The NGC 6530 is within a nebula (i.e. a cloud of gas, dust and other materials). The infobox image [1] captures the visible spectrum and it does a poor job of showing the gasses and clouds. The nom image is in the infrared spectrum[2]and shows the cloudy and gaseous nature of the NGC 6530 region (albeit a small part of it). I wouldn't call it false colors because imaging the non-visible spectrum is just as important as the visible spectrum.Bammesk (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it doesn't say infrared, it says near-infrared. As far as your point about the EV, the nom image shows the gas and clouds vividly which is relevant to the star forming nature of this region. Bammesk (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Disagree with Sca. For anyone interested even a little in astronomy, the constellation is immediately apparent. I added the image to Book of Fixed Stars. It has also been in other en:WP articles for some time. --Janke | Talk13:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The skew is in the manuscript. If it was in the scan, then the skew would've been equally present in the bleed through of lines on the opposite side of the paper. Bammesk (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love the interplay of the stained glass at the altar. Only thing I'm not keen on is the bright sunlight on the pews, but there are still details there, so the highlights aren't blown. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It isn't sharp at full size. In particular the nearside of the rice ball, its middle, is distracting. Per instructions on top of the WP:FPC page: "the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution)". It also looks a bit noisy (lower ISO speed would have helped). Bammesk (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – According to the file description, User:Godot13 is the uploader, not the photographer. The image credit is attributed to Jaclyn Nash. Similarly here: [3]. Godot13 would have listed himself if he was the photographer, for example here: [4]. Bammesk (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bammesk. You are right - Godot would certainly have credited himself if that were the case. I don't think I remember seeing anything he uploaded that was taken by someone else. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Great quality image, but it is currently only used in a gallery near the bottom of the page. Do we have images of the other three gates in Pritam Niwas Chowk? They could be used as a set in the discussion of that part of the palace. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – nice photo, but the article says very little about this gate. If there was say a paragraph in the article that described this gate or added some context, then the photo would have a stronger encyclopedic value in the article. Bammesk (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice image and well done photo. I am neutral on voting. It still seems like a small feature within the article, just my opinion. Bammesk (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Even if it's a small detail within the article, and it's not the most important photo in the page, I think it enhances its value. Now it's better contextualized and integrated in the article. –Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - In many of these articles, the painting doesn't seem to contribute all that much. We also have a photograph of Maximilian I of Mexico, which would have higher EV as it is a better likeness. If this painting were notable enough for its own article, things would be different, but right now I'm not seeing the EV. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not seeing the EV. Van Dyck was prolific, and every one of his paintings could appear in the list. Elena Grimaldi doesn't appear to have been to prominent in her house, based on the fact that she's only listed because of the painting, and both ruff and umbrella have much better examples in the articles. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, most paintings by famous articles are capable of having an article on them, and having their own article is sufficient. It's a high bar, but this is the sort of paiting that needs to clear it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!14:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Unfortunately, as of this nomination the work does not have its own article. If the painting qua painting had its own article, EV would be a non-issue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke. Looking at Google Maps, the view from the southeast corner should be able to mitigate the distraction caused by the wires. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2023 at 21:35:27 (UTC)
Reason
Part of my Women in Red work (and my first nomination this year, wow.). Li Fu Lee was a bit of a sensation back in the 1920s for being a Chinese woman who came to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with her husband and then decided to get her degree in Electrical Engineering. There's a newspaper article that uses this image, so it's kind of a key image of her. Do note that I need new glasses, so - although I went over some of the key parts six times - if you spot anything I missed, let me know. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!21:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – An interesting photo and person, and I'm not opposed. Just wish we had some info about the puzzling device with which she's posing, but there doesn't seem to be any. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Adam, great restoration, but since you asked!, the lower left edge has a very narrow column of white pixels (maybe 1 pixel wide!). Bammesk (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm seeing a smidgen of dust just above the support under the table and on a floorboard in the lower left corner. Mind, the one under the table might be light reflecting off something. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: I'm going to leave the support table one, but I got the lower left one - was wavering over it anyway ad third inspection is making me go "damage". Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!00:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent action shot of a musician performing at a notable club. I'm impressed that the camera handled noise so well at 60 megapixels! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lighting is a bit unnatural, but mitigated by, y'know, being in an actual performance, therefore intentional. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!02:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The threshhold on these promotional pictures is pretty high, simply because so many have entered the public domain now. This is a beautiful image, and if it were more detailed, it would be a support from me. For now, though, the editors at the Grace Kelly article have decided that this image doesn't have the EV that the colour image does — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. I agree the fact that the image isn't in the article on Kelly is telling. I suspect the colour image is indeed the better choice. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Personally, I prefer this photo to the "color" lead photo in the Grace Kelly article (which is not real color, it is colorized). On the other hand, I have never seen a photo of Grace Kelly that I didn't like, so ... Choliamb (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2023 at 05:26:24 (UTC)
Reason
It's not a perfect composition, but, for the time (1870), I think it did a very good job. The Kendals were two of Gilbert's favourite actors, so they appeared in a lot of early Gilbert works, as such, they can't all appear in the Kendals' articles.actually, this is way better quality than the one that was in them. But this adds a lot to the article by showing them, reenacting a scene from the opera, in costume.
