Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/December-2022

Featured picture tools
Featured pictures (on Wikimedia Commons) Featured picture criteria Featured picture candidates (on Wikimedia Commons) Featured picture thumbs Featured picture archive Picture of the day (Guidelines) Picture of the day archive (and schedule)
v t e

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

	Older Archive
	Miscellaneous Archive
2004:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2022 at 18:58:29 (UTC)

Reason

Irish composer John Field is credited as the originator of the piano nocturne. His work was highly regarded by contemporaries and influenced major composers including Frédéric Chopin, Johannes Brahms and Robert Schumann.

Articles in which this image appears

John Field (composer), Classical music of the United Kingdom, Music of Ireland, +1

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers

Creator

Anton Wachsmann (de), restored by Bammesk

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment More work to do on the background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a huge fan of the crop, especially as the supposed original isn't; it's both cropped and I think has different colours? Hard to tell. But, either way, it's misleading to present as an original something that isn't. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 06:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Adam Cuerden: what do you mean by "misleading to present as an original"? Are you critiquing the wording used in the "other versions" list in the file description template? Bammesk (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  File:John field.jpg nowhere presents itself as anything but a copy of Gallica's original. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 05:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Adam, I understand. I am going to upload the original from Gallica and then update the file descriptions. I will restore the original and aim for a new nomination. What, if any, cropping of the borders is acceptable? Bammesk (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps this isn't the place, but I'll do it here. First of all, the original here is 17th century, which can be very spaced out. But I'll start by walking you through my choices in the Pierre Gaveaux restoration, then we can discuss contrary issues:

• 
  Original
• 
  Restoration

• So, for prints from the 17th century/late 18th, you can often tell exactly where the edges of the printing plate were due to the pressures used in printing. Just inside that edge is usually a good starting point for considering the crop, as generally speaking, the compostions seem to be balanced more within the plate than considering the page outside of it, meaning that the space outside the place is just deadspace.

  However, there's also a trend for extremely spaced out captions. Pierre Gaveaux is a little spaced out, but with the wider margins looks fine.

  Now, the John Field image - the original is mislinked, it's here - has a bit more space between image and caption. It can get worse from here, take [3], which has a tiny little credit right at the bottom. It's also not very good, which is convenient. Then there's [4] - where I'm pretty sure the text at the top is just really beautiful handwriting. But it feels a little uncentred with the caption.

  {{CSS image crop}} exists, and can be helpful here: Include everything using nice wide margins, crop it in articles.

  So, I suppose my point is, there might not be a single right answer; it might be the best choice is to provide a range of variants. The most important thing is to make it clear how it's cropped and what, if anything, was cropped out. Also, I think one should have a fairly maximale restoration uploaded, even if you crop secondarily from there, because you have to consider reuse. If I need to crop the Pierre Gaveaux to fit a specific page aspect, say, for a programme for a performance of his works, I have enough free space to be able to make it work in a lot of use cases. With a very tight crop, you only really have the crop provided. In recent images, one of the reasons the Geraldine Ulmar image - the lead on her page - works with the fairly tight crop is A. I used additional restoration to help fix up the edges for the new crop because seeing the whole edge when you see the mount is very different than little traces of the edges from imperfect straightness, or cropping tighter than needed. and B. we can always zoom back out because that's linked. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 19:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok thank you, that's very helpful. I will upload a restoration of the entire Gallica original, then have a separate crop file or files. Yes I got the Gallica link crossed ! with this image in John Field's category; I have fixed it now. On a sidenote, he lived in late 18th, early 19th century, so I don't quite understand your reference to: "the original here is 17th century". Bammesk (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, haven't been sleeping well. I meant 1700s, early 1800s, but said century. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 04:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Hadn't noticed the crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw this nom. I will fix the issues and nominate later. Bammesk (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2022 at 12:07:56 (UTC)

Reason

High quality large image of animal in the wild eating its favourite food. Illustrates article well. FP on Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Common chimpanzee

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Any chance of a little less close crop at the bottom? --Janke | Talk 14:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No, sorry. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose Too noisy for me --Muhammad(talk) 09:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a bit noisy. I don't suppose we could try a noise reduction and see if we got any good results? The picture is remarkably stable in the article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 21:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ISO 2000 in a dark forest. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Presuming there's no digital editing that would give an improved result, I'm going with Support. The stability kind of requires it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 05:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The noise doesn't bother me -- I much prefer it to any smearing of detail -- and at normal screen sizes (which is how most of Wikipedia's images will be viewed) it's not an issue. Like Janke, however, I do wish there were more space at the bottom. Still, I like this as a lead image because it includes aspects of habitat and biology, rather than just being a clinically accurate photo of a chimp in an artificial setting, of which there are gazillions. Choliamb (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Need some crop, seem like made with film. --Petar Milošević (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - like the reviewers above, I am not troubled by the noise. MER-C 17:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2022 at 02:04:33 (UTC)

Reason

Quality photo of a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress photographed in 2019. The B-17 is a World War II heavy bomber. A total of 12,731 aircraft were produced, 45 are currently surviving: [5] and 9 are operational. This photo shows serial number 44-83872, manufactured in 1945 and nicknamed Texas Raiders, in flight in 2019. This aircraft was destroyed recently at the 2022 Dallas airshow mid-air collision.

Articles in which this image appears

Texas Raiders, 2022 Dallas airshow mid-air collision

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

Alan Wilson

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High resolution, main image; seems fine. Nythar (💬-🎃) 12:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Janke | Talk 14:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wow (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Brand new article this month. Too early to assume stability. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it's less likely a better image of this plane will emerge given the crash. MER-C 11:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support From memory, I added this image to the article on the crash as it's the best one we have of this aircraft. It clearly depicts the plane and is of a high technical standard. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 19:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Douglas B-17G-95-DL Flying Fortress ‘VP-X - L - 483872 - X’ “Texas Raiders” (NL7227C) (50657253887).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2022 at 02:42:11 (UTC)

Reason

A high quality image and unique U.S. Senate portrait.

