful, very informative and well-presented. It looks like it was made in a vector format though - if so, would an SVG not be more appropriate than this raster? A vector version would also be much more suitable for translation. I'd strongly support an SVG, though if it can't be found I won't oppose this. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator explained on Commons that he prefers PNG as SVG "does not render properly". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Presumably, this well done user-generated map is meant to represent the city in 2013? If so, can the title be changed to add "2013" to reflect that? Just looking at the documentation does not make that intent clear, and the links could change over-time (but an addition to the title would be clearer or even "2013" somewhere on the map itself). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• support very high EV.Geni (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I too wondered which way was north. I can see that cartography standard has the top as north, but I have never been taught that. I work in a school system, and I don't think we teach it here (in the middle of nowhere). This map is high enough quality to pass with or without showing which way was north. --
  ЛееСуда. 15:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted File:Vatican City map EN.png --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Americas Cup Winner AC 72 USA Team Oracle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2013 at 22:50:29 (UTC)

Reason

EV

Articles in which this image appears

2013 America's Cup - Today's: Main Page

FP category for this image

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 22:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's difficult to get a good picture with so much verticality and the design of the boat is such that if it's not above the water there isn't much to see, as we see here. And that building on the right is a bit distracting as well. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The boat has nothing other then the rudder and centerboards as it is a catamaran - a boat with two small hulls. That building is the Bay Bridge.WPPilot 01:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Chromatic aberration on the (blown) highlights (crew helmets), not sharp particularly at the top of the sail, not as informative as it could be. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Does not have the level of detail of what I'd call a featured picture. --
  ЛееСуда. 17:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prague astronomical clock face

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2013 at 19:44:44 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Astronomical clock, Prague astronomical clock – Zodiacal ring, Jan Šindel (all image replacement with higher quality/resolution)

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Space/Understanding

Creator

Godot13

• Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Shadows are a little harsh, and what's with the webbing over the decorations? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably to keep the pigeons off, I would think. 81.159.107.100 (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is, that's a shame. Besides, the webbing wouldn't keep the crap away, and would likely make cleaning the decorations more difficult. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think it is to keep birds off the figures. I thought about trying to remove the shadow of the netting from the clock face, but realized it requires significantly more editing skill than I actually have. Should I work in the shadows on the sides of the face?-Godot13 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly opposed to any alteration of the content of supposedly factual photographs, even removal of shadows. In my opinion such doctored photographs have no place in Wikipedia, let alone as featured pictures. 81.159.107.100 (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with 81 about the removing of shadows in this case. Now, as to what amount of editing is allowed, you'll find me decidedly anti-"no Photoshop ever" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm putting up two alternatives with different lighting from different times of the day. These images have been cropped, and the perspective has been corrected, but nothing has been done to shadows-Godot13 (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think ALT1 has some potential, although it is a little overexposed (not by much though!) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original alt 1 has focus problems and the original is larger than alt 2. The original is good enough IMO. --Pine^✉ 06:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original JKadavoor Jee 06:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original :- Bellus Delphina ^talk 16:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Czech-2013-Prague-Astronomical clock face.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Positano

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2013 at 09:12:20 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, good composition and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Positano

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

Jensens

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Extremely sharp and clear. Don't think it's oversaturated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and EV. Gorgeous looking place! Jujutacular (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great image, really defined details. --
  ЛееСуда. 17:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: This is rather low resolution for the view of an entire village... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wii

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2013 at 09:31:01 (UTC)

Reason

High EV. Large resolution and sharp image.

Articles in which this image appears

PowerPC-based game consoles

FP category for this image

Electronics

Creator

Evan-Amos

• Support as nominator --Kreig67 (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Evan's stuff is awesome, as usual, but shouldn't the JPG be used because the software renders it better? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure about software rendering or anything like that, but the jpg version isn't used in any of the articles. Kreig67 (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All of Evan's featured stuff to date was jpg. The Wiki software doesn't render PNGs properly, so they appear to be softer than they actually are. The video games project prefers PNG for infoboxes because they don't need a background — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the JPG version as an alt. Tomer T (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support JPG Alt. Never mind the rendering issues, we shouldn't use PNGs for photographs simply so that a thumbnail can have some transparency applied. -- Colin°^Talk 18:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JPG version. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I'm not going to oppose this, but I will say that I find the reflection kind of distracting. The Wiimote reflection is fine, but the rest of that side panel also has some weird reflection going on where the source isn't apparent.
  Wha? 05:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Oppose per Sven Manguard, also the wrist band looks like it is sitting in an awkward position. --
  ЛееСуда. 14:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Spencer-Churchill, 11th Duke of Marlborough

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2013 at 10:28:43 (UTC)

Reason

Good resolution, great EV, notable photographer

Articles in which this image appears

John Spencer-Churchill, 11th Duke of Marlborough

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility

Creator

Allan Warren

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is a fantastic photo, of course. But why such a huge file crippled with strong JPG compression? It looks great scaled down but I don't see what benefit there is to uploading such a highly compressed large version? I suspect a smaller version with the same filesize would look better. Perhaps one of our image restoring experts can advise. Colin°^Talk 11:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears to have a couple scanner lines, so it could use a little restoration anyway. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Road Maker (Aríìhiriš) A Hidatsa Chief

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2013 at 19:46:52 (UTC)

;Reason:High EV. Engraving shows traditional clothing of a Hidatsa Indian chief including buffalo robe, beaded leggings with green horse hair, beaded moccasins, tomahawk with scalp, and eagle feather. There are some notable trade items including peace medal and hat, likely obtained by trade with french traders or U.S explores/surveyors. Also shows full body war paint. Painted by Karl Bodmer, a notable German painter who traveled west and painted American Indians there from life. Images of Hidatsa (Minatarre) people are relatively rare when compared to other tribes like Sioux, Blackfoot, Crow, etc.

Articles in which this image appears

Hidatsa people

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Traditional dress

Creator

Karl Bodmer

• Support as nominator --MatGTAM (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Can something be done about the very distracting vignetting? @Crisco 1492:, I think Photoshop has better tools for this than GIMP, so you'd be better placed for this one. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I tried... something. Also made a more drastic edit (ALT). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I like it, but you saved it interlaced, which might be a problem? Also, one tip: Darken the text a bit more than the rest of the image - text tends to fade into the background more easily, particularly at lower sizes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, yeah, progressive. Saving again as de-interlaced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ALT - The picture is more visible on the off-white background. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT fantastic work Crisco 1492 --
  ЛееСуда. 14:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT JKadavoor Jee 06:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT Looks much better MatGTAM (talk) 02:57, 04 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:A Minatarre chief 0057v edit.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Der Busant redux

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2013 at 05:48:18 (UTC)

Reason

High quality scan of an interesting tapestry, showing scenes from a notable poem. (Actually, this image impressed me enough to have me write the article with a couple German speakers). Last nomination didn't quite receive the attention it should have.

Articles in which this image appears

Der Busant

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations?

Creator

Unknown, scan by MET

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as before. We've been in a bit of a dry spell, probably universities starting back up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps. It's dry everywhere right now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Tomer T (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as before. Mattximus (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Godot13 (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Two scenes from Der Busant.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Canyon Amphitheatre

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2013 at 06:12:47 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, good colours, sharp, well-used

Articles in which this image appears

Bryce Canyon National Park +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Tuxyso

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support
  talk) 12:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 16:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Impressive —Bruce1ee^talk 06:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Finally, a non-clichéd shot of this place. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bryce Amphitheater from Sunrise Point Highres 2013.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Chameleon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2013 at 12:44:55 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Indian Chameleon, List of reptiles of Pakistan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

M.arunprasad

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 12:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support has minor focus issues but I think it's good enough. --Pine^✉ 06:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At full size I'd argue the loss of focus on the tail is problematical.Geni (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought of it as well, but I felt it to be a minor issue as per Pine.
  talk) 14:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If it wasn't for that, this would be a near-perfect FP. As it is, I'm not quite sure. I'm having a think about this one Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Pine. JKadavoor Jee 16:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support :- I feel its a good one . Bellus Delphina ^talk 05:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chamaeleo zeylanicus.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Set: The Taking of Lungtungpen

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2013 at 00:01:53 (UTC)

The Taking of Lungtungpen is a story by Rudyard Kipling in which three soldiers manage to take a city by swimming across a river (stripping naked to do so), and then engaging in a fight on the other side, still naked. It's eight pages long, and still my edition of Soldier Tales gives two illustrations to it, because, let's face it, naked people are funny. It's written in Kipling's phonetic (but apparently rather accurate) Irish English, hence the spellings in the captions.

• 
  1. '"Shtrip, bhoys," sez I. "Shtrip to the buff, an' shwim in where glory waits!"'
• 
  2. 'There was a melly av a sumpshus kind for a whoile.'

Reason

These are illustrations to one of Kipling's more bizarre tales of British soldiers. The Swantype engraving process is a little grainy, but if the originals even exist, I'd be somewhat surprised, much more so if they're at all publicly accessible. This is from the first edition of Soldier Tales (1896).

Scanned at 800dpi, so, as usual, the ink might look a smidgen odd. Since we have articles for most of the tales in Soldier Tales, I'm going to nominate them in smaller, easier to review batches (that don't make me disappear from FPC for three weeks)

Although I do think it's tastefully done, we don't get a lot of male nudity here; if this is a problem to anyone, I have no problem with putting these behind a {{

hat

}} tag.

Articles in which this image appears

The Taking of Lungtungpen.