Support - Technical issues aside (looks like W.H. Kendal wasn't quite standing still for the entire exposure), this is a fantastic and encyclopedic image — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing sharpness, what amazing lens from over 150 years ago! (Nitpicking: the orangeish streak on the right edge could be restored to the same shade as the rest of the image...) --Janke | Talk20:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2023 at 04:54:52 (UTC)
Reason
Now that I've actually done some things this year - c.f. the three nominations currently up, although admittedly the Kendals had a big chunk done last year - Let's have a look at some things that probably should have passed already. This is a second nomination (See: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rosencrantz and Guildenstern), but the first was during a particularly quiet period that we've moved past. This isn't from the first production, but it is one that not only was directed by Gilbert (the author), but one that included him acting, so it it at least captures the artistic vision of the author.
As an aside, I think it does an excellent job at showing how images were prepared for woodblock engravings: Most of them had a lot of middle-shadow with some darker and lighter bits that more care is put into. This really shows how the careful are of the woodblock was planned for - if I can get the published version, this is going right up there in woodblock engraving alongside it, but for now, let's judge it for the play.
And it does a great job illustrating the play. Key scenes, key characters, gets a lot of the feel of the work across in a way that I don't think any other known illustration does. And I've studied Gilbert. Absolutely stable in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (play), despite a series of March edits, which means it's stable for six months. Perhaps not as meaningful as on some articles, but it's also stable in Hamlet, so that's saying something. FP on Commons, for what that's worth.
Support – I find this illustration very interesting, even if it refers to a performance which is subsequent the play's main run. I think it is effective in representing an idea of the show, and to have good EV for this reason. (Actually, I personally like the thickness of the original border). –Lion-hearted85 (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a plain snapshot with no special artistic value, hard to see how it would fulfill FP criteria 1,3 and 5. --Janke | Talk18:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2023 at 21:48:53 (UTC)
Reason
Recently uploaded this image from the University of Arkansas archives and did some restoration work, which included removing the watermark. Added the image to appropriate articles, so I think it has a good EV now.
Support There's maybe a few minor things left, but they're all well below film grain size. Only thing at all odd is that fingerprint-like mark at the bottom right of the shadow on her neck, which might be an artifact of historical (e.g. contemporaneous to the image) retouching. I'd leave it, though: It could also just be her clavicle. More relevantly, there's light spots around where you moved the photographer's stamp (which isn't required, but also isn't forbidden). May be worth some tweaks there. It's worth uploading a PNG version as well, since JPEGs are a lossy format so repeated saving of JPEG images can cause degredation. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!04:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2023 at 10:29:23 (UTC)
Reason
A rather good photo of a somewhat strange-looking person (there are other photos of him, e.g File:Frederic Edwin Church by Napoleon Sarony.jpg that confirm this is accurate). Still, I rather like it. It was a very dirty print, but I restored it quite carefully.
