Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2023 at 13:15:40 (UTC)
Reason
Likely taken during the 2015 Paragliding World Cup, shows several paragliders in flight amidst the clouds above Bir; Himalayas visible in the distance.
Oppose as is. Zooming in and comparing it to the original image at the museum link here, the nom image is stitched from several smaller images and the stitching doesn't exactly line up with the original (there are small misalignments). I would support the original or a version derived directly from it (without stitching errors). Bammesk (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk: Looking at the nom version overlaid onto the original, I notice the sharpening and restoration work, but I didn't notice any stitching errors. Admittedly I don't have a trained eye for this sort of thing, but to me this seems like an edit of a single image. I think it would be better to ask the uploader directly (pinging OSeveno). Reodorant (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Reodorant:, never mind, I struck my oppose. I did more probing on the enlargements of the museum image (as displayed on their website, and enlarged even more in my software). The misalignments (stitching errors) are on the museum's image (not the nom image), probably because of how the image is loaded (displayed) by the zoom-in feature of the museum's website. Also, I added notes to the file page saying the image has been edited (that's needed for clarity). Hopefully Jahaza will upload the original TIFF as well. Bammesk (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. Although this is not living specimen, it is the best image to show what this spider looks like. – Yann (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I confirm that these are indeed their own colors, they are specific to this species… Thanks to Yann for this nomination. Am I allowed to vote for this image? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the reduced scale version on this page looks "muddy," but the full size version is nice. Maybe something technical can be done for the version to be used on the front page? Jahaza (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I thought so too, but watching it on another monitor looked much better. LCD screens vary in contrast for many reasons, one being viewing angle. Also, I like to keep my main screen gamma low, around 1.8. Most PCs use gamma 2.2, but that can cause loss of shadow detail. --Janke | Talk21:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2023 at 02:27:53 (UTC)
Reason
A good quality painting of John, Duke of Braganza (later King John IV of Portugal) wearing black clothes in contrast with the scenario in the background.
Comment – Good EV and valuable image. I am not sure about the pixel count, given the size of the painting. The resolution is 34 pixels per inch. That's not high for a painting (for registering the fine details). Bammesk (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in two parts. One, this scan has some dust issues and could use a minor touch-up. Second, the encyclopedic value for this image lies not in its depiction of a green pepper, but in being a notable photograph in and of itself. As such, I'd categorize this with other notable photographs in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2023 at 15:35:03 (UTC)
Reason
Quality lead image of this fish. About the composition, the article says: "It is a solitary and territorial species . . . . spends most of the day in cavities and clefts between rocks". FP on Commons.
Support - Even though it does not show the full body, it shows the behavior, adding EV. It also shows the head and parts of the body, meaning that it is highly informational. Jj1691 (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2023 at 01:59:37 (UTC)
Reason
Quality photo of the rotary dial telephone from around the mid-20th century. This was the common phone (I think it's safe to say for over two decades) before it was replaced with the push-button telephone.
Comment – What is the date of this model? The description that accompanies the nomination above suggests that it was the common model "around the mid-20th century", before it was replaced by the push-button phone. Perhaps that was the case in Belgium, but it certainly doesn't match my memory as someone who grew up in the US. To me this model looks like a phone from the 1930s or early 40s. In the US, the phones after World War II were all much squarer and boxier, and the model that ruled from the 1960s (when I was a kid) to the 1980s (when the push-buttons arrived) was the ubiquitous Western Electric model 500. I have no objection to this image, which is a nice photo of an attractive piece of machinery, but in order to have EV in the Telephone article it certainly requires a date. It is not enough to call it simply "an old rotary dial telephone", as the current caption does. What I think is old and what my nieces and nephews think is old are two very different things. – Choliamb (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About my description in the reason section above: The description is about rotary phones in general, not this particular model. Here is my 2 cents about this particular model: It's a Bell brand and Bell brand was made (produced) by Western Electric. So in its core the design is probably an offshoot of model 302 or model 500 made in a stylish body for the European market ("the ubiquitous UK model" per Charles below). Model 302 and 500 peaked from mid 1930s to mid 1970s, which makes them mid-20 century models. If I was to guess, I would say the nom model is a 1940s or 1950s model. Personally I don't think any of that matters, because the contribution of the image to the Telephone article (hence it's EV) is in depicting simply a rotary telephone (in contrast to other non-rotary types of phones). Bammesk (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Multiple trips of around 16hrs driving return to get this shot after first locating one in 2020! Article is pretty accurate: "This red-lored whistler is shy, secretive and inconspicuous, with its cryptic behaviour making it difficult to see." JJ Harrison (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sca's comment. It's certainly an arresting image qua image, but I'm not entirely sure what I'm looking at, or why the water in one half of the image appears to be frozen while the other half is not. I like the photo, and I could imagine hanging it on my wall, but because it borders on the abstract and is so hard to interpret, I'm skeptical about its EV, and I don't think it should be the infobox image in the article on the reserve. A photo like this one, while not as visually interesting, would (in my opinion) do a better job of illustrating what the landscape of the reserve is like. Choliamb (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sca. My first impression was that I'm seeing something rotting on the left side, and mold growing on the right side in a macro- or microphoto. Janke | Talk10:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2023 at 04:06:01 (UTC)
Reason
Quality image of San Pedro volcano (left) and San Pablo volcano (right) in northern Chile. San Pedro is number 19 on Wikipedia's list of tallest volcanoes by elevation above sea level. It has two adjacent cones, the old and the new. The old cone was active over 100,000 years ago and the new cone's last large eruption was around 10,000 years ago.