Articles in which this image appears

Tommy Tuberville

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

United States Senate Photographic Studio

• Support as nominator – Wow (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – A posed publicity shot that fails Criterion 3, IMO. – Sca (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Position of the football looks a bit odd. Makes it a bit of a compositional mess. There's things to like about this image, but the football positioned right at his collar is weird. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 06:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above --Muhammad(talk) 12:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose crop issue, person unknown. --Petar Milošević (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2022 at 12:57:30 (UTC)

Reason

Was seen on Commons FPC this month, where it was featured unanimously.

Articles in which this image appears

Juniperus brevifolia, Achada Plateau, others

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others

Creator

Pablosievert

• Support as nominator – MER-C 12:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – vulnerable species, also cited in article Pico Island. Bammesk (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support arguably more artistic than encyclopedic, but that gives some useful secondary uses. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 08:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Little EV. Should not be lead image in article and was only placed there 4 days ago. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Charlesjsharp: I think it has more EV in Achada Plateau, if that helps any. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 23:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Agree with Adam and Charles that it is not particularly encyclopedic, in the sense that it doesn't give much information about this particular species and how it differs from other junipers. But it's awfully pretty ... Choliamb (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 19:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Nythar (💬-❄️) 05:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Petar Milošević (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lagoa do Capitão com montanha do pico.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2022 at 13:02:20 (UTC)

Reason

Was seen on Commons FPC one and a half years ago, where it was featured unanimously.

Articles in which this image appears

Apostlebird

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator – MER-C 13:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 08:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Muhammad(talk) 12:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lead image is much more encyclopaedic. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't you oppose that as well? --Muhammad(talk) 06:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Responding to the point made by Charles above: I think both images are encyclopedic, in that they both show important aspects of the bird's structure and plumage. But this one is much superior aesthetically. The current lead image in the article's infobox is, at least for me, compromised as a photograph by the same intentional blurring of the foreground that appears in the photo of the Cinnamon quail-thrush discussed earlier this month, but to a much greater degree. The result looks so artificial and contrived that I could never support it for FP. This one, on the other hand, shows what superb work the same photographer can do when he doesn't have any foreground to fuss with. Choliamb (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Charlesjsharp. The lead image shows more of important features -- back and tail. Only the feet are shown better in the nom image. --Tagooty (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Janke | Talk 13:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Shallow DOF blurs anterior portions of subject. – Sca (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2022 at 17:18:37 (UTC)

Reason

Quality lead image of this castle in Estonia. Has been a border stronghold since its founding in 13th/14th century, currently at the Estonia-Russia border. (Was seen at Commons FPC recently)

Articles in which this image appears

Hermann Castle, Ida-Viru County

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

A.Savin

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 18:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --A.Savin (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Nythar (💬-🎃) 07:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would support a tighter crop, much of the water feels out of place to me --Muhammad(talk) 12:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. -- Sca (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fine composition to me -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good image and EV. A concern is that the article cites no sources, though it is 9 years old. --Tagooty (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Narva asv2022-04 img09 Castle.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2022 at 07:37:49 (UTC)

Reason

A nicely playing-card looking poster for one of the odder Savoy operas. F. C. Burnand was one of those writers who had a tendency towards somewhat strange plot points and strange choices of what incident needs a musical number at the best of time, and in this case, it leads to songs like "By the King's decree, all of us are hirsute". There's a reason why the only thing by him I'm aware of that's regularly performed is Cox and Box, in which he only added lyrics to an existing work. Still, a notable point in the history of British opera, if not one we're likely to see revived anytime soon.

Articles in which this image appears

His Majesty (comic opera)

FP category for this image

WP:FP/THEATRE

Creator

Dudley Hardy, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 07:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Nythar (💬-🎃) 02:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Choliamb (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 19:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 16:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dudley Hardy - Poster for His Majesty.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2022 at 09:54:44 (UTC)

Reason

Been getting a lot of complements for this one of late, and maybe it's more valuable in Wind tunnel than Mary Jackson (engineer), but I think it's valuable in both. I think it's a really good "at work" shot. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mary Jackson in a wind tunnel for the previous nomination, before it was in wind tunnel

Articles in which this image appears

Wind tunnel, Mary Jackson (engineer)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering

Creator

NASA Langley Research Center; Restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 09:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It isn't a great composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – content of her bio article relates to the image. Bammesk (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's a decent educational photo, but (at least to my eyes) not a particularly striking or memorable one. I agree with the reservations expressed at the time of the previous nomination. Choliamb (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2022 at 02:16:20 (UTC)

Reason

Suits the article well as lead image, well done animation.