FP category for this image

WP:Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations

Creator

Archibald Standish Hartrick (Best name ever, 1864–1950). Restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - We have to counterbalance the female nudity on the MP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.
  talk) 23:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Shupport sez I. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 04:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Archibald Standish Hartrick - Rudyard Kipling - Soldier Tales 18 - The Taking of Lungtungpen 1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Archibald Standish Hartrick - Rudyard Kipling - Soldier Tales 19 - The Taking of Lungtungpen 2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Lovelace

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2013 at 05:57:38 (UTC)

Reason

Lead article image with good quality and good size by a noted artist

Articles in which this image appears

Ada Lovelace

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering

Creator

Alfred Edward Chalon

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 05:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm
  AGF-ing on the image being as saturated as it appears; it's certainly not unreasonable saturation for a watercolour, and that there's not bits cropped out. As those are the only things that could cause me to vote against this image, I would love to see this pass. Also, you know she's generally considered the first computer programmer? She worked out programs before computers able to run them existed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • She wasn't the first though that would have been Charles Babbage. After that depending on how you define working on a program and various dates she was either second, fourth or nowhere.Geni (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactly. Babbage didn't design algorithms for his computers, he saw them as basic mathematical aids. She was the one credited for spotting the potential. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The earliest known program was the one Babbage presented at Turin. If Babbage didn't design algorithms there would have been no reason for him to go beyond the difference engine.Geni (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support famous painting of her, and of good quality. Tomer T (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.
  talk) 10:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per my vote at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : Bellus Delphina ^talk 21:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Absolutely stunning. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ada Lovelace portrait.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phonebloks

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2013 at 10:00:57 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, high resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

Phonebloks

FP category for this image

Electronics

Creator

Dave Hakkens

• Support as nominator --Kenyan Explosives Manufacturer (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, good photo illustrating an interesting concept. Arachka (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do wish there was a disassembled image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Azusa has uploaded an entire set of images to Commons here Kenyan Explosives Manufacturer (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add one of those to this as a set? I think they have important additional information. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. I only nominated this one because it was the only image in the article, but now Tomer T added another. Kenyan Explosives Manufacturer (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- Questionable notability, not encyclopedic since it is a conceptual device, not something available. It may be a good picture, but the subject probably shouldn't even have a Wikipedia page, let alone be a featured picture IMHO. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you question the notability, please do it
    mally. Tomer T (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Landsort

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2013 at 11:06:31 (UTC)

Reason

Good lighting, good composition, high quality and EV, FP in Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Landsort

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

ArildV

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.
  talk) 11:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 16:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Godot13 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support :- Bellus Delphina ^talk 04:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sam Sailor ^Sing 19:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Landsort Lighthouse August 2013 09.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whistlejacket

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2013 at 11:08:14 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and high EV notwithstanding a tight crop on the left

Articles in which this image appears

Whistlejacket, Horses in art, 1762 in art

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

George Stubbs

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 11:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• question The colour goes right up to the left hand edge in places. Does the original crop that tightly?Geni (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that is the case, looking at the file history and also at this link.
  talk) 14:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• hmm yes in fact looking at the darkening on the upper left edge and the bottem left courner I can't help wondering if the original canvas was damaged in some way.Geni (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I can't believe that The National Gallery would screw up the crop so badly as the presumption that the crop was screwed up would imply. It's probably one of those things where, if seen in its original context, it would make more sense (or that it was cropped with a saw at some point for some reason). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The Beeb shows it in its frame to be like this, so I think this is an accurate representation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support goes for ALT as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good find. That sorts it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 07:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very striking; excellent candidate. J Milburn (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but is there anyway that there could be more space between the tail and the edge of the photo? --
  ЛееСуда. 14:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I don't know, may be if people like Adam Cuerden and Crisco 1492, who are very good at restoration, could help us on this :).
  talk) 16:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It is not acceptable to add fake parts to a painting. Well ... maybe if it is certain that the picture was originally bigger, and the exact original dimensions are known, and it is certain that there was nothing in that part other than continuation of the same flat green colour, and the picture is accompanied by some big disclaimers explaining the reconstruction. Even then I'm not sure... 86.160.84.127 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess it would be equally unacceptable to crop the other edges tighter as well? It just looks a little off with there so much blank space above and to the right of the horse. --
  ЛееСуда. 21:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'd certainly not add the extra white space, because the main image in a painting article is generally supposed to represent the painting as it is today. Adding the extra space on the other side, even if historically true, feels like
  WP:OR and misrepresentative of the work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The original painting visible in the National Gallery does in fact have a bit more space to the left of the tail. The current crop has chopped off a centimeter or so of hairs that were present in the original, but even the original framed painting appears to have a bit covered by the frame. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be a bit more reasonable (and, looking more closely at the Beeb, seems to be supported by modern sources). A bare centimetre or two? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• About 1 centimeter or maybe a bit more. To get this estimate, I took the Wiki image, rendered it transparent, and using Gimp, overlaid, rotated, and scaled to match the Beeb image as closely as possible. At the zoom level that I was using for this exercise, 2–3 pixels of excess cropping on the left edge corresponded to 1–1.5 cm. The excess cropping appears to have been necessitated by the original image being tilted by about a centimeter or so. Including all of the tail would have brought in some of the upper left hand frame. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• When I tried lining up the two I got some space on both sides. Surprisingly. My edit is here as an alt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there was a bit of cropping all around. But people here were concerned about the tail being chopped off. Let me add my Support here to your ALT. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Danke. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Support ALT, its better :) --

ЛееСуда. 17:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Promoted File:Whistlejacket by George Stubbs edit.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Vulture

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2013 at 14:45:07 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Egyptian Vulture

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Kadellar

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice Godhulii 1985 (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support
  talk) 13:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support But suggest crop some of the left extra green area off. Dougie WII (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 06:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Neophron percnopterus - 01.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping Venus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2013 at 02:35:43 (UTC)

Reason

high quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Sleeping Venus (Giorgione), Giorgione

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Giorgione

• Support as nominator --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Naturally. Although I think we have more nudes of Venus featured than any other entity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another excellent google art project scan. Mattximus (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Something seems off about this, but it might just be the age of the painting. I don't know enough to vote. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1. Tomer T (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support :- Its a beautiful work, I really like it. Bellus Delphina ^talk 16:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice image. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Giorgione - Sleeping Venus - Google Art Project 2.jpg --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin's Mausoleum (night)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2013 at 07:59:26 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Lenin's Mausoleum

FP category for this image

Places/Architecture

Creator

Godot13

• Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support minor blurry issues, but very visually appealing. --
  ЛееСуда. 14:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• commentAt first glance it isn't really clear which bit is the Mausoleum.Geni (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood - Annotations have been added in the Commons image to clarify each of the three structures mentioned.-Godot13 (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Even though it may be true to life, I get the strong impression that the picture is severely tilted. 86.160.84.127 (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using a 28-70mm lens at 28mm created some perspective tilt, which was corrected. As you mentioned, the image is true to life.-Godot13 (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support : nice : Bellus Delphina ^talk 04:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose -- As per Geni it is difficult to figure out exactly what the picture's subject is. It also seems to be taken at a slight angle. This is an extremely notable place and eminently replaceable. No offense to the photographer, but I think Wikipedia can do better. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pied Kingfisher

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2013 at 16:02:13 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, good EV, and good composition showing clearly the bird's whole body

Articles in which this image appears

Pied Kingfisher

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Вых Пыхманн

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good to me. Possibly selectively denoise the background? --99of9 (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clear photo of subject, no negatives I see. Dougie WII (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Solid bird picture. A selective denoise would do no harm, methinks, but it's fine as is too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 06:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pied kingfisher.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Aurora

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2013 at 21:10:03 (UTC)

Reason

Good Quality, EV, composition and FP in Persian language Wikipedia

Articles in which this image appears

Valerie Aurora

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People

Creator

SarahStierch

• Support as nominator --Bellus Delphina ^talk 21:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The vignetting / photoshopped shadows are much, much, much too drastic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could probably be fixed by cropping a bit off the top. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd go maybe 100px in each direction, actually, as a lop off the top would end up looking quite disconcerting. But that would make this image too small. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, a note: Sarah didn't take this photograph. She just uploaded it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I like how clear her face is, but the pose (angle of torso and right arm) is strange. It makes the left side of her torso appear elongated. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mount of Olives (Aerial view)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2013 at 22:39:22 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and Quality; Featured on Commons.
The

Bible and is home to several significant religious landmarks

.

