Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2020 at 14:27:32 (UTC)
Reason
I've never understood the objection to the first nomination. It's someone photographed in the middle of one of the most important things they did. It's pretty clearly a very important image. Now, is it perfect? No, but that's what happens with action shots.
Support – for the EV. The composition is bad, but its a historic photo. The photo is of her testimony, which had an impact, and is covered in three articles listed above, along with this photo. Bammesk (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is essentially an action shot for someone involved in politics, and given the significance of the historical moment, I think the EV outweighs the composition issues. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2020 at 17:59:25 (UTC)
Reason
Quality image. Shah became King of Nepal (Although not legitimate heir) at the age of 1, played huge role in the expansion of Nepal. He died aged 19 due to smallpox because he was not vaccinated.
Support Seems quite a nice image. Can't have photos in 1815, and not everyone has a formal oil painting. This is presumably from life. I am a bit suspicious of the article's poorly-documented current lead. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs05:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp, Though it is not used in the infobox, it's a rare piece. The image is actually relevant in both articles because the articles talk about the rise to power, without the help of the king it would impossible. If you read the rise to power section in both article, they talk about him. This image is far better than the image used in the infobox. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk09:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2020 at 10:09:06 (UTC)
Reason
This image is worthy of being on Wikipedia's featured pictures because it is the only image on Wikimedia Commons that is a picture of a commercial flight onboard the Catalina Aircraft. It is also one of the only images of a male flight attendant in the late 1940s, and hence is quite a rare image to come by. The focus of the image is quite intriguing, with a young passenger (a little girl, only about four or five) helping the flight attendant do the dishes during a commercial flight. Not only is this quite unusual (you don't see passengers helping cabin crew with their tasks), but it's also a reminder of how far flying has gone, as nowadays there is no need for cabin crew to do the dishes - everything is disposable plastic, and the cabin crew don't have to use a sink for cleaning up after in-flight meals. In regards to the other criterion, it has an image size of 1,168 × 1,836, it has a complete description including the people involved, where it is (onboard a Qantas aircraft flying from Suva, Fiji to Sydney), its source (an airline newsletter from March 1949) and is in the public domain according to the Wikimedia Commons page. It is used on the articles for the Catalina Aircraft (see below) as well as the article on Flight Attendants in multiple language Wikipedia's. The photo is also quite clear and there are no elements in the image that are distracting or obstructive. There is no digital manipulation and the image provided is verifiable with its source.
Regarding the source: Wikipedia user @Janke: has raised the fact that the image could have been taken anywhere. Thank you for raising that concern, however the girl (Jennifer Grey) has her name in one of the references of the article in the Qantas Empire Airways newsletter (titled "Jennifer Grey Goes by Air") on the PBY Catalina on reference number 23, which is referenced in a sentence about how long it took to fly from Suva to Sydney. I did an internet search for the newsletter; however, it seems that the originals are only available physically through the State Library of NSW (based in Sydney). Since @Whiteghost.ink: has been involved with the State Library of NSW in bringing their content over to Wikipedia, they may have obtained the image from their archives. Whiteghost may be able to verify this for us too. For reference, the Wikimedia Commons page is here.
Edit: Several libraries host this, however it seems they are in storage or need to be physically requested. See Trove for information.
Oppose - there's no real and apparent EV in this photo, it could have been shot anywhere. Awkward composition, head touches top edge. Fails criterion #3 IMO. --Janke | Talk14:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I feel I am missing something that is obvious to the nominator, but I can't see how this "Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article" or "illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". Josh Milburn (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt – but the removal of the branch should be mentioned on the file page, as all major alterations should... --Janke | Talk16:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2020 at 18:44:17 (UTC)
Reason
High quality large image. FP on Commons. Illustrates article well. This is an endangered species that needs supplies of bamboo to survive and its habitat is being destroyed.