Articles in which this image appears

Ambigram

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others

Creator

Basile Morin

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Janke | Talk 08:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Puzzling, rather annoying. – Sca (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's one of the best possible illustrations for an ambigram! Much better than this: [6] BTW: Did you read Dan Brown's Angels & Demons, or watch the movie? --Janke | Talk 21:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thanks, Bammesk, for the nomination. Official Wikipedia Twitter account shared this picture last week -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Lots of excellent ambigrams in that article, actually. It's one of the best-illustrated on wiki. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 21:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Made me laugh. Choliamb (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Choliamb: I might be a child, but my favourite is Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 05:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Adam Cuerden: That's not an ambigram, it's a tessellation. --Janke | Talk 18:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an ambigram and a tessellation. Most tessellations only display geometrical patterns or figurative drawings, while ambigram tessellations display words. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Basile Morin: Well, I don't want to split hairs, but the single words on it lack the definite ambigram property of being the same upside-down. Your "yeah" [7], OTOH, is a really excellent ambigram tessellation, maybe the best I've ever seen! (And yes, I'm a fan of M.C. Escher's art! )--Janke | Talk 10:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There are different types of ambigrams. As described by Douglas Hofstadter, a "figure-ground ambigram" is a visual design where letters fit together so the negative space around and between one word spells another word. A clear definition appears page 33 of the book Ambigrams Revealed with a beautiful example of figure-ground ambigram tessellation "Escher" drawn by Alain Nicolas. See also this ambigram tessellation "Nicolas" on the website tessellations.org (archive). The Ambigram Magazine website features an ambigram tessellation "Einstein". Hofstadter mentions these ambigrams in his texts, for example in French page 4 of Les Ambigrammes: ambiguïté, perception, et balance esthétique, quoting Scott Kim's works as visual references. A figure-ground ambigram tessellation "Figure" designed by Scott Kim is archived here (page 36 of his book Inversions). See also the tessellation "Jay & Julie" on this Ambigram page. Thanks, I love Escher's artworks too. -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Basile Morin: Well, thinking a little further (which I seldom do... ;-) of the meaning of the word ambi-gram, you're absolutely right! Thanks for all the interesting links, too. BTW, is anyone else seeing a definitive 3-D effect in the Jay&Julie [8] image? My eyes see orange and blue popping out of the monitor surface, while cyan and magenta drop inside... --Janke | Talk 18:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. MER-C 16:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ambigram of the word ambigram - rotation animation.gif --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2022 at 02:05:57 (UTC)

Reason

Quality lead image of this bird. Saw this on Commons FPC a few weeks ago.

Articles in which this image appears

Cinnamon teal

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Clément Bardot

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Janke | Talk 20:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Nythar (💬-❄️) 05:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Excellent image and good EV --Tagooty (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 11:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this really a pure Cinnamon Teal, or is it a hybrid? The bill looks a little shorter and more delicate than usual for Cinnamon Teal. I grew up in California where these ducks are common, and they normally give the impression of having a huge schnozz. The shape is pretty distinctive, and it's one of the easiest ways to identify them at a distance. Just as an example, this photo is more like what I expect to see on a Cinnamon Teal. Probably it's just because the head of the bird in the nominated photo is turned slightly toward the camera, which compresses the bill somewhat. But this is a New World species, and the fact that (a) ducks interbreed freely and (b) this photo is of a captive bird in a wildlife park in France, not a wild bird in North America, makes me a little suspicious. Choliamb (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Can there be variations within the pure species? Some more Jimmy Durante than others? --Janke | Talk 18:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think of the Cinnamon Teal more as the Gérard Depardieu of the duck world. The full Jimmy Durante is the Northern Shoveler. :)

As for the serious question, yeah, there's certainly individual variation. I'm no expert, just a longtime casual birder, but I did a quick survey of a bunch of other photos of wild Cinnamon Teal, and this does seem to be within the range of variation. Also, the hybrids I've seen photos of (at least those with the smaller-billed Blue-winged Teal) have pretty obvious plumage characteristics that give them away. So I withdraw my reservation about this bird's pedigree. I do, however, still wish that the lead photo in the article was of an individual with a larger bill, since I don't think this one quite captures the species' normal appearance, as least in my experience. But that's a personal thing, and I won't oppose the nomination because of it. Choliamb (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I drew a straight line from the tip of the bill to the center of the eye (pupil) to the back of the head, and I compared ratios of bill length (along this line) to eye location and back of the head. I didn't see any meaningful difference between the nom image and the example you gave [9]. It might just be lighting and perception. Bammesk (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's interesting. They certainly look different to me, but I won't argue with you, and I cheerfully concede that so much of this is very subjective. The length of the bill can also appear different depending on the position of the head and neck, and whether the feathers on the head are ruffled or smooth, which changes the perception of head size and shape. (This is a notorious ID problem with some other species of duck, like Greater and Lesser Scaup). In any case, I'm happy to let go of my quibble in this case. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting into a discussion of RLQ, i.e rostrilongitudequotient - a term coined in the research of how the length of Donald Duck's bill changed over the years in Carl Barks' comics... ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you how happy it made me to learn about this, and to find this illustration of the progression. I never read the comic books, but I'm a big fan of the cartoon Donald, especially the early shorts from the 30s and 40s, so the Barks proportions from the 1940s, which stick close to what I'm used to, look right to me. The plump, short-necked, squash-billed Barks Donald of the 1960s, by contrast, looks as if he's been in an industrial accident that left him horribly disfigured. As with the Cinnamon Teal, the more bill, the better! Choliamb (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sarcelle cannelle (Spatula cyanoptera).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2022 at 00:26:51 (UTC)

Reason

The image depicts the nuclear device fired in the underground nuclear test Cannikin of Operation Grommet which was conducted at Amchitka, Alaska, 6 November 1971. This nuclear test, with a yield of 5 megatonnes of TNT (21 PJ), was of the W71 warhead for the LIM-49 Spartan anti-ballistic missile. The image is notable as in protest of Cannikin the Don't Make a Wave Committee was formed, which after the test evolved into the well known environmental group Greenpeace, and can be considered the genesis of Greenpeace. Further notability can be found in this device being the last nuclear test at Amchitka and in it being the highest yield underground nuclear test conducted by any nation.