Articles in which this image appears

Mount of Olives

FP category for this image

Places/Landscapes

Creator

Godot13

• Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The image, while high resolution, is not crisp and therefore we've lost sight of the details. --
  ЛееСуда. 22:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support very educational view. Tomer T (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Backwaters of Alappuzha

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2013 at 04:35:06 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, composition and quality

Articles in which this image appears

Kettuvallam, Backwater (river), Alappuzha district, Kerala

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Mydreamsparrow

• Support as nominator --Bellus Delphina ^talk 04:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not an intriguing photo, and not FP quality. The subject is most definitely the boat, which is very interesting in itself, but as the photo is portrait layout we do not get the detail work of the boat. I would venture to say a good 80% of this photo is wasted space. --
  ЛееСуда. 22:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per above. Sorry.
  talk) 13:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per
  Тимофей -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose The subject, as I think should be house boat, not the Backwaters of Alappuzha as caption says. Hopefully please change the caption. The image is of good composition but as above stated, most of the pic focuses on water surface, not on the subject. You might also have photoshopped out the waste materials in the water. So, oppose. — Preceding
  talk • contribs
  ) 06:10, 13 October 2013‎

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Messier 94 Galaxy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2013 at 06:23:05 (UTC)

Reason

Fine Quality high resolution picture

Articles in which this image appears

Messier 94

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

R Jay Gabany

• Support as nominator --
  talk with me 06:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support--
  DFSM Discussion 09:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support : Bellus Delphina ^talk 13:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- JOHN C THOMAS KADAMMANITTA (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is 1200x1200px really the biggest image available for this one? Also, the source has no indication of this being CC-licensed. This can't pass until the copyright status is cleared up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• On his cosmotography.com website, R Jay GaBany has clearly indicated that his copyrighted images should not be "reproduce[d] or distribute[d] without permission." I have emailed him for permission so as not to see this image deleted from Commons, but meanwhile, I Oppose. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• R. Jay GaBany sent an email back to me thanking us for noting this violation of his copyright. The damage having already been done, he has agreed to a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License for this image. I forwarded his reply to OTRS and struck out my oppose. This image of Messier 94, despite being slightly undersized, nevertheless appears to be the most attractive to be seen on the internet (YMMV, of course!), so I am voting Support as a thank you to GaBany. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Nowhere near the resolution and quality we've come to expect from space images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very soft and per Crisco 1492. Also, comment, I was under the impression star spikes were considered undesirable, and here they seem to be quite blatant. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Depending on the construction of the telescope and exposure conditions, the spikes are unavoidable, due to optical diffraction around the supports. You can't fault an image for showing them around the brightest stars. This image was taken by a remote-controlled observatory owned by the Internet Telescope Partnership, and for an amateur shot, is extremely good. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment NASA has a picture in 2820x2820 resolution. JKadavoor Jee 06:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure an ultra-violet picture is directly comparable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but it does indicate that far stronger is possible and may be forthcoming. J Milburn (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above. J Milburn (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support as we don't seem to have better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per low resolution. Not really comparable to the other stellar stellar FPs Mattximus (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is only a 57,89% support for the promotion of the image. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidian refugees

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2013 at 07:25:53 (UTC)

Reason

Very good EV. They are refugees from the Hamidian massacres. The photograph is from the 19th century and is very rare and valuable. It has gone through a series of touch ups. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in which this image appears

Hamidian massacres

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/Others

Creator

Bain News Service, publisher

• Support as nominator --Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As usual Centpacrr has done a good job with the major blemishes. However, there is still quite a bit of scratching and other distortions, which means this is not near the FP level yet (look at the mother's face, for instance; the whole of her chin is scratched, and her eyes are lost to the scratches). There seems to be some motion blur as well, though with children of that age I'm not surprised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can have Centpacrr (talk · contribs) check the issues out. It really is up to him if he really wants to fix the minute details. Looks like a meticulous and tough job on his part. With that said, I thought the motion for the photograph fit the background and theme. They're refugees on the go searching for shelter in the end of the day. Anyhow, we'll see if more fixes will be made. If not, that's no problem with me. The photograph is still outstanding and very dramatic. Proudbolsahye (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's nice, but not FP level yet. Good enough for most online purposes, however. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose per Crisco 1492. --
  ЛееСуда. 03:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orchis militaris

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2013 at 14:50:21 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Orchis militaris

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

lifar

• Support as nominator --Bellus Delphina ^talk 14:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Yes, lovely photograph. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A pity this is partly wilted. The image in the gallery looks a lot fresher, and shows the entire plant. --Janke | Talk 05:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom in on it closely, it is not wilted, it's just how the flower/plant looks. Dougie WII (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Dougie WII (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small Tortoiseshell 2

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2013 at 12:24:55 (UTC)

Small Tortoiseshell

underside

Reason

High quality and good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Small Tortoiseshell

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Böhringer

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 06:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I like this photo, but since it's such a prominent part of it, I'd like to see the species of flower the butterfly is on included in the caption/photo description. If that was added I'd be a definite support. -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The species of flower is already in the photo description — it's there in German. I've added it in English. Julia\^talk 19:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- per Julia W's edit. -- Dougie WII (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small Tortoiseshell 1

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2013 at 12:25:00 (UTC)

Small Tortoiseshell

upperside

Reason

High quality and good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Small Tortoiseshell

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Jörg Hempel

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Clear picture of notable subject. -- Dougie WII (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 06:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It seem nit-picky to criticise, but I do find the composition, with the apparent purple frill around the wings, slightly unfortunate. 86.160.218.148 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Bellus Delphina ^talk 06:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --
  ЛееСуда. 02:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Good lightning and focus..
  talk with me 15:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted File:Aglais urticae LC0310.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Frenay

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2013 at 14:36:57 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Henri Frenay

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military

Creator

Frink (uploaded by Christoph Braun)

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Awesome image, but copyright is unclear. If PWB was a joint British-American group, how do we know "Frink" was an American? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it likely count as Crown Copyright (a straight 50 years) if it was British? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a military photographer, probably. What if the photographer was a civilian? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would the image be in the Library of Congress' collection if that were the case? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The unit was semi-military, so it may have been shared between governments (it was, after all, a joint operation). Far as I can tell, Crown Copyright only goes for actual employees of the UK Gov. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since it is in the U.S. collection, I have to assume that it was an American who took the photo. And even if it were a civilian working for the U.S. government who took the photo, it would still be in the public domain as an image taken by a U.S. government employee. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Probably a safe assumption, but for FP I really want certainty when it comes to copyright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is impossible to be 100% certain of the copyright status of most works. Under the Library of Congress description page for this photo it says "Rights Advisory: No known restrictions on publication." That's good enough for me. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's also quite possible to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" for most works, which is what I was aiming at. You raise a good point about the LOC's designation, although I note that they are sometimes incorrect. I won't oppose, but I'm not going to support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with concerns due to copyright status. --
  ЛееСуда. 02:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Ring-necked Parakeet

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2013 at 14:41:53 (UTC)

Reason

Wikipedia is one of the few places in the entire internet universe which provides Neutral point of view and information without bias. Sometime back during projects I used to come to Wikipedia looking for stuff that would enrich them and was pretty selfish by not giving it back. So I am here but thats not the point. During that time during those boring hours of doing homework the colourfully and bright pictures that accompanied the article were my only source of respite. Thats where a Featured Picture plays its most significant role of improving the visual appeal of an article and at the same moment is of encyclopaedic valued enough to identify the topic and or object in commentary. According to me thats the most important unmentioned criteria of a FP which this picture has and this nomination is to earn the nod of the community who share the same thought as mine. For the formality this picture according to the criterion's as follows -

1. this image is free of the drawbacks listed in the mentioned criteria.
2. High resolution, 2,592 × 1,944 pixels is sufficient enough if my understanding of the criteria is correct.
3. being the owner and photographer my opinion on this criteria will be biased nonetheless even if not consciously so I leave it for the community to decide.
4. this picture was captured and release under CC BY-SA 3.0 so its definitely a free image
5. EV - this also for the community to decide.
6. verifiable, I think so.
7. I am new to uploading files in commons so description-wise I have tried my best and have also provided geographical location.
8. No digital manipulation. It was extremely hard for me to reject the temptation to edit this in Adobe Photoshop CS6 but for the pictures originalities sake I refrained from doing it. If asked corrections will be made.

Phew! I finally did it! Even if the image fails the process I will not be one-bit/byte sad as clicking this one gave me immense happiness one that anyone would not get even after getting all the wealth in this universe so no regrets. --Sohambanerjee1998 14:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in which this image appears

Rose-ringed Parakeet

FP category for this image

Animals

Creator

Sohambanerjee1998

• Support as nominator --Sohambanerjee1998 14:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Way, way, way, way too crowded. Dozens of branches, just everywhere.... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Per Crisco, and recently replace image to pass FP criteria. Tito☸Dutta 15:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as nominator and withdrawing nomination. - As per the above comments. I deeply regret my actions which were out of my naivety and foolishness I am withdrawing the candidate if possible. Sohambanerjee1998 16:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coral outcrop on Flynn Reef

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2013 at 06:23:58 (UTC)

Reason

I'm a bit hesitant to nominate this, because underwater pics are technically difficult, but I think this one came out really well, and it is emblematic of the colour and diversity of reef corals. I just noticed how much external use this is getting, so I thought maybe it would be of value as an FP as well.

Articles in which this image appears

Great Barrier Reef, Coral Sea, Coral reef, Coral, Coral reef protection, List of World Heritage Sites in Oceania

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Cnidaria

Creator

99of9

• Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Though a bit blurry on the coral, this is still quite stunning, and the focus in some places is as sharp as on land, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above JOHN C THOMAS KADAMMANITTA (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 06:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --
  ЛееСуда. 02:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - Mydreamsparrow (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Coral Outcrop Flynn Reef.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Appelbaum

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2013 at 10:26:06 (UTC)

Reason

Interesting and well-done portrait, high quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Jacob Appelbaum

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering

Creator

Rama

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I actually really like this one; a fantastic composition, and I'm all for more portrait FPs. It's not technically perfect, but it does the job and has lots of character. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Looks a bit noisy at full size, to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Crisco: the noise level is quite high here (for instance, check out his ear at full size). Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wah-ro-née-sah (The Surrounder), an Otoe chief

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2013 at 21:10:05 (UTC)

Reason

The painting shows a veteran Otoe warrior and chief. The painting gives an important look at traditional clothing such as the hair style, wampum earrings, pipe, and most of all a beaded grizzly bear skin robe. The Otoe tribe, which fused with the related Missouria tribe remain relatively unknown to the general public and any images of them in traditional attire are valuable sources of history. The portrait is painted by well known artist of American Indians George Catlin. Catlin's work is seen as highly valuable due to its depictions of American Indians at a time when most contact between Europeans and Indians of the North American west was with fur traders.