Comment – Can you make a case in the reason section of this nom regarding why or how this image adds significant encyclopedic value to the article? So that we are all on the same page and know what we are voting for. Particularly in light of your two recent oppose votes on non-infobox animal nominations, it would be helpful to have a rationale for this nomination. Currently the reason section of the nom says "Illustrates article well" which isn't literally true, because the article isn't about the feeding habit of this monkey. Bammesk (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For animals, the unspoken rule is that a picture of the whole animal fills the infobox. This is an endangered species that needs supplies of bamboo to survive and its habitat is being destroyed. Hence I chose this one of the four images in the article. Since all the images in the article are mine, I can be objective in choosing which I believe to be the most encyclopaedic. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason section is better, but it doesn't put two and two together. It should also say: the image shows the monkey eating bamboo and the article covers the feeding habit and the role of bamboo. The image needs to be captioned in the article to give it EV, stating the monkey is feeding on bamboo, otherwise readers would have no clue what the monkey is holding or doing.
About: "I can be objective in choosing which I believe to be the most encyclopedic." . . . Nominations aren't just about you, they involve the rest of us too. Noms have a reason section, so use it to communicate, to tell us what you have in mind, because no one can read your mind. Don't expect us to spend half an hour figuring out why you are doing or saying something. The same goes for when you participate in other people's nominations. Make your comments and oppose rationales clear to others (not just clear to yourself), write in "specifics" and make it relatable to the 8 numbered items in the FP criteria. Bammesk (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I really think an image caption in the article is necessary. Otherwise there is no clarity in the article as to what the monkey is doing or holding. Bammesk (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2020 at 23:37:37 (UTC)
Reason
I have always loved this photo of DeFord Bailey. I think it is compelling, eye-catching, and so far as I can tell fulfills all the Featured Picture criteria. DeFord Bailey is shown with his harmonica in hand, a wonderful moment dating from the 1970s, when Mr Bailey was re-discovered and performed in public for the first time in decades. When I was working on Mr Bailey's article, I was able to get OTRS permission for this photo to be freely-used from Marilyn K. Morton, the photographer, and her husband, David C. Morton, Mr. Bailey's biographer.
Comment - Overly high contrast, also needs restoration (probably scanned from a paper print, thus a lot of dust). --Janke | Talk10:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a noticeboard or a group where I could see about getting these possible issues "fixed"?
When you say "overly high contrast" what do you mean? Do you think the essence of the photo, the subject itself is compelling enough (barring technical issues) to be considered as an FP? I just love it so, the technical aspects escape me. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Overly high contrast" means that information has been lost in shadows and highlights. The original (negative or transparency) certainly had more detail than this scan. --Janke | Talk18:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Janke Thanks for your response. Is there a WikiProject or Noticeboard around here that could take on restoration? I have no idea where to look or ask. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that you would need a much better, lower contrast original scan for a restoration to be worth the considerable effort needed. --Janke | Talk17:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Wow. That is sad since it is my understanding that this is likely the only image left of the original photograph. What a pity. Thanks for your input. I guess I should withdraw this FPC - I'll figure out how to do that later. I'll say one last time - I do love this image so. Shearonink (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw
I'd like to withdraw this FPC. Looks like I overestimated the charm of the photo without taking into account its possible technical issues. Shearonink (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Important person, high EV - but extremely grainy, can something be done? (Selectively, so as not to blur facial features...) --Janke | Talk14:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I spent less than 5 minutes on it. Someone else can certainly do it better, as I said. The grain in the background is really popping out in the original. --Janke | Talk17:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a photo expert, from what I understand this grain is just a feature of the photo. It is present in the original scan from the library so i guess it was made in this way. There are only less official portraits available without this "effect". But blurring some parts while keeping the face looks artificial and, on my opinion, does not help much. --Andrei (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support original – the alt. wasn't intended for voting, just a test. Can someone (who knows how) delete the file itself, thanks. --Janke | Talk15:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2020 at 16:35:09 (UTC)
Reason
Was rather eyeing this, the other poster in the article, back when I did the first poster. Think they make a nice complement. And, well, I just don't like the idea of leaving the second image in an article to be rather bad just because you've done one. That, like this poster, is a load of bull.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2020 at 03:25:26 (UTC)
Reason
Photo of Chorda filum, underwater rope-like brown algae. The ropes are about 1 m (3.3 ft) long in this photo. They can grow to 8 m long. Lead image and FP on Commons. The ropes have a layer of short colorless hair during summer, per the article, which are visible in this photo, per photographer Cart [4].