Articles in which this image appears

Greenpeace, Amchitka, Cannikin, W71.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Weaponry

Creator

United States Atomic Energy Commission

• Support as nominator – Kylesenior (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Oppose - Extremely jumbled composition. – Sca (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – chaotic scene (although the planning and execution is absolutely not chaotic), good EV, it's a notable one-time event. I think it's worth touching it up. I will support if it's touched up. Bammesk (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because of high EV. Not re-shootable, so photographically, it is what it is. --Janke | Talk 19:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Way too many white spots around the image. If the image can be improved, then it should be improved before nominating it to the highest title an image can receive. Re-nominate it when these problematic spots are removed. Nythar (💬-❄️) 22:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I cleaned up the image. Thoughts?. Kylesenior (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't expecting it to be that quick. Looks good, so I'll Support — Nythar (💬-❄️) 02:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never taken a crack at cleaning an image up before so I was surprised as well. Kylesenior (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I did more tweaking (the fading of bottom corners and a minor color tweak). If you disagree, just revert to the previous version. Bammesk (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For historical merit, Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 11:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – High EV. Yann (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:1971-CANNIKIN-2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2022 at 16:14:30 (UTC)

Reason

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

Articles in which this image appears

Hypoplectrus guttavarius

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish

Creator

Llez

• Support as nominator – MER-C 16:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Nythar (💬-❄️) 09:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – it's a bit soft (the tail), but the pixel count somewhat makes up for it. Bammesk (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Janke | Talk 19:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 11:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Arresting colors, but I'm wondering what those (rather indistinct) luminous blue patches near the mouth and eye are. – Sca (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd guess they are reflective iridiscence, just like some bright butterfly wings and some silver-colored fishes. Check Google for other photos, they all show it, and the article states it has a bright blue streak around the eye and on the snout. --Janke | Talk 18:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. Support. -- Sca (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Choliamb (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hypoplectrus guttavarius - Wilhelma 01.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2022 at 17:57:28 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and extensive article about it. Burek are very popular in the Balkans (East), often as fast-food items bought at kiosks, stores, bakeries.

Articles in which this image appears

Börek

FP category for this image

Food and drink

Creator

Petar Milošević

• Support as nominator – Petar Milošević (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The cut off edges of the plate are bit offputting, and EV would be stronger if the burek had been sliced in a way to show the meat in the interior. Nick-D (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Its already cut, you wont see meat like you see in hamburger. Petar Milošević (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The plate is a very plain one and serves merely as a contrasty platform for the subject. -- Sca (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Image does not do justice to the food. --Tagooty (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Where's the beef? --Janke | Talk 19:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Looks good enough to eat. Ethnic cuisine items seem likely POTD candidates. – Sca (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2022 at 19:03:51 (UTC)

Reason

Unanimously featured on Commons in February this year.

Articles in which this image appears

Sarcococca hookeriana

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

Dominicus Johannes Bergsma

• Support as nominator – MER-C 19:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thank you for nominating my photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support if it were the lead image in the article. Yann (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2022 at 09:16:11 (UTC)

Reason

Imposing 5,000 ft (1,500 m) cliff above Mud village, Spiti, explored by Ferdinand Stoliczka in the 1860s. Studying exposed cliffs, he discovered the Mudh formation, a geological stratum that runs from Kashmir through Spiti to Nepal and named it after this remote, insignificant village. Mud consequently has attained global renown in geological circles disproportionate to its small population and remote location. This is the lead image in the Geology section of the Mud village article.

Articles in which this image appears

Mud village, Spiti#Geology * Ferdinand Stoliczka

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Tagooty

• Support as nominator – Tagooty (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – certainly good EV and good description in the article, a remote location and probably hard to get to, but it doesn't look sharp (at full size), not sure the technical quality is there for a contemporary photo of a static scene. Bammesk (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The pixel count is high, it looks sharp when viewed at 67%. I am undecided on voting. I like the composition and the village (that the rock formation is named after) being there. Bammesk (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bammesk: 5600 vertical pixels to capture >5,000' cliff is ~1 pixel/foot! The windows on the houses, which are 2-3', are fairly distinct. I've uploaded a sharpened version now. --Tagooty (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That's better, Support. Bammesk (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Per previous discussion. A dramatic image showing how nature can dwarf human presence. – Sca (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – --Janke | Talk 18:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – High EV. Yann (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Quality not there for me even when viewed at lower res --Muhammad(talk) 09:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Choliamb (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mudh Towering Range Pin Spiti Himachal Jun18 D72 7095.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2022 at 15:21:07 (UTC)

Reason

Gravitational microlensing events observed by the Gaia spacecraft from 2014 to 2018. Good illustration in the Gravitational microlensing article.

Articles in which this image appears

Gravitational microlensing, Gaia (spacecraft)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding

Creator

ESA/Gaia/DPAC, European Space Agency

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Artist's impression, not a true picture. --Janke | Talk 18:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• True, it's not a true picture, but it's not just an artist's impression. It's a compilation of measurements from 2014 to 2018 by the European Space Agency using Gaia (spacecraft) observatory. It's compiled by a team at the University of Warsaw which includes a professor of astronomy: [10], published on a website of the European Space Agency (www.cosmos.esa.int). I don't see how it's any different than the animation in This nomination/FP. Bammesk (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that other example (which I supported) is directly imaged, while this is not. There has obviously been an artistic decision in choosing how large and bright the flashes are, and how long they last. It's for that reason I oppose this one - it looks like an Xmas decoration... --Janke | Talk 09:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC) PS: Compare with the true lead image in the article...[reply]

• It's a mapping of scientific measurements. The Milky Way is too: [11]. FPs don't have to be direct images. Bammesk (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - On the basis that it is an image created from scientific measurements and not an artist's impression. Kylesenior (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per Janke. I'm not comfortable with an animated creation that purports to be images of reality. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Well made, interesting. Yann (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Informative, interesting, and eye-catching animation that makes good use of a combination of photography and synthetic data. We should not disqualify such images for being something that they aren't; we should judge them for what they are. Also, did you know that most of those still "photos" of distant astronomical objects in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out are also not true photographs? They are compiled by taking data measured in wavelengths that are not visible and translated by mapping that data to the intensities of visible light channels. Also, did you know that many of the "photos" that we have here of bugs and other macro-scale things are not true photos? They are compiled by taking many photos with different focus planes and compositing them together. There is no eye or camera that would see them in a single instant as they are displayed in the image. I don't see the difference in principle between those and this. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Janke. It looks like a galaxy bombarded by supernovas. -- Veggies (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they actually were supernovas, I wouldn't oppose... but it's just lensing! --Janke | Talk 09:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2022 at 20:19:15 (UTC)

Reason

This was an FPC back in 2020 and garnered some support and no opposition, but wasn't discussed enough to be promoted. This is a compelling and high-quality photograph of a residential neighborhood – Aldine Square, Chicago – that was demolished in 1938 to make way for the Ida B. Wells Homes. The image has high EV in its article and good composition; yes, the tree might be an obstructing element, and one of the few people has motion blurring, but the crispness and angled view of the neighborhood makes this a wonderful "day in the life" street view image from a bygone era, and is IMO more aesthetically pleasing than harsh sepia tones from the late 19th century.