Articles in which this image appears

Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians,George Catlin

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Traditional

Creator

George Catlin

• Support as nominator --MatGTAM (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Seems a tad dark (like most Google scans) but certainly a solid contender. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Painting with historical encyclopedic value. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Dougie WII. --
  ЛееСуда. 02:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 05:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Bellus Delphina ^talk 11:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:George Catlin - Wah-ro-née-sah, The Surrounder, Chief of the Tribe - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MV Seabourn Quest

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2013 at 15:06:28 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution and quality, pretty good view at the bow of the ship, size is striking

Articles in which this image appears

MV Seabourn Quest

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water

Creator

Christian Ferrer

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support THIS is the detail work that I personally find to be the most important characteristic of a featured picture. I can read the numbers on the hull marking the depth of water. Great job. --
  ЛееСуда. 15:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment There's a lot of empty foreground and the tower part of the building is hiding part of some kind of antenna-looking object on the tip of the bow. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 05:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how can the building be "hiding" something that is wholly in front of it? 86.160.218.148 (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really good camouflage. --

ЛееСуда. 00:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support Tomer T (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although I understand the second concern raised by Keraunoscopia. JKadavoor Jee 12:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The composition is a bit cluttered, and that's not a great angle for understanding what the ship looks like - something like this angle is superior (though the lighting and technical standards of this photo are superior). Nick-D (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Per Nick-D -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Per oppose votes above. Would loved it if it were a closer shot. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blc. Paradise Jewel 'Flame' Orchid bloom

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2013 at 02:50:23 (UTC)

Blc. Paradise Jewel 'Flame' hybrid orchid plant. Blooms of the Cattleya alliance are often used in ladies' corsages

.

Reason

Very clear photograph that illustrates subject well and is visually attractive

Articles in which this image appears

Orchidaceae

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

Douglas Johnston

• Support as nominator --Dougie WII (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Did I do something wrong with the nomination process? Why are there no votes or comments on this yet? -- Dougie WII (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Pic looks good, except for the left and right petals, which seem to be a bit out of focus.
  talk) 14:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support I think it is a good encyclopedic picture of the thing that it depicts, beautiful in itself, rather than an interesting photographic study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandajm (talk • contribs) 06:31, 19 October 2013‎}

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 4414 Galaxy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2013 at 15:25:44 (UTC)

Caption

The majestic spiral galaxy NGC 4414 was imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope as part of the HST Key Project on the Extragalactic Distance Scale. In 1999, the Hubble Heritage Team revisited NGC 4414 and completed its portrait by observing the other half with the same filters as were used in 1995. The end result is a stunning full-color look at the entire dusty spiral galaxy. The new Hubble picture shows that the central regions of this galaxy, as is typical of most spirals, contain primarily older, yellow and red stars. The outer spiral arms are considerably bluer due to ongoing formation of young, blue stars, the brightest of which can be seen individually at the high resolution provided by the Hubble camera. The arms are also very rich in clouds of interstellar dust, seen as dark patches and streaks silhouetted against the starlight.

Reason

Finest quality image

Articles in which this image appears

Astrophysics,Flocculent spiral galaxy,Galaxy,Herschel 400 Catalogue,List of spiral galaxies,NGC 4414,Nature,Particle,

Unbarred spiral galaxy

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA Headquarters - Greatest Images of NASA (NASA-HQ-GRIN)

• Support as nominator --
  talk with me 15:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support -- High quality NASA image. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Again, well below the standards expected for astronomy images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice pic. JOHN C THOMAS KADAMMANITTA (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Crisco. Great as a thumbnail, but below the bar when compared to other images of this sort when viewed at full size. J Milburn (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose just not FP quality. --
  ЛееСуда. 02:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gilad Bloom

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2013 at 22:40:03 (UTC)

Reason

Fairly high quality for 1990. Good composition. An action shot of a tennis player that has long been retired (since 1995).

Articles in which this image appears

Gilad Bloom

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Israeli Zvika

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Quality could be better, but the photo is old and irreplaceable so I vote to support. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the only thing that is in focus in this photo is the odd design on his shirt. I know its an action shot from over 20 years ago, but just not featured picture quality. --
  ЛееСуда. 16:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Alamo Mission in B&W

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2013 at 00:30:56 (UTC)

Reason

It is a technically well composed, high quality representation of a famous landmark

Articles in which this image appears

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamo_Mission_in_San_Antonio

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Mattstone911

• Support as nominator --Mattstone911 (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not sure what the benefits of using black and white for a modern photograph of this site are, and the composition is sub-optimal as not all of the wall is shown. Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Nick. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Mattximus (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Nick-D and this picture doesn't show anything interesting at all. --
  ЛееСуда. 02:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Thinker: Portrait of Louis N. Kenton

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2013 at 02:18:00 (UTC)

Reason

High quality scan of notable work of art

Articles in which this image appears

The Thinker: Portrait of Louis N. Kenton +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Thomas Eakins

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, a high quality image of a very interesting portrait. Amandajm (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlers (painting)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2013 at 02:24:16 (UTC)

Reason

Really high quality, good resolution, notable painting

Articles in which this image appears

Wrestlers (painting), Thomas Eakins, List of works by Thomas Eakins

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Thomas Eakins

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Excellent quality image. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --
  ЛееСуда. 02:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support: Quality is great. Good find. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support :- Bellus Delphina ^talk 07:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Eakins, Thomas - Wrestlers 1899.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avocado

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2013 at 20:08:01 (UTC)

Reason

I've liked this image for a long time. It's been stable in the article for ages, it has good resolution and quality, and I think a pleasing composition.

Articles in which this image appears

avocado

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants

Creator

Bruno Navez

• Support as nominator --Julia\^talk 20:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment' - Very busy composition... very busy. The third fruit (bottom left corner) is also quite distracting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: too busy, not visually appealing to me personally. --
  ЛееСуда. 02:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose: A closer shot might of been better. But from a distance, it looks like the focus is more on the leaves along with the avocados. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think that in terms of the subject matter (a rather dull brown fruit growing on a tree) the image conveys a great deal of valuable information with clarity. The details of the fruit, on inspection, are clear. The background blurs out. The third fruit is fine. Amandajm (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shows the fruit in a growing state rather than close-up or isolated on white. Colin°^Talk 14:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An American Crocodile found in Jamaica's Black River

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2013 at 20:56:42 (UTC)

Reason

It is a high quality photograph of a threatened animal found towards extent of its natural range.

Articles in which this image appears

American Crocodile

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals

Creator

Mattstone911

• Support as nominator --Ufos8mycow00 (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Lighting is quite harsh. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Hard to catch a wild croc sunning on a cloudy day... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufos8mycow00 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 14 October 2013‎

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maxima clam

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2013 at 04:56:20 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV. I like the composition.

Articles in which this image appears

Maxima clam, Porites nodifera, Tridacna

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Molluscs

Creator

Alexander Vasenin

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great image, the colors are amazing. --
  ЛееСуда. 02:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support interesting photo. It has focus issues on portions of the creature, but underwater photography is harder to do so that gets a pass from me. The photo made me want to read the article. --Pine^✉ 05:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support :- Bellus Delphina ^talk 07:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Godot13 (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Maxima clam on a dome coral.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Phailin

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2013 at 06:01:28 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution image

Articles in which this image appears

Cyclone Phailin

FP category for this image

link to category (listed on the WP:FP page) that best describes the image

Creator

NASA, MODIS

• Support as nominator --
  talk with me 06:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support- JOHN C THOMAS KADAMMANITTA (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I'm not comfortable with a huge portion of the hurricane cropped off on the right side of the photograph. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breogán statue and the Tower of Hercules

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2013 at 07:59:29 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality. FP in Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Breogán, Tower of Hercules, A Coruña

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (Lmbuga)

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I find the composition of this very unsatisfactory. 86.151.119.149 (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must admit, I do too. I'm not sure if it is possible, but I would have shifted much further to the right, so that the foreground statue was positioned to the left of the tower. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shifting to the left may also have produced a better result. I agree that this composition is a bit off, which is a shame as it seems to be a dramatic site. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Auguste Renoir

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2013 at 08:05:11 (UTC)

Reason

Very nice composition and expression, good restoration, high EV. Nice portrait of the aging Pierre-Auguste Renoir, used on the article on the "Later years" section. FP and VI in Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Pierre-Auguste Renoir

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers

Creator

Dornac - photographer. Upload, stitch and restoration by Jebulon.