Support – An interesting image of a prolific but less widely known artist. Bio is well-illustrated and comprehensive (if overlong at 2,900 words). – Sca (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C: Simply put... maybe? I've wavered on that, as it doesn't look like the other damage, but it's kind of hard to tell. Can remove it, just not 100% sure if I should. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!20:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's hard to overstate Church's importance in the history of American landscape painting. And I highly recommend a visit to his estate at Olana if you're ever in the Hudson Valley. Choliamb (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I think it is a nice improvement over the old one (which was quite overprocessed and off-center). It's more carefully composed and illustrates the subject more clearly. –Lion-hearted85 (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2023 at 18:55:16 (UTC)
Reason
Given my other nominations are passing, time for this one to come back. Featured picture on Commons, for what that's worth. Now, the first nomination pointed out that it's not from the first production, which is true. However, it's early enough to still be in the performing tradition of the first production (I know that, at least with Gilbert and Sullivan, it was required to use the exact prompt books provided up until they left copyright; I'm not sure this was quite as strict, but...) Also, there are multiple ways for an image to add value: This one is a great illustration of the opening number, and . It also gives a good feel of a production, since it shows more of the setting and scene, and I'm not sure the original posters did that. While it's a major work in the development of musical theatre, it's unlikely a traditional production with a high budget will happen again (the "selling off the geisha" plotline is going to feel kind of awkward nowadays to just casually throw in).
Support A tad on the small side, but short of having access to the physical poster that's not something we'll be able to fix. Looks like an excellent example of the European fascination with Japonaiserie in both plot and imagery, and I'm sure a Saidian analysis would be quite fruitful. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. It's an interesting cultural relic, but it feels like the orientalism go well beyond things like The Mikado or The Good Person of Szechwan, or even most adaptations of Aladdin, probably because late-Victorian musical theatre so actively encouraged such a flippant use of the setting. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!01:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the image a lot, but I can't help but think that the original crop is better. More personality to it. (Ideally, we'd want the original tiff on Commons as well, but that's a documentation issue.) Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!02:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like Adam, I prefer the uncropped version. I could live with MyCat's compromise crop, but I can't support the head shot. Any crop that cuts out the copy of Finck's Grieg and His Music that Grainger is holding in this portrait is, for me at least, a non-starter. The book is not just a decoration; it's there for a reason. Choliamb (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After communicating with Adam via talk page, we've arranged that he will fix the major crack and unalignment and then pass it to me to finish the tiny details. I'm closing this nomination since it's a different file. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The intent with this is fantastic, though it's very, very grainy at full size. On the other hand, it's very large. It's not being used to illustrate the painting, but the museum it's in, which this does have value for. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!22:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The noise on this image makes it ill-suited to FP. I love the concept; I just feel like it needs a tripod and a lower ISO to pull it off. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it could be a stitched photo, but, aye. Great idea for the composition, execution is where this lacks, though I'd blame the camera. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!22:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The focal plane is on the floor boards, way in front of the painting, f/1.8 doesn't help either. Oppose per above comments. Bammesk (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as restorer Thank ye! I should note it's only been in the article a few days now, but it's not a particularly high-traffic article. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!21:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Historical image serves an encyclopedic purpose in its article, and nice example of a photochrome as well. I was briefly confused at the contrast between its waterfront view and the modern photo with a road, but I think the water is just out of sight on the other side of the road. I'm also not entirely satisfied with the composition (I think there too much water and not enough sky to balance) but that's neither here nor there and not something we should think about changing. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Seems rather obscure – our article notes that "pure endmembers ... are seldom if ever seen in nature." Target article totals only 280 words. – Sca (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's not a problem; we've promoted plenty of obscure things. I think the big problem is that there's no caption in the article. When multiple things exist in an image, it's rather important for the article to be clear on which one is the subject. File:Quartz-Tetrahedrite-denv08-50b.jpg may be clearer for this. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!01:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a caption in the article. The mimetite is micro (i.e. small) and seems to be distributed. The color of each mineral is listed in its corresponding article's infobox: [5][6][7]. As far as "multiple things exist", and User:Geni's concern below, the article says "pure endmembers of the series are seldom if ever seen in nature", so that's a feature of this mineral, not a defect or bug. Bammesk (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2023 at 16:05:11 (UTC)
Reason