Articles in which this image appears

Aldine Square, Chicago; Oakland, Chicago

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Historic American Building Survey, with cropping and restoration by John M Wolfson and Bammesk

• Support as nominator – – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. Needs restoration -- too many scratches (not sure what they're called) for a featured picture. Nythar (💬-❄️) 21:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nythar, can you describe which part(s) of the photo has these abnormal patches or scratched? Maybe I or someone else can remove them. Bammesk (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bammesk, zoom in on the front of these houses and if you look closely, you'll see very thin white lines. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I see them. Bammesk (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support – if the nom gets a couple of supports, I will clean up the scratches. Bammesk (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're going to tinker with it further, you might try lightening it up a little and increasing the contrast as well. You've got some room to work with before you blow out any of the highs, and it looks rather dull and dingy right now. That seems to me more of a problem than the scratches. Just my opinion, but a brighter version would probably get my support. Choliamb (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am Ok with adjusting the highs (but not darkening the lows). Let's see if the nom gets another support or two. Bammesk (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• New Alt added per Choliamb's comments. I wanted to stay faithful and go for less-aggressive corrections first (and am not the absolute expert on color balance, etc.), so I increased the contrast spread by 1% and the brightness by 10-15%. If this is inadequate, feel free to do more. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the alternative version. Choliamb (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support for Alt1 – The photo could be sharper, and the Aldine Square article is rather sparse. The building's main claim to notability seems to be that Jelly Roll Morton once lived there. – Sca (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the images has enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2022 at 03:03:13 (UTC)

Reason

As said last time: While I don't think the photo is perfect - it looks to me like his head moved very slightly - it's also a fairly iconic image of him, compare, say, [12], and his grave here, or this set of exhibition photos. I think the historic merit, the quality, and the paucity of images of him excuses some things. I'm also not entirely sure the issues aren't just down to him being African-American: I could totally see "darker skin, so longer exposure so the facial details come out". There also appears to be no better options.
I've done some additional work, applying a little sharpening to the face.

Articles in which this image appears

John Henry Turpin

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military

Creator

Unknown photographer, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 03:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – for the EV. Active career in uniform and tried to serve in WW2 at age 60+. The sharpness is bad (guessing it's scanned from a small print, plus motion blur) but it's a historic photo, so taking an exception on technical quality. Bammesk (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Good restoration, high EV. Yann (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Adam, what is that one tiny bright white spot between his lower right arm and his right leg? I'm guessing it's the edge of one of the stripes on the sleeve, but so little of it is visible that at first glance I thought it was a defect in the image. Now I see that it's not, but it's sufficiently distracting that I wonder if it would be better to just remove it? Not a big deal, and you may not want to go that far. I support it either way. Choliamb (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Rather not remove things that were there. Seems misleading. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 18:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. MER-C 20:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Nythar (💬-❄️) 02:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:John Henry Turpin, Chief Gunner's Mate, U.S. Navy, circa in the 1940s (NH 89471).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2022 at 03:12:58 (UTC)

Reason

Quality lead image of a defunct Chilean rail service. The railway was damaged beyond repair by severe rainfall in 2015 (not surprising given the terrain!). The railway was used for transporting Chilean caliche ore and nitrate to processing plants and ports. The city of Tocopilla is in the background to the right. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Tocopilla nitrate railway, Empresa de los Ferrocarriles del Estado

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

David Gubler

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a train, and a great view, so support. --Janke | Talk 18:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Striking composition, good EV --Tagooty (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 20:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Nythar (💬-❄️) 02:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - One tremor and that whole mountainside will be sliding into the sea. -- Veggies (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:SQM GE 289A Boxcab Carmelita - Reverso.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2022 at 03:21:32 (UTC)

Reason

Quality image of the blue-throated macaw in flight, an endangered species. (Was seen on Commons recently)

Articles in which this image appears

Blue-throated macaw

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Carsten Steger

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 20:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Nythar (💬-❄️) 02:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Well shot of a difficult subject. Kylesenior (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Impressively sharp for a photo in flight. Choliamb (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Carsten Steger (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Blue-throated macaw in flight.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2022 at 12:19:29 (UTC)

Reason

good quality, very high resolution reproduction

Articles in which this image appears

Zhou Fang (Tang dynasty)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art

Creator

Zhou Fang (730–810) / reproduction by the Freer Gallery of Art

• Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Good example of artist's work and court painting of the time. Impressive detail at full size. (500+ pixels per inch) Bammesk (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 11:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 16:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Zhou Fang. Court Ladies Playing Double-sixes. Freer Gallery of Art.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2022 at 07:20:52 (UTC)

Reason

Image is an archival-quality scan at high resolution. It is a primary illustration of the historic, near-lost film that the poster advertises. The colors and composition are appealing.