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Appears to me that there are some hairs and scratches left (hair on his cheek stands out really bad). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The hair on his cheek appears to me to be just that, a whisker on his cheek. A loose hair from his beard was lying on his lapel. I notice that it was removed, in the clean-up of dust on the image. I don't know that that type of "cosmetic improvement" is legitimate. It is the sign that no-one had brushed his coat. Amandajm (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the old photographs that go through here are digitally restored, at least a little flyspecking. For instance, I would have likely tried to deal with some of the dust on the left-hand side and bottom right, as well as that lone hair (it's pointing the wrong way for a natural hair, in my opinion). However, the people who do digital restorations generally don't touch paintings. That is because the paintings often get their EV (encyclopedic value) from being a digital reproduction of a single physical artifact (as they may be the subject of their own article), whereas photographs tend to get EV out of their representation of the subject of the photograph. This could also be tied to the nature of photographs generally being easier to reproduce and (a probably unrelated factor) fewer photographs being considered notable as physical artifacts to the point of having articles. The only FP of a notable photograph (i.e. a photograph with its own article) I can think of is Situation Room (which was not digitally edited by Wikipedians, at all), whereas there are dozens of FPs of notable paintings. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that I agree that the mark on his cheek is a scratch of something. It's a most appealing photo. Amandajm (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree about the quality of the picture. Weak support. There are, as I said, some small bits which could use touching up, but I think this would be fine for pretty much any usage of the photograph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note: there's also the famous photograph American Gothic, Washington D.C. It doesn't have its own article yet, but it should (in Hebrew the article exists, I wrote it). Tomer T (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found another one the other day, Earthrise, but I didn't have time to point to it earlier (was at an event near Borobudur with no internet). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Golden jackal

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2013 at 08:10:49 (UTC)

Tel-Aviv

, Israel

Reason

High quality and high EV. Good lighting and nice posture.

Articles in which this image appears

Syrian jackal

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Вых Пыхманн

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Don't quite like the lighting. Shadows are poorly positioned. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. While this is a fine picture, I don't really agree that the lighting is "good" as given in the blurb, and in fact to me the lighting seems the weakest aspect. 86.151.119.149 (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as creator --
  talk) 18:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - I wouldn't describe the lighting as ideal, but I think the photo is quite well-balanced considering its subject is in the shade. Even though the background is brighter, there are no blown-out highlights, and the subject itself falls comfortably in the midtones. Tokugawapants (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benoit Peeters

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2013 at 09:14:19 (UTC)

Reason

Came across this one at FAC; great composition, and I think portraits of notable people make fantastic featured pictures.

Articles in which this image appears

Benoît Peeters and four others

FP category for this image

People/Artists and writers

Creator

Georges Seguin

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I actually remember considering nominating this myself (forget why I decided not to). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Bellus Delphina ^talk 11:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --
  talk) 10:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Good EV and quality. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Benoit Peeters 20100329 Salon du livre de Paris 3.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Epirus Water Frog

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2013 at 10:03:10 (UTC)

Reason

A stunning photograph that's been stable in the article for a few years. The bar's pretty high for amphibian photography, but I think this one is worthy; the photographer, Benny Trapp, has plenty of other great pictures worth looking at. Sadly, the article's underdeveloped, but I'll see what I can do about a partial expansion.

Articles in which this image appears

Epirus water frog

FP category for this image

Animals/Amphibians

Creator

Benny Trapp

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Solid picture of frog. Grass bothers a little, but not too badly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I like it Bellus Delphina ^talk 11:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Wicked green stripe down the frog's back. --
  ЛееСуда. 02:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support --Pine^✉ 05:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Dougie WII (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This photo is of a high technical standard. This photo is of high resolution. This photo might be among Wikipedia's best work. This photo has a free license. Currently being the only photo in its associated article, it adds significant encyclopedic value to that article. This photo is verifiable. This photo has a minimal file description, but a descriptive, informative, and complete one. As far as I can tell, this photo avoids inappropriate digital manipulation. Tokugawapants (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent picture. --Carioca (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's such a shame that that vertical blade of grass is so inconveniently positioned – all the more so since it is almost exactly the same colour as the animal's stripe. If I wasn't so opposed to doctoring pictures I might even suggest that someone should airbrush it out. 02:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.86.177 (talk)
• Support the blade of grass is a bit annoying, but it's out of focus enough for it not to matter to me. Mattximus (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Benny Trapp Epirusfrosch Pelophylax epeiroticus.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2013 at 11:20:59 (UTC)

Reason

It's Muhammad Ali! (Oh, and pretty big resolution, solid technical quality, and really high EV)

Articles in which this image appears

Muhammad Ali +30 or so

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Ira Rosenberg for the New York World-Telegram and the Sun; light restoration by Chris Woodrich

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --
  talk) 20:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 08:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't like the fact that the picture doesn't have a background. Looks a little weird to me. --
  ^talk 16:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That's what many of promotional portraits have. A plain background makes the subject stand out better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to see a portrait with no background that was promoted as a featured picture. --
  ^talk 22:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• File:Katie Green, Nikon Solutions Expo, 2008 (crop).jpg, File:Julie Delpy 02.jpg, File:Grant, Cary (Suspicion) 01 Crisco edit.jpg, File:Robert Sheehan MingFilmFest 2011.jpg, File:LG 시네마 3D TV 새 모델 ‘소녀시대’ 영입.jpg, File:Louis Armstrong restored.jpg... there's six, just from the entertainers category. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The only one comparable to this pic is Cary Grant's, however, Grant's suit is black, which makes a lot of difference. In this pic, Muhammad Ali clothes are white and it is difficult to see with that background. Simple. --
  ^talk 23:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ever hear of moving the bar? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I have never heard that phrase. Is this like an interrogation? Why do you feel the need to confront anyone who doesn't think like you? I clearly stated why I oppose. --
  ^talk 23:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Moving the goalposts might enlighten you. You asked a question, I answered. That is not "confrontation" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• and what did I ask? --
  ^talk 03:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'd like to see ... has an implicit question attached: could you show me? Responding to reviewers concerns is part of a nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I must have misunderstood then. --
  ^talk 03:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Iconic photo. --
  ЛееСуда. 01:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Good quality. Great EV. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Godot13 (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Muhammad Ali NYWTS.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bedroom in Arles

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2013 at 16:58:59 (UTC)

Reason

High quality scan by Google Art Project with a huge EV

Articles in which this image appears

Google Art Project

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Vincent van Gogh

• Support as nominator --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious support is obvious. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 06:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Bellus Delphina ^talk 06:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support !!! J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support of course --
  ЛееСуда. 02:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Mattximus (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose- This is a terrible reproduction! The picture is worryingly dull. It is as if we were seeing it though a grey filter. It is to do with the scan. The picture itself is in good condition. It isn't dulled by dirt or by layers of varnish (like many older paintings). So why are the colours all so muted? Vincent van Gogh didn't paint in muted colours; he used paint straight from the tube, mixed with a bit of white or black, or ochre. The blues should all be pure blue, not grey blue. The bed should stand out as glaringly orange-yellow. The other yellow-green colours are bright and acidic. The colours should be more like this: [1] adjusted and uploaded smaller. In this pic, you can see clearly that he has used two different types of blue. Amandajm (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have to agree with Amandajm. The colors do appear to be off. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Amandajm. --ELEKHH^T 06:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree that the colors are very muddy. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This one's close, but seems to have turned heavily against it at the end. When a potential problem gets spotted half-way through a nomination, and noone addresses it, I don't think we can just promote on a barely-scraped-by vote count. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://blogs.r.ftdata.co.uk/photo-diary/files/2013/09/PB2167837.jpg http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/img/photos/2013/10/11/a0/c4/a734669449284e3caa4111e02b169e74-ee7d2862023540cb9b2a78fa732a535b-6.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.132.210 (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Mall central atrium with translucent roof

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2013 at 15:21:37 (UTC)

Reason

High quality picture

Articles in which this image appears

LuLu International Shopping Mall

FP category for this image

link to category (listed on the WP:FP page) that best describes the image

Creator

Mail2arunjith

• Support as nominator --
  talk with me 15:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose weird angle and difficult in perspective. For ref, [2] is much more clear to express what it's about. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purely on the topic of angle and perspective, I think that the shape you see in the picture is probably a faithful depiction of the shape it actually is. I think that the other picture you link to is looking in the other direction, while the picture here is looking towards one of the pointy glass ends depicted in this, which seem to be a notable feature of the building. 86.160.218.185 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This photo does not meet the FPC minimum resolution criterion (1500 pixels in width and height). The white balance is also poor. Some of the artificial lighting is neutral but the representation of the lighting from outdoors is far too cool. A more natural-looking result probably would have been achieved if daylight (or equivalent) white balance setting had been used or if the photo were made warmer in post-processing. Tokugawapants (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, as image is bellow the
  size requirements. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Narayan

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2013 at 12:03:19 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Kocharethi

FP category for this image

People/Artists and writers

Creator

Mydreamsparrow

• Support as nominator --Bellus Delphina ^talk 12:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Not centered picture..
  talk with me 15:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak oppose. I certainly don't mind the composition (centred portraits are often dull) but I do think it's too dark. The image used in the author's own article is better, but too noisey. J Milburn (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposer per J Milburn. Lighting issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per J Milburn as well. --
  ЛееСуда. 02:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - As per above.. JOHN C THOMAS KADAMMANITTA (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The subject's face is underexposed. His forehead and nose are too bright compared to his eyes. Perhaps if the lighting conditions had been different or if the photo were edited to have the shadows lifted and highlights recovered, it would have a better chance of succeeding. Tokugawapants (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lightnings in Belfort.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2013 at 15:18:05 (UTC)

Reason

One of the finest images that I have ever seen. High resolution pic. A featured pic in Turkish Wikipedia and Commons too.

