Oppose – Scanned from newspaper or other print source, coarse screen is visible. Original photo must exist somewhere... --Janke | Talk10:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Janke: Yes, it is copied from a book, but it is, by far, the best available on the Internet. I don't have the money to buy the original. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a longtime journalist (now retired) who sometimes took and/or edited photos, I can assure you that framing one's composition is an important aspect of good photojournalism. In this shot, two or three people are cut off and the principal subjects are looking away from the camera. There is no central focus to the composition. Sca (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2018 at 17:19:24 (UTC)
Reason
high resolution historical image with complete restoration. The image has its own article, and it is mentioned in List of iconic photographs. There was an earlier failed nomination with a smaller version of the picture.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2018 at 19:00:29 (UTC)
Reason
I originally pulled this out of latest files feed when it was uploaded back in June. Honestly, it was such high quality with such vivid colors that I was pretty sure it was going to end up being a copyright violation, but it ended up just being a really excellent image uploaded by Julius Dadalti (this guy), and donated as part of Wiki Love Earth 2018. Having looked through quite a few books and stories trying to polish up the article for this nomination, it puts a lot of the images used by the sources to shame. Also just for context, even though these almost look like puddles you can step across with your rain boots, they're actually pretty dang big (goat for scale) and expansive enough that they're visible from the International Space Station.
Comment – detailed and has EV, but this being an "orthographic projection" (per file description), in other words a composite photo of a planet, it doesn't look natural enough. The inconsistent shadow directions bother me. Bammesk (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2018 at 10:23:28 (UTC)
Reason
Good quality and high EV. This is the room where David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, lived in its later years. In 1953 he quit the role of Prime Minister and moved to Sde Boker in the Negev, and encouraged the people of Israel to move and to settle the Negev and the periphery of the country in general. Before dying he asked that his house in Sde Boker will be reserved and serve as a museum, Ben-Gurion's Hut. The museum, and this picture in particular, demonstrates the famous simpilicty in which Ben-Gurion lived, which is a complete contrary to the luxury life many of the Israeli policians have now.
Neutral, leaning weak oppose - The composition with the fin is unfortunate. The lighting is pretty dull. (Compare the lighting in this FP that just reaches out and smacks you in the face.) It is likely among the best such images we have, given it's use in three related articles. But I'm not sure this image in particular isn't liable to be replaced in time with a better one, given how common images of the subject are. GMGtalk13:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2018 at 05:32:26 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image. It is the earliest and, according to specialists, most realistic painting of Van Gogh by one of his contemporaries, and reportedly his favourite.
oppose I don't think 'too many animals' is a fair point. Too many leopards would be fair. This is not FP composition: no tail; and technical quality barely QI. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2018 at 11:53:06 (UTC)
Reason
High quality encode of entire short film under a compatible license. I can think of no better way than to demonstrate the film than to actually show the entirety of it to the viewer.
I'm wondering how it could possibly be made any better without making an entirely different film. Yes, it was made 12 years ago. Yes, the animation isn't good, but that's what the movie is. If we go this route I also don't think Roundhay Garden Scene should ever be featured because it's basically crap in all regards. And nether should The Mystery of the Leaping Fish and Night of the Living Dead because the acting is stiff and the scripts dumb. Should we really judge movies on their content rather than their files' quality. To me, that's like saying The Ugly Duchess is not feature worthy because of it's ugly motif, nor Discovery of the Land because it's not realistic enough. FakeShemp (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]