Articles in which this image appears

The Trooper of Troop K, Lincoln Motion Picture Company

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Lincoln Motion Picture Company, poster signed "Morgan"

• Support as nominator – Jno.skinner (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – According to the (400-word) target article, all that exists of this film is "a 15-second clip ... rediscovered embedded within another film." This really doesn't seem long enough to illustrate any historically significant bit of filmography for a general POTD audience. – Sca (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – very few of this production company's films have survived. I think the image can use a touch up. Hopefully Adam Cuerden will opine on that. Bammesk (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, around 75% of films from this era are lost. Jno.skinner (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's kinda blurry at full resolution. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 00:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – For historical importance. But does The Trooper of Troop K really need its own separate article? With the exception of By Right of Birth, which survives, the articles on the lost films listed in Lincoln Motion Picture Company are all short stubs. Perhaps it would be better if they were rolled into the main article on the company itself, which is also pretty short. They could always be split out again if more information ever turned up (unlikely, given the poor documentation of most films in the silent era, and race films in particular). Choliamb (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on scan quality. Image is blurrier than one would expect for a scanned poster at full resolution (seems to have been upsampled; no quality is lost by viewing the image at 75% size) and a digital restoration feels needed. I'm of the opinion that the article itself is likely fine on its own; contemporary coverage would likely be sufficient to expand the article. I know I relied heavily on contemporary sources when writing about other lost films.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I uploaded a restored and sharpened version (Alternate). Pinging the nominator and participants who had quality concerns for a second look. @Jno.skinner, Adam Cuerden, and Crisco 1492:. My vote is Conditional support if the quality concerns are allayed. I also added the image to the production company's article: [13]. Bammesk (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you! I replaced the file used in the article about the movie with your improved version. Jno.skinner (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Nice job on the restoration. Reodorant (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support ALT - That's quite an improvement! Overall the sharpening is done well, but the text beginning "a thrilling picturization" is slightly oversharpened. The area over the Morgan logo also looks like the poster was off the glass when scanning (note the discoloration and slight warp on the text). That being said, the scan is massively improved over what it was, and (as my editing history would suggest) I'm a sucker for film history.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About oversharpening in "thrilling.....", FWIW there is no spot sharpening. I applied the same sharpening to the entire image in one step or edit. Thanks for the review and happy holidays. Bammesk (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the images has enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2022 at 18:16:25 (UTC)

Reason

Very high-quality excerpt of a professional rendition of Henry Purcell's Dido and Aeneas by Les Arts Florissants

Articles in which this image appears

Lea Desandre, Dido and Aeneas, Henry Purcell, William Christie (musician), Les Arts Florissants (ensemble)

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Les Arts Florissants, uploaded by user:czar

• Support as nominator – czar 18:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Copyrighted, see end titles. Does the uploader have permission from all involved? Also self-promotion and ineligible, was uploaded just 3 days ago and added to article(s) yesterday. --Janke | Talk 10:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Janke & Sca, yes, by the ensemble itself. This is the ensemble very clearly releasing their own performance on their official channel. The compositions are hundreds of years old and out of copyright. Being added to articles yesterday doesn't make the nomination ineligible—that's only a preference. It will not be removed from all articles. I fail to see what is self-promotional about this video given its high educational value, rare quality for this open license, and minimal titling. czar 15:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Per Janke. – Sca (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I don't see anything wrong with the CC copyright license (check the Youtube release description, the copyright owner is releasing it with a CC license). I very much doubt the video will be removed from its two primary-EV articles, namely [14], [15]. As far as self-promotion, 1- the ensemble isn't uploading and nominating this video, 2- it isn't any different than FP images showing professional athletes playing their sport, or astronauts in spacesuit, but with the added benefit that this video has EV in two articles on art history (not just the articles of the individuals depicted, as is the case with photos of many athletes and astronauts). User:CZAR, since this is a recent upload, the file page has a copyright notice saying the copyright has not been reviewed by a Commons admin. In case this nom doesn't pass, I say wait until that notice is resolved and then renominate the video. Support, once the Commons review tag is resolved. Bammesk (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – I'm not as confident as others that this particular clip will stick in some of the articles into which it has just been inserted. In Dido and Aeneas it duplicates the existing audio file of Kirsten Flagstad's recording of the same aria, which (leaving aside cavils about "authentic" performance style) is a widely admired memento of the historic postwar production at the Mermaid Theater in London, which was arguably the most famous production of this opera in the 20th century. And in Henry Purcell, it's not clear (at least to me) what it is supposed to illustrate. The paragraph on Dido and Aeneas in that article focuses chiefly on the circumstances of the work's composition and its publication history; it mentions neither this aria nor any other specific musical passage. Even more perplexingly, the nominated clip does not appear anywhere near that paragraph; instead it has been inserted into the section at the end of the article devoted to Purcell "in popular culture", a motely collection of contemporary trivia where its presence seems especially gratuitous. Choliamb (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And then it'll still be in several other articles... Even if used primarily in the Lea Desandre and Les Arts Florissants article, it still has high encyclopedic and educational value. Placement within the article is a matter of routine editing. czar 03:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Yann (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Janke and Choliamb. Moreover, no-one has ventured to explain how it meets one of the essential FP criteria, namely "must add significantly [my bold] to at least one article on Wikipedia". I see no evidence of this criterion being met, or even argued. Being a 'very high-quality excerpt of a professional rendition' (which I do not dispute) is not the issue here: in what way does it add significantly to any of the articles into which it has been inserted? Choliamb's comments are particularly relevant in this respect. Smerus (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smerus, none of the other FPCs make such a rationale, if they give any rationale at all. Is it not abundantly clear that this is a high-quality example of the aria being performed by name-recognized (individually notable) performers? Is it not clear that it serves both to identify both the performers and the ensemble, for each of their articles? Is it not clear that in a copyright environment where performances are rarely released under free licenses, this video demonstrates, in high detail, each of the performers as they play their piece of the composition? To say it's unclear what it adds to these articles strikes me as disingenuous. If we need to pick one article to make the case, pick Lea Desandre. It's a world-class demonstration of her vocal performance. czar 21:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps Czar would care to explain what they mean by accusing my comment of disengenuiity. I did not make the rules for FP, nor is our concern in this discussion the qualification of other nominations for FP. Either the nomination meets the rules or it does not. This video, whilst it displays excellent music, does not seem to me to be in any way notable as a picture (which is what FP is about- "the finest images on Wikipedia" as you will see at WP:FP); no one in this discussion has indicated anything visually notable about it. If there was a Featured Video or Featured Performance item on WP, it might well qualify - but that is not what is under discussion. The video undoubtedly displays Desandre's abilities, but it does that aurally, not as a picture. Perhpas Czar could give examples of other videos which have been accepted as FPs (I am as it happens not myself aware of any) to assist us with the background of their nomination.--Smerus (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• About "examples of other videos", there are examples in the FP categories here, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] and others. The FP criteria allows for videos and animations, see the last bullet in criterion 2. On a different note, the instructions on top of the WP:FPC page require oppose votes be accompanied with a rationale. There is no such requirement for support votes, so generally a support rationale isn't the default. It is very common to disagree on what is and isn't "significant EV". The FP criteria isn't very clear on that. Personally I interpret "significant EV" as enhancing an article(s) (compared to other potential/possible visual media candidates), relating to the article's content, and knowing our articles are viewed by expert, non-expert, and novice readers alike. Also sometimes I go by "being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article" per instruction on top of the WP:FPC page. Bammesk (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2022 at 15:57:49 (UTC)