Articles in which this image appears

Belfort, Lightning

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Atmospheric optics

Creator

ComputerHotline

• Support as nominator --
  talk with me 15:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. As pictures of lightning go, this one is nothing special in my opinion. The unattractive clutter also detracts. 86.171.43.251 (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above comment. --
  ЛееСуда. 02:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per above. Dougie WII (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - There is only one FP in lightning. So I would like to see this one reach the same standard. JOHN C THOMAS KADAMMANITTA (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I doubt that a lack of other featured pictures of a subject this common can be validly advanced as a reason for promotion. 86.176.211.54 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What about this? (Both are different types; the current candidate is a CC whereas the one I suggested is a CG. JKadavoor Jee 05:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Variegated Green Tree Python

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2013 at 01:02:18 (UTC)

Reason

It's a HQ image of a very distinctive and beautiful animal displaying characteristic features

Articles in which this image appears

Morelia viridis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Mattstone911

• Support as nominator --Mattstone911 (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose excellent colors and pose of the subject, but the focus problems are too great to say this is FP quality. --Pine^✉ 05:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- It's a beautiful picture and I don't see any problems with it. -- Dougie WII (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- By focus issues, are you speaking of the depth of field? I'll admit, it is a touch shallow on some parts of the body; but the reasoning behind shooting on the "wide open" side, was to pull the subject out of the clutter of its background. Mattstone911 (talk
  • Comment -- I don't believe there is a focus problem or issue in this photo. I think that the focus point is correct and the desire for a shallow depth of field is appropriate, but this lens seems to be soft wide open and the sensor of the D90 doesn't yield great detail at ISO 1000. Tokugawapants (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Color saturation is odd in a way that is characteristic of high ISO sensitivities (hight at least for this camera). Subject is not sharp and the photo is lacking fine detail, and this shortfall seems to be a result of the combination of high ISO noise reduction and the characteristics of the lens used. If the subject were truly rare and photography were remarkably difficult, the encyclopedic value would carry difficult weight, but there are other photos of this snake on the same page that, in my opinion, are technically superior and reveal more detail. Tokugawapants (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose very nice composition, but as said above, picture quality is not that good.
  talk) 12:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bacchus and Ariadne

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2013 at 13:20:26 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution scan, notable painting

Articles in which this image appears

Bacchus and Ariadne +5

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Titian

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment can't this image be improved? I think it can easily be improved. For instance, the scratches in the middle right edge. How about the grayish lines across the bottom? --
  ^talk 23:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Damage to a notable painting only adds to the EV of a scan. If the original painting has that damage, then the scan should as well. Otherwise it would misrepresent the painting (and if an article is about the painting, that is a big issue). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, those grey lines are part of the canvas. Are you seriously saying that you think removing them would remain representational of the painting? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose then, I'd rather see paintings that do not have that kind of damage. --

^talk 03:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Um, I think that you've misunderstood the FP criteria: images are judged (largely) on how accurately they represent their subject, and not whether they're pretty or not. In this instance, the image should be judged on how good a reproduction it is of the painting. Nick-D (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty! --

^talk 03:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose I don't mind the borders and all. But the glare on the right side of the painting tarnishes the image in that part of photograph. The man carrying the basket on the right side of the painting is completely covered in the glare. I can barely make out his face. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that's wear and tear on the painting, not glare. Note how the cracks are nearly all vertical. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite the noticeable ageing, it appears to be an accurate scan. Mattximus (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support certainly an interesting painting. The damages are not noticeable to the point of detracting from its EV. MatGTAM (talk) 4:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support

• The painting is one of the most famous works by the artist Titian.
• For the information of
  Երևանցի
  , paintings that are 500 years old have nearly always suffered damage or deterioration. This one has suffered considerable damage from having been rolled up and left that way for some years, about 450 years ago. That does not detract from its fame.
• The glare down the right is light reflecting off the edges of the crazing (crackles in the paint). The reason that they are parallel probably has to do with the damage of rolling it up. Glare of this type is almost inevitable when a very large canvas is photographed. I doubt if you will find a better photo of this image anywhere.
• The edges. The canvas was removed from its frame at the time of the photograph. This is a rare event. It makes it possible to see the whole image without the shadows caused by the large frame overhanging the picture.
• The scratches and border ought not be touched. They are integral to the picture itself.
• If anyone decides to deal with the reflected light, then it needs to be done pixel by pixel, and the resultant image needs to be uploaded separately as a "digitally restored" image. NOTE: if anyone is so bold as to claim themselves as the "restorer" of this renowned masterpiece, the Department of Conservation at the National Gallery will stick bristle brushes up both your nostrils.

All things considered, it is an excellent reproduction of a very famous work and one of landmark importance. It has its own article and an interesting history. I am glad to see it among the nominationsAmandajm (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per Amandajm, and please don't touch it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --
  ЛееСуда. 19:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Promoted File:Titian Bacchus and Ariadne.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raven 42

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2013 at 02:47:14 (UTC)

U.S. National Guard

.

Reason

Painting serving as an example of James Dietz's work. High resolution. I'm no particular expert on technical quality, so I'll leave that to the rest of you, but to my amateur eye, I see no blatant flaws in the scan. Work is provided under a free license by the U.S. National Guard.

Articles in which this image appears

James Dietz

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

PMathew42

• Support as nominator --I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be some confusion of just who owns the rights to this image and how and why the US National Guard has released it and the need to OTRS this file to verify the art is being properly licensed. The artist still retains the original copyright as the artist unless this was a work for hire. Also, the painting depicts the squadron Raven 42 but is not the title of the work. The title of the painting is "The Battle of Salman Pak".

I am not prepared to support the image itself as a feature image. As most of us will surely not be familiar with the artist, how can the average editor decide if this is a good example to use? They do all appear to be quite busy in their style, but I would question why this image is even on Commons. Is it merely because it was on Flickr? Is there a release disclaimer or ownership statement to refer to?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that on the article James Dietz there is another image that does appear to be a copyright violation for speedy deletion unless the original uploader (a volunteer at the library) can demonstrate that tis is within their right to release to CC license. Artwork must be looked at closely and I don't think either images have been vetted for use on Wikipedia accurately.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the National Guard website where this artwork is hosted, the title of the work seems to be Raven 42. Where are you finding this other title? The issue with copyright is understandable. The painting appears to be a part of something called The National Guard Heritage Series. There is a statement here that says the following:

If you are a member of the general public, you can order Heritage Prints, Presidential Prints, or State Mission Prints by email. The prints are free, but there is a limit on how many you can order.

(Also, the high-res version is available directly on the National Guard website), but I agree that it's best to get a very clear statement of ownership. I'll send out a few e-mails and see if I can a get a response soon. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title I refer to is from this: [3] The Kentucky National Guard blog. The caption for this painting there, reads: "The Battle of Salman Pak, a National Guard Heritage painting by James Dietz, is now on display at the Maj. Gen. Richard L. Frymire Emergency Operations Center at Boone National Guard Center in Frankfort."--Mark Miller (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there is a fairly clear statement of release here:

All of the following images are cleared for public release and may be re-used without permission.

I've sent a message to the contact e-mail on the gallery page, but it sounds like the creators of these works are not the copyright owners based on a statement like this one. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jethro...that is NOT what that page you linked to says. In fact it is NOT the paintings that has that disclaimer at all but this page [4] for National Guard photos. Free does not mean free of copyright, it just means you can order a free copy.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Sorry, the URL doesn't update on the gallery website like I thought it did (because it uses frames). This page contains the statement. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I noticed that after I posted and edit conflicted with you when I tried to update that information. It is the main "Home' page for the site and the disclaimer is strictly for photographic images from that page (the one you were able to now link...I couldn't figure it out).--Mark Miller (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to address the concern about EV on James Dietz's article alone, I think the image would work well in Military art, though I will hold off on posting it there until we get this copyright situation figured out. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I just got off the phone with Mr. Deitz's publisher. According to him, none of the works they represent are of a free license. This painting was created before they represented the artist and have asked for an e-mail be sent to them in this regard to forward to Mr. Deitz in order to determine if this was a "Work for hire". Remember that simply being commissioned does not create conditions for WFH. It must be a written declaration from both parties that agree to the arrangement. Thanks Jethro.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you for taking the time to contact the publisher. I haven't gotten a response from the National Guard folks. Perhaps it would be better to withdraw this nomination until this gets sorted out? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave that up to you, but perhaps now that we have a direct line to the artist the information will come quickly and if it is indeed correctly uploaded by the Copyright holder then there is no reason for the hold. Lets give it a day and see what happens. I am sending the e-mail now and will e-mail you a copy.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refugees of the Hamidian massacre

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2013 at 07:12:25 (UTC)

Reason

Very good EV. They are refugees from the Hamidian massacres. The photograph is from the 19th century and is very rare and valuable. I am renominating it because it has gone through a series of touch ups that have significantly improved the quality of the photograph from its last version.