There is a one pixel black(ish) border on the right and bottom sides that is unlikely to be part of the painting and should be cropped out. MER-C03:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – For a photograph produced by the museum itself under optimal conditions, it's a little surprising to me that it isn't sharper at full resolution. It does reproduce well at normal screen sizes, though. Choliamb (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Highly detailed portrait of a widely known landmark. Pale haze in background provides good contrast. Now leads comprehensive 1,200-word article. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I assume that part of the reason why the article is so short is that the two sharp-tailed sparrows (Nelson's and Saltmarsh) were only split in 1995, and before that there was a lot of confusion about their relationship and their ranges. Still, there is now plenty of information available about both, and no reason why the article can't easily be expanded along the lines of the more detailed article on Saltmarsh sparrow. (In fact the taxonomy section of that article already contains a discussion of the evolutionary divergence of the two species which is equally applicable to Nelson's.) Choliamb (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It would be nice if it were more visible, but it's not entirely hidden; I can see the sharp tail feathers on the left side of the tail pretty clearly in this photo. Choliamb (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This is a terrific photograph of a bird that is very difficult to photograph well. Nelson's and Saltmarsh sparrows are both notorious skulkers; it's hard enough to get good looks at them, and even harder to get photos that combine good focus, proper exposure, and high resolution. Choliamb (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lovely photo. It amazes me that this bird still exists. You literally can't get any closer to extinction than a single breeding female. Choliamb (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have my qualms about the haloing, especially around the tail, but between the rarity of the species and overall composition, I'm happy to put the pixel peeping aside. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Her full name was Maria da Glória Joana Carlota Leopoldina da Cruz Francisca Xavier de Paula Isidora Micaela Gabriela Rafaela Gonzaga. She must have been important. – Sca (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the nominated image shows the queen at age 10. The infobox image in her article is a better FP candidate IMO, more EV (FP criterion 5). The file we have: here doesn't have a high enough resolution to pass a FP nomination, but there is higher resolution scan, high enough to pass FP, at this link (perhaps elsewhere too). Bammesk (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a gorgeous image, and rightly featured on Commons. Here, however... I find myself agreeing with Charles. The emphasis of the poster appears to be combat operations in continental Europe, rather than how British industry converted raw materials into the materiel necessary to continue the war. This may be due to the image's provenance; having been produced by the British Information Services in New York, and thus printed in the United States, it may have been intended more to get North Americans to contribute more to Britain's war efforts by highlighting how they are bringing the war to the Axis powers. Even the block of text at the lower-right is dedicated predominantly to the armed forces. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a fascinating image - it's notable, for instance, that it frankly shows that Allied bombers were firebombing German cities while the bombing of the occupied western European countries is shown as being focused on military and industrial targets. I agree though that the EV isn't strong in the only article it's currently being used in. Some discussion of the history of this image and what it sought to convey would also be helpful, as it's quite a complex graphic. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I may be in the minority here, but in spite of the partial obstruction by the roofs at the lower right, I actually prefer this photo to the alternative mentioned by Bammesk and endorsed by MER-C above, because this one has significantly more EV. The oblique view gives a much better sense of the building than a simple straight-on picture of the facade, which gives no hint of the shape and size of the structure behind it. Ideally, I'd like to see an image that combines an unobstructed oblique view without the distracting foreground roofs (like this one: File:Melk - Stift (2).JPG) with a greater resolution and sharpness than that photo provides. But given the choice, for the purposes of an encyclopedia, I feel strongly that a slightly flawed oblique view is better than a spectacular frontal view, in spite of the latter's enormous pixel count. Choliamb (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, and definitely a reason to keep this image in the article. I know that, when I was still doing photography, I'd try and get multiple images and angles for exactly that reason. If the rooftops weren't as intrusive, I might even agree with you... but in this case, it feels as though you'd want to get three or four meters up