Reason

Technically not a flawless photo, but good enough and a good depiction of the article's topic, Wire bonding (a microscopic manufacturing technique). FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Wire bonding

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

Mister rf

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Super quality for a macro (almost micro) shot. Also, I see no ©-mark on the die, so we're good... (Some chips do have a © on them!) --Janke | Talk 17:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wow. A little halo-ing but nothing that isn't overcome by the spectacular detail and color here. -- Veggies (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. MER-C 11:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Carsten Steger (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Choliamb (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:07R01.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2022 at 01:39:45 (UTC)

Reason

Dazzling spectacle of the full Moon and Jupiter in a very clean sky, showing the darkness of the Universe. The moon looks amazing and brighter. Good quality picture for a semi-professional camera. Own work

Articles in which this image appears

None

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding

Creator

Viícius94

• Support as nominator – Vinícius O. (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Oppose – That tiny point of light that is Jupiter makes this image of questionable notability, IMO. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Low EV per Sca; not used in any article (criterion 5); image of moon lacks details. --Tagooty (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – per Tagooty, not used in any articles. Encyclopedic value? Bammesk (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – per above. --Janke | Talk 11:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2022 at 11:56:29 (UTC)

Reason

Was seen on Commons FPC two weeks ago, where it was featured unanimously.

Articles in which this image appears

House sparrow

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Rhododendrites

• Support as nominator – MER-C 11:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Passer domesticus is one of the most common birds in the world. Notability of this new infobox image? – Sca (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is already an FP of the male house sparrow, an image from 13 years ago that is lo-res. This is a case for "delist and replace". --Tagooty (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Much sharper than the old infobox pic. -- Sca (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with delisting the old FP. We have been using "delist and replace" to replace FPs with better versions of themselves, examples [21] [22]. We have been using regular noms followed by a delist nom to replace FPs with similar (but different) images. If you want to support, you can do it knowing that the older FP will go through a delist nom shortly after (and if) this nom passes. Bammesk (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with the understanding that the earlier FP will be nom for delisting if this nom is promoted. --Tagooty (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Per Tagooty (D&R). – Sca (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I struck the above vote. You can't vote twice, no exceptions! :-) Bammesk (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:House sparrow male in Prospect Park (53532).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2022 at 12:01:07 (UTC)

Reason

Was seen on Commons FPC two weeks ago, where it was featured unanimously.

Articles in which this image appears

Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Diego Delso

• Support as nominator – MER-C 12:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – czar 15:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Choliamb (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Great EV, an improvement in the article's infobox. – Sca (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- High EV and striking image --Tagooty (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Templo funerario de Hatshepsut, Luxor, Egipto, 2022-04-03, DD 13.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2022 at 03:17:31 (UTC)

Reason

An interesting artifact, a 50,000+ year old bone found in Slovenia, possibly the remains of a flute, but there is no consensus that it is a flute. It dates to a period when Neanderthals were dominant in Europe, and not modern humans. The artifact is held at the National Museum of Slovenia. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Divje Babe flute, +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others

Creator

Petar Milošević

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - high EV, high quality image. --Tagooty (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Petar Milošević (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Slightly insufficient DOF but otherwise OK. MER-C 19:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Divje Babe flute (Late Pleistocene flute).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2022 at 15:20:26 (UTC)

Reason

An eye-catching image of a precariously-balanced 250-ton boulder. Recently 5-day speedy promoted FP on Commons. It is the infobox image in the Wikipedia article on this boulder. Used in several other Wikipedia articles.

Articles in which this image appears

Infobox - Krishna's Butterball
Others - de:Mamallapuram • fr:Mahabalipuram • ta:கிருஷ்ணரின் வெண்ணெய்ப் பந்து • ta:மாமல்லபுரம்

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Tagooty

• Support as nominator – Tagooty (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – shows the subject of the article well (criterion 3). Its use in non-English articles doesn't count though. Bammesk (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the photo doesn't show the precarious position of the rock very well, I think this [23] gives a better idea of the (un)balance... --Janke | Talk 09:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Janke: The other image composition is cluttered with people, the rock is blurry. Overall, the nom image is more striking and higher quality, more worth featuring, IMO. --Tagooty (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Good quality but doesn't give any clue that this is not just a balanced rock, but half a rock with a clean break on the side away from the camera. ProfDEH (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 16:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Krishna Butterball Below Mahabalipuram Sep22 A7C 02490.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2022 at 23:59:02 (UTC)

Reason

Does have certain issues with blown highlights, but given the age, I think we can forgive that.