It's a bit grainy, but underwater photography is notoriously hard. Support, I suppose, since I'm sure the more photography-based people here will eviscerate it if it's not up to standards whether I'm too lenient or not, but if I am right and this is good, I'll be glad I voted to support. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs20:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The white point is a bit high, and there is a couple specks between her eyebrows, but a strong image. I'm inclined to support, but request that at least the spots are removed. That said, the source is simply incorrect, though. File history unhelpfully says that it's a crop from another source, but doesn't name that source. This could well fail on a documentation asoect Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs07:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – an editor reverted to the brighter version, FWIW I agree that the brighter version is better. I am neutral on voting though. Bammesk (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unfortunate composition, cut off at left. Appears to be a snapshot, better photos should be easy to take. --Janke | Talk14:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2020 at 16:12:52 (UTC)
Reason
Good example of Wiggle stereoscopy from an early 20th century set, when the technique was relatively novel and in use. Lead image of the article, and I did more restoration recently.
Comment & leaning to oppose I don't think wiggle stereoscopy was used in the early 20th century... by what means, if true? [citation needed] Stereoscopy itself is a lot older, as old as photography, in fact. Otherwise high EV, but there are some distracting details: the uneven exposure, and the size difference top right. I think a better, modern image could easily be made. I might try doing one in the near future, possibly with more than two frames. --Janke | Talk19:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Janke, about "what means": it didn't take much to toggle two images in 1910s and 20s (with motion picture and projector technology of the time). An easy way would be two side by side projectors projecting the two images on the same screen, and blocking the light path sequentially. Bammesk (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I struck/revised that part. Being novice, I drew the wrong conclusion from looking at the many slow moving and old examples in the article and in the Commons category here. There are other and newer examples in the Commons category but none are as well done (as impressive) as the nom image. I look forward to seeing your image. I think being derived from a 1920s-set makes the nom image an interesting example though. Bammesk (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's a very quick test with 4 frames - it was easy to make! Effect could be stronger than in this example (of my HO railroad...) Someone else may want to try it, with a better, and "deeper" subject. Can't do it outside today, too windy... --Janke | Talk10:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Janke: I think that's somewhat missing the point. It's a way of showing old stereoscopic images in a way that preserves their stereoscopic 3D view without the need for specialised viewers; it's not something that's generally being created intentionally. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs21:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New to me, but surely the vanishing point (far distance) should be stationary, not wiggling, in which case this is a poor example. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp, here is an example of what you suggest, it doesn't work. Being new, you can spend a few minutes and go through the examples at the Commons category Here (also noted above). You'll get a sense of what works just by looking at the examples. Bammesk (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The article is really lacking in good sources to establish this is actually a notable technique. Normally I don't judge images by the quality of the article they come from, but for an image created by a Wikipedian to exemplify a technique, we need it to be pretty well-established that the technique is actually notable (just as even the most perfectly-shot portrait of a non-notable person wouldn't be an FP). TSP (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From memory, this technique (or one very similar to it) was extensively used by aerial reconnaissance photo interpreters during World War II to provide an illusion of depth. Again from memory, this played a particularly important role in the campaign against the German 'V' weapons. Such images would likely have stronger EV. Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To your point, article says "many small animals bob their heads to create motion parallax (wiggling) so they can better estimate distance prior to jumping." Bammesk (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I am always interested in learning about animal behaviour, I have examined the claim in the article that birds bob their heads in some way that illustrates wiggle stereoscopy. My conclusion (and someone else has already inserted a ‘citation needed’ template) is that there is no evidence to support this statement. Animals (like man) will move their heads to get a better view and that improves distance perception through motion parallax. Steinman and Garcia make a claim that pigeons bob their heads to achieve motion parallax. Experiments have shown this to be not true. They bob their heads to keep them still as they move, so it is for focus, not parallax. Ellard et al. undertook work on the Mongolian gerbil and found that monocular gerbils moved their heads more than binocular gerbils. No bobbing. The three references cited are only Harvard citations – there are no full citations, but I’ve accessed what I can.Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I have no time to check it by myself, but they seem to be present on scans from both, the museum and google. Which is unusual, because google almost always has the best quality. I might try to go to the museum next weekend. --Andrei (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2020 at 06:11:00 (UTC)