to get the best image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I share your reservations about this photo, which is why I offered my comment as a comment rather than a support vote. The problem, as this photo from further away makes clear, is that if you back up enough to get the roofs out of the way, you're likely to end up in the river. What is really needed, as you say, is an extra few meters of height. But the image I linked to in my original comment (File:Melk - Stift (2).JPG, also taken from across the river) shows that it is in fact possible to get a photo that avoids the roofs and still conveys more information than a strictly frontal view. If I were looking for a photograph to use in the classroom, that's the one I would probably choose. And although it seems a little soft when you look at it at full resolution, I would be more likely to support it for FP than the current candidate (or than the frontal view, which is admittedly spectacular on its own terms). Choliamb (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Technically, this is a good reproduction. But as a portrait... the angle of the face makes him seem larger than he is in any of his other portraits on Commons, making me question whether this has sufficient encyclopedic value for FP. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Given the size of this painting, I'd expect a digitization of this resolution to be pin-sharp. However, this digitization is blurry at full size. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – High quality image of one of the most famous works by the finest 18th-century portrait painter in North America. Plus a flying squirrel! The very opposite of meh. :) Choliamb (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good nom candidate, but per Janke and MER-C it needs a restoration, and preferably an upload of the original TIFF file as well. Bammesk (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are we sure about accuracy the colours? This seems close to "pure" white in a few areas, such as the lace around her right shoulder, and that suggests to me that the contrast balance was changed (and maybe saturation as well). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Full supportafter a of the crop, thus: from the bottom, cut at the top of the knuckle at right, from the right, cut at the top thumb-tack - see sample. High EV: leading image in article, pretty good quality for its age and 35 mm negative. Janke | Talk18:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not believe we should crop archive photos or photos by living photographers. We should assume the photographer wanted it as it is. This image is ruined by the hand in the foreground, but should not be cropped (or cloned). Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop only. We have a history of allowing digital manipulation when the image is not the subject of an article in and of itself. Restorations remove dust and smudges, uploaders adjust contrast and balance levels (mostly for digital images, but I have had to use it for images I scanned personally), etc. In this case, an argument can readily be made that the extraneous arm was not a deliberate part of the composition, but rather an "action" shot of an architect by a landscape/architectural photographer who saw the opportunity and took it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the nominated version and did an upload. The image had already been partially (mostly) restored by Yann. I also uploaded the original TIFF from the Library of Congress. If the nom passes, we can upload a lossless crop (as a separate file). Pinging supporters for a second look @TheFreeWorld, Janke, Yann, MER-C, and Crisco 1492:. Bammesk (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see sufficient consensus, I uploaded the restored and cropped version as a separate file. I added it to the nom and the biography article. Bammesk (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have a really hard time making up my mind about this photo. The EV is not ideal: a particular weakness (due to the lighting and the position of the animal, not the fault of the photographer) is that it doesn't really show off the distinctive red and white color pattern of the coat on the face and chest as clearly as some other images, like File:Canis_simensis.jpg, for example. But that photo is a non-starter as far as image quality goes, and the same is true of almost all of the other 120 or so photos of this species at the Commons, which are variously beset with problems like low resolution, lens blur, etc. Pretty much the only one that can compare with the nominated photo in image quality is a gorgeous shot of a reclining wolf (File:Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis citernii) 2.jpg), and when I clicked on it I found that Charles took that one too. Charles, I'm guessing that you felt that the reclining one wasn't suitable for FP because it doesn't show the whole animal? You may be right, but it's a beautiful photo, IMO much more striking than the one you nominated, and because it shows more clearly some details that are distinctive or unique to this species, like the coloration and the ears, I think one could argue that it's not inferior in EV. If you had nominated that one, I would have supported it without much hesitation (although I am aware that others may feel differently).