Articles in which this image appears

Hamidian massacre

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/Others

Creator

Bain News Service, publisher

• Support as nominator --Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Restoration was not very good. Look at her eyes. They're still... gone. Very noticeable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Indeed, a very valuable photo. --
  ^talk 16:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support We cannot judge more then 100-years old photo by today's techical quality standards. And the photo is valuable and illustrative. --
  talk) 18:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Very great resolution by today standards, even more impressive it's 100 years old. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Are y'all serious? I'm not judging by today's standards. I'm judging by the quality of restoration, which is something we can change. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Crisco: the restoration process has excessively smoothed this image. For instance, the details of the woman's face and dress lack contrast (especially when compared to earlier versions of the image), and this has reduced the quality of the photo. I also question the EV here: this appears to be a staged shot (note the wall hanging in the background, and the technology of the time would have made shooting in the field difficult) with the subjects striking as miserable a pose as possible. While the actual situation for these refugees was doubtlessly awful, given its setting this seems to have been an image composed to create an emotional response, and needs to be presented as such rather than as a documentary picture. Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I too have concerns about the restoration. There are some strange patches on the clothes (e.g. a little below the young girl's hand). --99of9 (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. Those "strange patches on the clothes (e.g. a little below the young girl's hand) (as per user 99of9) actually are the hand retouching of the original glass negative (see [5]) of 1899, (as hand retouching of negative at left–bottom part), and definitely shouldn't be edited out at restoration. In general, quite powerful photograph for the 19th century photo.  --Victor•talk 02:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Ok, I see that they were also present in the original unrestored upload. I will strike my oppose for now and have a think about it. But you can't seriously support *because* of those?? The photo is not used in any article related to hand retouching of photos, and nor is this even described on the image page. --99of9 (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not *because* of those, I support because it is powerful and moving image, especially for 114 years old photograph.  --Victor•talk 07:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Oppose This restoration completely undermines the restoration process, either by over-smoothing or (it appears) adding grain. This isn't a request to change great-grandma's portrait into a glamour shot. I'm not a fan of the work done on this one. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose restoration job was not very good. Especially noticeable on the older lady's face (and eyes). Mattximus (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: This is a case where the so-called restoration of the image has done nothing to "restore" quality, and has in fact greatly diminished it. The original state of the battered, thumb-printed and inscribed photo is a beautiful and moving image, and a rare and valuable historic record. This present state is a travesty.

NOTE:The unaltered state of the photo (with its original touchings made at the time of production) would have my support. Amandajm (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This thread is a perfect example of the main "flaw" in the "Featured Picture" process. In every case here but one, the "oppose" votes ignore the "substance" of the image as a whole by nit picking elements of "style" that are only "visible" when only a tiny fraction of it is displayed. Why not judge the image as a whole which is the way it was intended to be viewed by its creator. By in large the so-called "flaws" in the original do not, in my view, in any way detract from its value and impact but are instead an integral part of the image. Nobody would suggest digitally repairing the surface cracks in the Mona Lisa would they? So why alter anything other than the most serious issues in this image?

I only undertook to do this particular "restoration" as an example of why, in images of this type, they are actually largely unnecessary. I therefore agree with the position of Amandajm above that "the unaltered state of the photo (with its original touchings made at the time of production)" is the best. This is why I never nominate any images (or anything else) for such WP "merit badges" as it only brings out the nit pickers who, after they insist on unnecessary restoration, ignore the actual image itself in favor of criticizing it for being "too altered" or "not altered enough". Why not just appreciate the original image for what it is and what it depicts? I would therefore support the unaltered image for this merit badge and not my "restoration" which was largely unnecessary but which I nevertheless undertook to make a point. Centpacrr (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really struggling to follow what you're saying. Did you deliberately restore this badly so that we as a community would come to recognise the virtues of the unrestored version? Why not just restore it well? J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Centpacrr (talk · contribs) is saying here is that judging photographs on the basis of restoration ultimately demeans the very 'essence' of the photograph and one could argue the entire purpose of FP nominations as well. In this instance, I personally had to go back to graphics lab because some users complained about scratches. Fair enough. But when the scratches were removed, and when I now renominated the photograph, others are now complaining that the photograph was best in its original state which contained all those scratches. Having the luxury of zooming into this photograph and complaining about little flaws, whether fixed or unfixed, that are almost impossible to tell from a zoomed out position is much less important than what the essence of the photograph actually entails. I would much rather we sit here and judge the final product of the photograph rather than what it once was or what it should be. Finding the appropriate balance for this, as Centpacrr already mentioned, is practically impossible since restorations are always a subject of debate in itself. Anyhow, I believe that uploading the original as an ALT option would be a better idea. I would like to hear additional input on this proposal. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, J Milburn, I didn't "deliberately restore it badly." I used considerable care to restore it as a whole image which is what was requested. However the inevitable result of that process when done "correctly" is going to be to alter and "soften" the image's original detail in order to remove the scratches and other so-called "defects". All digital restorations are always going to be a compromise between the authenticity of the original, unretouched image, and a highly subjective "perfect" altered version of which each critic is going to have a different "mind's eye" expectation. In other words, no matter how "good" a job that I or any other editor does in "restoring" a particular image, there will always be others who will find it somehow deficient because it doesn't meet their own subjective view of "perfection" or even "acceptability".

The point that I am making is that the image should best be judged on how well it represents what it is intended to illustrate "as a whole", not by highly subjective nit picking the many miniscule digital alterations that can only be seen when tiny portions are inspected a great magnification without regard to the rest of the image. That is not the way the image is looked at (i.e. in tiny pieces) by viewers as an illustration to enhance the understanding of an entry on WP. This is instead a case of missing the forest for the trees, or of how a blind man judges an elephant by only touching its tail. What is important is the whole forest, the whole elephant, or in this case the whole image and what it depicts. To that end I think either version (the original or the restoration) does that. Whether or not an image gets a subjectively awarded arbitrary merit badge is really immaterial in my view as being so designated does not make an image any more valuable, nor does not being "promoted" make it any less so. Centpacrr (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note: Centpacrr's edits were good (as they usually are). It's just that the further clean-up by another editor damaged what was there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree that this 'restoration' isn't up to par. Whilst there are a few schools of thought as to what constitutes a good approach to restoration, my view (for what it's worth) is that the scratches and other blemishes should be completely and invisibly removed using cloning and healing tools and nothing more. It might take an hour or so of pecking away before you start to get diminishing returns. Unfortunately Centpacrr's first upload has also had some gamma/curves adjustment, so his tiresome efforts are for naught. Anybody else who wishes to contribute will have to start from scratch, and that would be my recommendation.

Whilst this image could stand a slight curves adjustment to help differentiate the lighter tones (there's a lot of data bunched-up there in the histogram) it should only be done once, and only after uploading the restored image. Performing multiple, successive gamma adjustments effectively chews the tonal range of an image into little lumps (particularly with 8-bit grayscale), and introduces many metamers or flat spots. The practical upshot being that you lose detail, which is what we have here. And I may as well add that I'd have only cropped it as far as the original photograph's edge. nagualdesign (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

I've uploaded a cleaned up version of the original for any who may be interested. The first upload is the cropped original. The second is just cleanup (a LOT of it). The third upload is a brightness adjust. You're welcome to do with it as you wish. – JBarta (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Jbarta. Users such as Amandajm and user:Nagualdesign might be interested in this alternative rendition which is closer to the initial unaltered photograph. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of how good the scratch and dust removal might be, (which in some circumstances might render the image more usuable) I see no justification in removing the inscription from the top and lightening the image. Why has it been lightened? the slightly mauvish colour and the depth of tonality is integral to the image itself. As I have said already, I would fully support the untouched image, as an excellent historical document, and a moving image in itself. The cleanup reduces both the authenticity and the accuracy. Amandajm (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Amandajm that the digital file of the unretouched original scan of this historic image is the best and most authentic choice for use on WP. Centpacrr (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amandajm, while I disagree with most of what you said, I'll address the lightening comment. I was torn on this myself... I could go either way on it. The unlightened (and cleaned up) version is available in the history if most find that preferable. A simple revert would bring it to the top. – JBarta (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken JBarta's carefully restored version and tried to re-do the lightening with a bit more subtlety. Feel free to revert. I'd support either version for FP nomination (JB's restoration or my lightened edit). Nice work, JB. nagualdesign (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dome of Yusuf

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2013 at 03:07:04 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Dome of Yusuf

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Godot13

• Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Can't find anything to fault in this picture. Mattximus (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originally I thought the straight on view is best as that's how it seemed visitors would approach it, but seeing the slightly angled view below, I've withdrawn my support. Mattximus (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice... Godhulii 1985 (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok with alt-1 also. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Straight-on view combined with this view in shadow means it is hard to see any depth. File:Jerusalem-2013-Temple Mount-Dome of Yusuf 01.jpg is much better and I'd support that at FP and replacement in the article. I would encourage you, however, to export as sRGB jpg rather than AdobeRGB, as the former is more suitable for the web and the latter only suitable for sending to a print shop. Colin°^Talk 11:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This viewpoint is very poor for illustrating the subject. The other one you link to is miles better. 86.160.217.227 (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT.1 added. I will figure out the sRGB vs AdobeRGB difference and update/overwrite the present ALT.1 in the sRGB format as soon as possible. Thank you Mattximus, Godhulii 1985, and Colin for your prior votes. -Godot13 (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt provided it goes (and stays) in the article. Colin°^Talk 10:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common Redshank

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2013 at 11:58:17 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Common Redshank, List of Charadriiformes by population, List of birds of Great Britain, List of birds of Madeira, Totanus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Andreas Trepte

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 11:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support but can't help but wish these featured bird pictures could be paired to show the variation, usually male/female but in this case breeding/non-breeding plumage. Much higher EV that way. Mattximus (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although I miss some EV on feet. :) JKadavoor Jee 06:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Nice animal pic -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support like it. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems to meet criteria. Tokugawapants (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Common Redshank Tringa totanus.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Shoreham Hotel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2013 at 08:57:16 (UTC)

Reason

Good resolution and details. High technical standard and good EV portraiting the building.