Reason
This is honestly one of the favourite portraits I've restored. It's fun, it's not too staged, and, y'know, it has a cute dog in it. It's just a lovely picture of a multi-talented person
@Bammesk: I think I had meant to zoom out after and check the white dots weren't some feature of the image, then forgot before I finished the bit I was working on around it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs02:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a beautifully shot bird, but the branch is a little obtrusive. Is there an alternative shot? I'm leaning support, but would like to promote the best image we have of the little guy. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs20:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He's a big guy actually. I like this one as it shows the dark blue wing feathers. The whole of the bird is in focus - the other FPs are more head on and recent voters on Commons had the opportunity to compare this one with them to see if it matched up. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I'd improve the description in the article and move it up a paragraph next to the description of the juvenile. Been waiting for this one ever since I saw it at Commons FPC. You are a brilliant photographer, and, as such, your photographs deserve better treatment in article space than just the caption "chick". Will poke at it after dinner.DoneAdam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs20:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – nice restoration, but I think it can be improved a bit. The bottom edge can be cloned a bit, there are two small dark spots above her eyebrow and some on her neck, two large bright spots on her dress which look like they don't belong there (lower right side). Also I think the shadows are pulled too low because some of her hair details are lost (see the back). Bammesk (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose You set your black point too low, and her hair, and the shadow under her armpit have turned into an inky blackness. Did you save a copy before the levels adjustment?Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs07:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much, thank you. Support. I've marked a couple more things you can do with the note tool on Commons - hover over the image to see them - but they're all pretty minor. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs11:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just be aware that I think uploading a new version deletes the notes. You might want to keep a PNG version so you can edit a lossless version if you're not - if you look at any of mine, you'll see I regularly upload PNG files as I work. Mind you, I started doing that a lot more after a couple of crashes during saves that ate my work. Also helpful if I don't finish something at the time - check out the history of [5]Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs11:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The latest upload has a watermark and small dots to the left of her chin. They weren't there previously and can be removed. Bammesk (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2020 at 12:46:37 (UTC)
Reason
Already an FP on Commons, this is a very high-resolution photograph of an embroidered artwork from a time when Japanese textile art was making great technical advances. It depicts landmarks and architectural features associated with traditional Japan.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2020 at 14:09:10 (UTC)
Reason
The source isn't perfect by any means, but it's easy to get good sources for, say, France or the UK or the US. This is rarer, and as such, I think it's worth consideration despite a certain amount of graininess.
Adam, I annotated a couple of areas on Commons, the bright patches don't necessarily look like features of the original!? Could it be damage due to long term contact with another sheet, perhaps a cover sheet? Bammesk (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Interesting, but perhaps it could be more tightly cropped, as vividly colorful coral tends to overshadow the subject. – Sca (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This looks overprocessed and unsharp at full resolution to me, with visible haloing around the dark edges of the building, and wiggly edges that look like they were taken through a heat haze on a hot day. It's a fine choice for the article, as this is not visible at lower image sizes, but I question whether it meets the FP standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree, it isn't sharp at full size. I did a quick check and the photo seems to be captured from 1.2 miles away, so that probably explains it. The first uploaded version here has almost the same vertical pixel count as the camera sensor, so given the building's height and the lens used, it puts the camera at 1.2 mile. Most of our FPs here have much shorter focal lengths. Bammesk (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There has been considerable discussion on Ely Cathedral talk page [6] explaining intentions about the best angle and lighting. The 1.2 mile camera spot is likely the best so that foreground clutter is not included, all significant features are included and the impression of the building being "the ship of the Fens" is given. The position determines the focal length needed unless a heavy crop is preferred. Bammesk did you find the original upload to be out of focus as well as the derived versions? Verbcatcher has said the actual original was in RAW so a re-process might improve. The wiggly edges that David Eppstein has spotted are possibly due to the building's old time construction methods and wear or warping since rather than heat haze as it was taken at 0716 hrs. The camera used was decent quality (Canon EOS 6D Mark II) but exactly what lens I am unsure though likely fixed 300mm of unknown make and focusing method. Nearly all the Architecture FPs here had the advantage of freedom of an unobstructed view. Ely Cathedral is difficult to get a clear view, though leaves off trees may help. The low eye position is important for the composition though a little higher might help.SovalValtos (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SovalValtos, about your question, the first upload (original) is better (sharper). I don't think the focus was missed so the images aren't out of focus, just not as sharp as our other FPs. I have now read the talk page discussion and checked camera's location on google earth, I see why the camera is where it is and I appreciate the effort. The composition is a great addition to the article. Bammesk (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC) . . . . As a sidenote: I think Commons:CropTool can produce a crop version as sharp as the original. It has a "lossless" option which if used should retain the sharpness of the original.[reply]