Articles in which this image appears

Mary Jackson (engineer) +1

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science_and_engineering

Creator

NASA, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 23:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – we do have a FP of her, but I wouldn't mind a portrait photo. Bammesk (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Reodorant (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sorry, but I have to oppose this one on EV grounds. Given that we have an excellent FP of her already with a much more natural composition in an engineering environment relevant to her profession, I fail to see what a bland portrait of her adds to the comprehensive value of her article. -- Veggies (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's been stable as lead for a while. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 02:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not opposed to it on stability grounds. Typically, infoboxes use portraits, rather than dynamic-composition photos, to illustrate the person in a bio article. I just don't feel it adds as much or more to the encyclopedic quality of the article than the FP photo we have of her already. It's a bland photo of a historical figure with much better alternative photos in the public domain. -- Veggies (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh, well, it's the third one I've done of her. Variety is good in illustration, and people disliked the wind tunnel one for some reason. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 03:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing special, very strained expression, and we have an FP already.Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mary Jackson 1979 Portrait (LRC-1979-B701 P-07085).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 02:20:39 (UTC)

Reason

Top view of the Grand Prismatic Spring. Technically not flawless, but good enough IMO, and used in many articles. We do have a FP of this site: here, a low resolution side view used in the infobox of the primary article. I think the higher resolution top view deserves a nomination. FP on Commons. If this nom passes, I will nominate the existing aerial FP for delist.

Articles in which this image appears

Grand Prismatic Spring, Carotenoid, Thermophile, Extremophile, Archaea, Geyser, +5

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Carsten Steger

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - detail lacking somewhat at the pixel level but partially mitigated by this being an aerial shot. MER-C 19:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - It looks decent, but we already have an FP-quality image of this place, which I feel is rather superior in EV. -- Veggies (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist older one and replace - I wasn't aware of the other aerial FP image. This one here is much better quality. If we can accept the possibility of multiple FPs of the same figure/object, then the older aerial image should be delisted in favor of this one. -- Veggies (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Veggies, about "delist and replace" see my comment in this recent nom. I will nominate the existing aerial FP for delist shortly after (and if) this nom passes. That image isn't used in any articles, so it will certainly be delisted. Bammesk (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, I wholeheartedly support. Thanks. -- Veggies (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not sure whether, as the creator of the image, I'm allowed to vote. I would like to comment that currently there is an aerial shot that is rated as an FP. While the present image is not technically flawless, IMO it is an improvement compared to the current aerial shot FP because the colors are closer to reality. Also, I believe the EV of the aerial shot is greater than that of the ground-based shot because the aerial shot allows one to see the inner structure of the spring. --Carsten Steger (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Carsten, yes you can vote. Examples: [24] [25]. Bammesk (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – The ground-level view and the aerial view are both very informative, in different ways. There are other subjects with more than one FP, and this image seems deserving to me on its own merits. Choliamb (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Carsten Steger (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Aerial image of Grand Prismatic Spring (view from the south).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 07:55:19 (UTC)

Reason

Shows the newly constructed road just below Shingo La, seems to be the best image showing a winding mountain pass road in the Himalayas of India.

Articles in which this image appears

India-China Border Roads

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Timothy Gonsalves

• Support as nominator – UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This image was recently promoted unanimously to FP on Commons. @UnpetitproleX: Thanks for the nomination. --Tagooty (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 19:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Nythar (💬-❄️) 21:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Darcha Padum Road Below Shinku La Lahaul Oct22 A7C 03533.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 15:53:46 (UTC)

Reason

The last nomination was back in October, when a lot of FPs were failing to reach quorum, and got to four supports. Since then, it's passed Commons FPC. Anyway, poster from the original production, so high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

The Duchess of Dantzic

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Percy Anderson, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 15:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – per previous nom. Bammesk (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Historically interesting. – Sca (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Nythar (💬-❄️) 21:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 19:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Choliamb (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Percy Anderson - Poster for The Duchess of Dantzic.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2022 at 07:15:51 (UTC)

Reason

One of the newest entries into the National Film Registry. A film that also had the first Hispanic actor, José Ferrer, to win an Oscar.

Articles in which this image appears

Cyrano de Bergerac (1950 film), Cyrano de Bergerac (play)

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Michael Gordon (film director)

• Support as nominator – GamerPro64 07:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Lapsed into PD decades ago, important movie & director, Oscar-winning actor. --Janke | Talk 19:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cyrano de Bergerac (1950).webm --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2022 at 12:17:03 (UTC)

Reason

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

Articles in which this image appears

Rambutan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits

Creator

Ivar Leidus

• Support as nominator – MER-C 12:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm surprised the photographer was able to get the seed as clean as it is... the flesh really sticks!  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Artem.G (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rambutans with seed.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2022 at 12:21:14 (UTC)

Reason

Was seen on Commons FPC two weeks ago, where it was featured unanimously.

Articles in which this image appears

Greater white-fronted goose

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Frank Schulenburg

• Support as nominator – MER-C 12:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Choliamb (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Carsten Steger (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This should be the lead image. I would support in that case. Yann (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but should have been moved to infobox before nomination. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Artem.G (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Greater white-fronted goose in flight-1045.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2022 at 18:12:20 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality picture. Beautiful view to dark hills of Rio de Janeiro on horizon and Guanabara Bay under the afternoon Sun fighting its way through the clouds.

Articles in which this image appears

Niterói

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Vinícius O.

• Support as nominator – Vinícius O. (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Was added to an article image gallery, not to the mainspace just seven days ago. As such, it has zero EV in illustrating the article in question. Further, the technical quality is atrocious. It was taken by a cell phone camera (and not a good one) and it shows. Serious image noise, noticeable tilt, poor white balance, and what I think is uncorrected radial distortion at the edges... and all for an uninspiring composition of some interesting terrain seen from too great a distance. The photo is more sky than anything else. -- Veggies (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose per above. Not exactly atrocious, that's a too strong word, simply just a mediocre, grainy snapshot, little or no EV. Janke | Talk 11:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Green-ish tint, poor composition, EV and exposure. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]