High resolution, clear photographic reproduction of the iconic original cover for Hobbes' Leviathan. It is encylopedic inhow it well llustrates how Hobbes describes the state; an irresistible giant force aided by its bureaucrats that enforces order over society
Leviathan is one of the most famous and significant books of western political thought. Its frontispiece is surely the most famous book cover of western political thought. I'll only speak for the UK, but I'd expect anyone with a degree in politics or philosophy (along with plenty of people who studied history, law, or similar) to have at least a passing familiarity with it. Anyone with an interest in the history of political thought will (or should) have some interest in the book, and that's far more than just a few academics. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the multiple good reasons listed by Adam C. Even if the scan weren't problematically thresholded, the overly tight crop destroys the framework around the smaller images on the bottom left side. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure I'm seeing the EV with Brough, as the play is not mentioned anywhere, not even in a bibliography. Excellent image, per usual. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I see that one reviewer described it as a burletta (i.e., a comic opera), but The Musical Times (April 1, 1865, p. 29) was not impressed by its musical qualities: "A Peculiar Family, although cleverly written, and acted ... with more real intelligence than we often see at the regular theatres, has so little claim on our notice in a strictly musical point of view, that we content ourselves with merely recording its success." Ouch. Still, the image gets a support from me. I wish the text were online, because I really want to know what the significance of the china plate is, and what the suspicious German soldier is writing down in his little notebook. Choliamb (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the music was by Thomas German Reed, as most of Brough's works had music arranged or written by German Reed. He's honesly not a terrible composer; We did A Sensation Novel a bit before COVID, and - while we had a score by a modern composer (Mike Nash), we had a listen to the extant Reed pieces. They're a mixed bag, though:
"No father's care" is sentimental smaltz, but pretty good sentimental smaltz.
"Oh Agony, and O despair" is pretty decent
The Detective's Song is good - but not good enough for six verses without variation!
the Jewel Song was actually really good (and we used it instead of the Nash setting; we also used O agony, but Nash never set that one as he knew O agony existed, but the rest were discovered after he set them).
However, given those survived by being published, it's quite possible that those are the best of the opera's songs, so A Peculiar Family might well be a middling score with a few highlights. It's also possible at least a few of the songs exist, as I don't think anyone's been looking for them (A Sensation Novel's songs were literally right there in the V&A archives, though I don't think they were indexed as Sensation Novel songs, even if the opera's name was in small print on the cover), and it wasn't unheard of for songs to get new lyrics added for publication to make them more generic for a general audience. ("Hushed is the bacon" from Cox and Box has a de-sillified version, for instance) Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!13:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found a date on the first. Could be Seaside Studies, but given the lyrics, The Rival Composers seems likely. But, anyway. That's just the V&A. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!13:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shame about the 1861 date on "I Never Does Nothing at All". If it were later I could easily persuade myself that it was sung by the maid holding the plate in the scene from A Peculiar Family. (Of course, you can persuade yourself of nearly anything if you try hard enough, and if there's no actual evidence to stop you.) Choliamb (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Bloated (8,000 words) first target article seems highly promotional and is orange-tagged re sourcing. – Sca (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Short of having an Estonian speaker, I don't see referencing reaching a point where the orange tag can be safely removed. As for the length, 3,300 words is about par for 150 years of history, especially for a company that has been deemed culturally and historically significant (for comparison, the current TFA is 7,700 words). The POTD Coordinator will certainly have to be careful with the blurb down the line, assuming this passes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2023 at 00:26:26 (UTC)
Reason
Co-nomination with Adam Cuerden - After nominating his headshot a few days ago, it was agreed that the original should be restored to incorporate the rest of his body. Adam worked with me to get this back here.
It's a little grainy to my eyes. Presuming it's on display, it should be possible to get a better image. If not, there's a better case for 2015 digital photography. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!09:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the photo is not ideal, but it's the best photo of the spacecraft that exists and is in public domain, and it's very unlikely that Smithsonian or anybody else will create another studio photography of better quality. The photo is still very good in my (unprofessional) opinion, and it has an encyclopedic value. Artem.G (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd rather have out-of-studio good quality than in-studio and mediocre, though it depends where on display it is. 11:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!11:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per metadata, the photographer is Eric Long for the Smithsonian. I agree that the noise is less than ideal for a studio environment (which this appears to be, based on the clean cut and lack of other displays' reflections in the solar panels). I can see the argument for 2015 and 8,400 × 6,000 pixels, but at the same time... it is a studio environment and thus ISO shouldn't be increased. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2023 at 00:47:15 (UTC)
Reason
The "quiet" period of Tombstone, between the end of being the county seat and the start of the tourism shows a lot of features no longer there. This is a lovely image for Tombstone's history.