Comment It is not required for FP here (I think it should be!), but it would have a better chance if it passes at Commons FP; in other words jump over the technical and photographic hurdle before going for the encyclopaedic one. There are fewer voters here. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the article notes that the cathedral dominates the local landscape, a photo of it from a distance has good EV. However, the harsh light here renders the image a bit unattractive (and not very English-looking!). Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by the photographer The photo was taken with a Canon EF 300 mm f/4L IS USM lens, using manual focussing confirmed by magnified live-view mode. I interpreted the slight wavyness on some of the architectural edges to heat shimmer, in spite of the early hour (08:16 BST). A version taken later in the day has a less harsh light but more heat shimmer (File:Ely Cathedral from Quanea Drove I.jpg). As has been explained, the distant viewpoint was chosen to show the important architectural features and the cathedral's setting. The architecture could be shown with a closer aerial photograph, but a low distant viewpoint gives a better sense of place and of the cathedral's size and its dominance of the landscape. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for all the helpful input. Unlikely to be promoted due to the processing concerns which would require a different version derived from the original to be considered instead. I was amused by the comment by Australia based editor User:Nick-D that it is 'not very English-looking!'. Milk chocolate box lighting was always likely to be more popular so the next attempt may have to be taken minutes later to reduce the cocoa solids % austerity of this early morning actual English light. My target at least is for a view with a sea (rough or smooth) of mist in the foreground. Best wishes in particular to the creator Verbcatcher.SovalValtos (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2020 at 08:55:54 (UTC)
Original – The intermittent Lake Palčje in SW Slovenia during high waters in early winter (above) and the drained area in autumn, two months earlier (below).
Reason
I believe it meets criteria. The most comprehensive image of this subject (aside from panorama of the empty lake, is a combined nomination possible?) telling an interesting story of intermittent Karst lakes.
Comments - firstly: balance seems a little dull to me, and I think it has a slight anticlockwise tilt? Second: yes, nomination of image sets is possible, (e.g. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Turgot map of Paris (2)) and I'd suggest that the pair of images, with the lake full and drained, is much more notable than either image alone. (I wondered if they might be more satisfying with the same crop, but that requires throwing away a big chunk of both images, so probably not worth it.) Given no votes have been received yet, I'd suggest you just edit to nominate both images together. TSP (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thank you. As for the tilt, I had the same feeling, but when I tried to correct, the trees weren't upright anymore, so I think it's just an illusion due to waves on the left side of the lake. — YerpoEh?08:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, you may be right - it was only a question of perhaps 1°. (On dullness, I discover I like it a lot more on my other monitor, so I need to check my calibration!) TSP (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2020 at 07:15:22 (UTC)
Reason
Enormous EV, depicting two Israeli leaders (Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres) and one Palestinian leader (Yasser Arafat) recieving the Nobel Peace Prize for the Oslo Accords, one of the shaping moments in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and in the recent history of the Middle East in general. Great to have this official photo from 1994 in this high resolution, and the quality is quite good. FP in Commons. Failed to gain enough support before, but all issues were fixed.
Comment Difficult to know how to vote - a hugely significant moment in history, but a pretty ordinary photo. I'm leaning towards oppose, as this award is about the photo. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get it but would argue that having those three in the same room is extraordinary, especially considering the circumstances. --Andrei (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The photo is indeed not great, but was competently executed. There is strong EV here, which I think gets this across the line. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not quite sure about this. The Nobel Prize is significant in itself, but the most iconic image is surely that of the handshake with Bill Clinton behind (of which we don't have an FP-worthy version). --Paul_012 (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2020 at 11:51:54 (UTC)
Reason
Besides the notable creator, it's from the original production, which adds a lot of value. This is a bit more colourful than most of his works - the majority of which tend to look more like the recent La Esmeralda drawing, with various paper colours, but it's a genuine set design for the première of a sufficiently notable opera, and I think that makes it valuable.