Articles in which this image appears

Omni Shoreham Hotel, Reportedly haunted locations in Washington, D.C.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Jürgen Matern

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Could do with some noise reduction, selective sharpening and CA reduced. But it is 40MP so if reduced 50% it is still 10MP and looks much better, so unfair to be too picky at 100%. -- Colin°^Talk 11:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support :- Nice pano Bellus Delphina ^talk 13:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good high quality photo. I love how you can see the mattress in one of the windows. --
  ЛееСуда. 19:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Well framed, high quality. Mattximus (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Omni Shoreham Hotel from the south on a sunny summer morning.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Macrocranion tupaiodon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2013 at 08:49:21 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and quality

Articles in which this image appears

Macrocranion

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

H. Zell

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Per nominator -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support
  talk) 14:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Morse

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2013 at 08:52:33 (UTC)

Reason

Nicely done official-style portrait with pleasing quality

Articles in which this image appears

John Morse (politician)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Unknown, copyright held by Sen. John Morse

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- good official portrait. Amandajm (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for limited EV (image does not illustrate profession, or any reason of notability) and non-NPOV (official promotional staged photo). --ELEKHH^T 06:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW...We have featured many official staged photos; and this guy's notability is basically being a white dude in a suit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.132.210 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose no technical skill required for image, nothing that says FP about it. --
  ЛееСуда. 19:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose -- Not a particularly notable politician as of now. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is technical skill required to capture a great portrait. Unfortunately this camera had dust spots (including one over the jacket and a few on the background) and hot pixels. --99of9 (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Non-notable politico, blah composition — boring. Sca (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Carlotta

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2013 at 09:01:17 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and good EV. Nice aesthetics.

Articles in which this image appears

Villa Carlotta

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Jean-Christophe BENOIST

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The building is distorted. May be a combination of the 12mm ultra-wide and the wrong lens profile being chosen in Lightroom/CameraRaw (A Samsung 18-55 f3.5-5.6 OIS?). Colin°^Talk 11:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The very slight curve noticeable on the upper cornice doesn't worry me. I just want the image to be perfectly straight. Other than that, it is very pretty. Amandajm (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dome of the Chain

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2013 at 05:47:19 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, High quality

Articles in which this image appears

Dome of the Chain

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Godot13

• Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It is a very clear picture with a great deal of useful information in it. I have corrected the caption here and at the original location. A "facade" is something that is set up like a person's face i.e. it has the outward distinguishing characteristics of the building. Neither of these buildings have proper facades. Amandajm (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The composition is not great in terms of featuring the intended subject, or even making clear what the intended subject is (which I'm assuming is the small building in the foreground, not the large gold-domed building). To illustrate the foreground structure I would much prefer an angle such as this. There also seems to be a whole significant feature that is not even visible from the angle in this candidate picture, being edge on. 86.171.42.64 (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the angle of the image you suggest may be slightly better (for illustrating the object of the article), it is less visually compelling (not to mention mid-restoration as none of the outer tile-work is visible). Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The picture I linked to was purely to illustrate how a better angle or viewpoint could give a better illustration of the subject. As you say, the tiles are missing, but that isn't relevant to the point I was trying to make. 86.171.42.64 (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your point was clear, thank you.-Godot13 (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Would withdrawing and renominating this image as part of a set of two or three where the others focus on 1) the interior of the Dome of the Chain and 2) the tile work be an option?-Godot13 (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

African Bee

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2013 at 15:21:46 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Honey Bee, Western honey bee

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

SajjadF

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 15:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support --    L o g  X   16:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --SajjadF (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose You can't really get a good sense of the anatomy of the bee in this photograph. Front legs are missing, blurry mouth. From an encyclopaedic perspective this is not up to par. Mattximus (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose I agree with Mattximus - it's very difficult to discern which is bee and which is flower. It's nearly impossible to make the distinction clear when the background is almost the same color as the focal point. -- mcshadypl ^TC 03:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. I withdraw my nomination per above comments.
  talk) 07:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Praia da Nazaré

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2013 at 19:37:42 (UTC)

Reason

Very high resolution and good quality picture of a very-well known place in Portugal, adding to the article

Articles in which this image appears

Nazaré, Portugal

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Info -- It is a beautiful winter sunday (February 2, 2013) and people walks along the promenade which borders the beach. Some weeks before Garrett ManNamara surfed the highest wave ever, near the lighthouse at left. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The ATV tracks (or whatever) somewhat distract from the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment --- My opinion is, on the contrary, that it gives depth to the beach. The picture would be almost trivial without it. 85.139.22.113 (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JKadavoor Jee 03:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice composition and encyclopaedic view. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. The tracks are distracting, but not enough to not be a FP. --
  ЛееСуда. 22:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support :_ Bellus Delphina ^talk 08:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Nazaré February 2013-12.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stu-mick-o-súcks (Buffalo Bull's Back Fat)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2013 at 19:56:50 (UTC)

Reason

High EV for a number of reasons. A historically and culturally important painting it shows traditional Blackfoot clothing/apparel such as the beaded buckskin shirt, hair roach, eagle feather, face paint, and beaded pipe. The painting shows a real Blood Indian chief (Bloods are one of three united tribes that make up the Blackfoot Confederacy) painted from life by George Catlin. George Catlin is famous for his from-life paintings of western American Indian tribes at a time before the settlement of the west and before Indians were confined to reservations. The Painting of Buffalo Bull's Back Fat is Catlin's most famous painting and widely considered to be his finest work.

Articles in which this image appears

Blackfoot Confederacy, George Catlin, Buffalo Bull's Back Fat

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Traditional

Creator

George Catlin

• Support as nominator --MatGTAM (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Solid, and used in an article that is (essentially) about the work itself so EV is through the roof. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Chris. JKadavoor Jee 03:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --
  ЛееСуда. 22:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support -- High EV Dougie WII (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:George Catlin - Buffalo Bulls Back Fat - Smithsonian.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific plate of many Orchid genera

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2013 at 03:12:10 (UTC)

Botanical artwork

representing species of orchids from around the world

Reason

Depicts subject well, is visually attractive

Articles in which this image appears

Orchidaceae, Introduction to evolution, Paphiopedilum argus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

Ernst Haeckel

• Support as nominator --Dougie WII (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Its caption needs to take into account the type of art form that it represents. It is a botanical study and a coloured lithograph. It is a fine example of coloured lithography in which a number of engraved stones have been used to print the colours (as against a "hand coloured" lithograph, which is only printed in black.)..... I have just looked at the description page, and discovered that the book and artist are named as a "source" but not as a description. The description treats the illustration as if it was not an illustration, but as if it actually is a collection of orchids i.e. the orchids are listed as they probably were in the book. But what this is is an artwork, remarkable and excellent for being a good depiction of the subject and a good piece of artistry and craftsmanship. Amandajm (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have tried to address your concerns. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Is this being nominated for EV for being an illustration as an illustration (say, in the Kunstformen der Natur article) or for representing the different orchid species? In the former case, this would have fairly low EV as there are more than 20 images in that gallery. In the latter case, photographs would be more accurate and thus more encyclopedic. I agree this is a stunning illustration, but I don't see the EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I did not upload this picture, but I did nominate it because it is a fine illustration of the Orchid family and is the info box picture for the main page
  Orchidaceae, the largest or second largest family of flowering plants in the world (that's still under debate) so it is certainly a notable subject. Scientific lithographs like this have a rich history and are still used to illustrate species, some of which have never been photographed. I believe this illustration is an acceptable encyclopedic reference to the Orchid family. Personally, I am not that interested in editing articles focusing on lithographs, but other editors could certainly use it in articles on that subject. Dougie WII (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• My issue is simple: this is clearly not a natural formation. The ranges of all these species may not even overlap. In that case, how does it give EV to the orchidae article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was never meant to be a natural scene, it's meant to depict a wide variety of Orchids that live in vastly different areas, some in South America, some in Asia, some in Africa, etc. Since the main article it is used in covers the entire Orchid family, members of which live on every continent except Antarctica, it is of encyclopedic value to that subject. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A collage of photographs (like in ethnic group articles) or a single photograph changed at regular intervals (like at Frog) would likely have more EV. Though this is not intended as a natural scene, it could be misread as being a natural scene. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• With millions of people using Wikipedia, I think there will always be someone who misinterprets a picture or part of the text of an article -- that is unavoidable. I believe this is clear enough for the average person to understand the nature of the image and gain encyclopedic value from it. If you so strongly disagree, then vote against it. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The caption needs to state state simply and clearly that this is a
  botanical artwork representing species of orchids from around the world. Dougie WII
  's comment that 19th century lithographs like this are still used to illustrate species, some of which have never been photographed, is a very pertinent comment on the nature and importance of botanical art.

The picture is significant for two reasons, what it is and what it so excellently represents. If anybody misses the "from around the world" bit, then it's their problem.

Floral arrangements, any floral arrangement, (a bridal bouquet, for example, or a Dutch flower painting of the 17th century [6]

), normally contains species from many different countries. This image is arranged much like a large bouquet. There is no suggestion whatsoever that they are all growing together.

The description now addresses the issue of it being a representation. Amandajm (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Sami

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2013 at 11:51:53 (UTC)

Reason

High Quality and very high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Adnan Sami

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Deepak Rahi

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 11:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose As far as I am concerned, the reflection is unnecessary and so distracting that it detracts from the work.
  Wha? 07:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per Sven. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Sven. --
  ЛееСуда. 22:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per Sven. Mattximus (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I agree with the above. The reason why the reflection is distracting is because of the tonality. The pale face against a pale background is less arresting than the pinker face, with the whites oof the eyes showing against the dark background of the piano lid. If the lower face was altogether darker and less pink, and the upper background was sufficiently dark to throw the face into clear contrast, then the reflection wouldn't distract. Amandajm (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]