No worries. My fault for getting so rambly - I was kind of worn out at the time. I think I'll cut out all the off-topic stuff. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs16:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's my laptop - I often recheck on other devices - but isn't a big part of the jacket blown out to white? Also, aren't there potential URAA restoration issues unless it's far enough back? The URAA date for Nepal appears to be either 2004 or 2006, so it needs to be before 1979 to be guaranteed safe; all we have is "before 1992". Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs18:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the far right area (particularly top right) is terribly soft, it's easy to see at full size (100% magnification). AsdarMunandar, in the reason section you wrote "FP on Commons", but I see no evidence of it. Bammesk (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not awkward composition would mean a standard staged portrait, and I think those are too repetitive. What is more, this seems to be the only known photo from that period. --Andrei (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support I kind of like the odd composition. It suits his youth. Only other photo available is a similar but differently cropped image, [7] which might be preferable, though. It's snapshotty. but that's not always bad. EDIT: Conditional on the copyright issues Buidhe raises being worked out. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs17:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Adam really. This is a non-conventional photo and is technically flawed in several ways, but has a lot going for it. It captures the subject's youth, and provides suggestions about his frame of mind at the time - he comes across as both cocky and traumatised, which seems to be common for recipients of high-level war medals worldwide. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for copyright reasons. The photo would have come out of copyright in Israel in 1999, meaning that it is covered by URAA and still copyright in the US. (t · c) buidhe11:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good spot. If what you're saying is right (and I can't see any reason it wouldn't be) the image needs to be nominated for deletion at Commons. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2020 at 15:34:22 (UTC)
Reason
Just large enough to meet the FP criteria, good quality for a painting from 1500. Essential for the article since it's both the earliest visual representation of the jewel, and the only drawing of it by itself.
Given the actual object isn't known to still exist, Support. Speculating, I think we have that rather awkward white goache-darkens-over-time effect going on with the pearls, but... not much that can be done there. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs19:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't know that gouache does that. Might there have been a convention of painting pearls darker than normal? I know something similar was done with diamonds in pre-18th century painting. -- Arcaistcontribs• talk21:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert in 15th century painting, and it's possible it's not gouache in the first place, or that the darkening only applies to the 19th century gouache that I keep facing in opera set designs. Paint can change over time, though; that said, it should not affect promoting this. It's very encyclopedic, even if the pearls look a bit darker. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs01:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2020 at 23:54:25 (UTC)
Reason
I'm feeling nostalgic for touring castles in the days before the plague, and (presuming La reine de Chypre passes), I'm due for my 500th featured picture, and wanted to do something that had meaning for me to fill its slot. So come with me to the world of Gioacchino Rossini's operas. The late 18th and early 19th century were kind of a weird time for operas. Hell, even at the end of the 19th century, England was translating Wagner's operas... into Italian for their London premières. Italian composers were writing works in Italian for French premières, but there was also a desire for a native-language operas that led to such things as Donizetti writing La fille du régiment in French. The thing is, though, the opera houses in France that performed in Italian only performed in Italian, and the ones that performed in French expected their operas to be in French.
...Which leads us to Rossini's last opera (of sorts). Léon Pillet, director of the Paris Opera, begged Rossini for a new opera in 1843, fourteen years after Rossini's last completed opera, William Tell. Rossini felt his health wasn't up to it, but suggested that La donna del Lago (1821) had never been performed well in Paris. Pillet thought it had been performed often enough, though, that audiences wouldn't come.
So he got a team together, and convinced Rossini to let the opera be adapted into a new French opera, eventually convincing him to let them use additional music from other operas. Rossini supervised its creation, but made Pillet's team do pretty much all the work. And hence, we have Robert Bruce, Rossini's sort-of-last opera.
Anyway! This is the setting for Act III, Scene 3, the ramparts of Sterling Castle, as designed for its première production.
Support I have fond memories of dancing a sixtyfoursome reel to pipes at the Argyll Ball at Stirling Castle in about 1969... And we were due to see Rossini at La Scala in the last week of March. Another year perhaps.Charlesjsharp (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]