| Featured picture tools |
|---|
Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 12:30:11 (UTC)
2016 POY Finalist
- Reason
- Underwater close-up profile shot of a spotted trunkfish in its natural reef environment, high EV, and a 2016 POY Finalist
- Articles in which this image appears
- Spotted trunkfish, Ostraciidae
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
- Creator
- Atsme
- Support as nominator – Atsme📞📧 12:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment – camera's resolution is 3,264×2,448 px, how is the image height 2,749 pixels? Bammesk (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Incremental upscaling/resampling, then cropped. Atsme📞📧 04:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Incremental upscaling/resampling, then cropped. Atsme📞📧 04:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support – --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support excellent. Both my POTY finalists got rejected here, so hope this doesn't happen to you! Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Uh oh...I hope so, too. Knock on wood - I've been quite fortunate to have worked with qualified collaborators here and at Commons regarding the u/w images I've nominated. I'm of the mind that unlike the way we typically judge images at Commons, the priority here focuses more on EV and an image's level of importance to an article. I occasionally experience a bit of resistence to u/w images in both venues because most of the editors involved in promoting an image are nondivers which tends to make them more inclined to look for tripod perfection and deeper DOF, neither of which are realistic options for u/w photography, simply because so much of what we shoot is macro or within 2-3 ft. of the subject. Things like light refraction, loss of colors with depth, surge, current and back scatter can be quite formidable, not to mention the time alloted by a single tank of air. I do love a challenge, though. Atsme📞📧 02:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- I am an experienced diver (250+ dives) but don't take underwater photos. But they can be amazing, as you show. My daughter is a dive instructor and uses a Go-Pro for some nice action shots. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Uh oh...I hope so, too. Knock on wood - I've been quite fortunate to have worked with qualified collaborators here and at Commons regarding the u/w images I've nominated. I'm of the mind that unlike the way we typically judge images at Commons, the priority here focuses more on EV and an image's level of importance to an article. I occasionally experience a bit of resistence to u/w images in both venues because most of the editors involved in promoting an image are nondivers which tends to make them more inclined to look for tripod perfection and deeper DOF, neither of which are realistic options for u/w photography, simply because so much of what we shoot is macro or within 2-3 ft. of the subject. Things like light refraction, loss of colors with depth, surge, current and back scatter can be quite formidable, not to mention the time alloted by a single tank of air. I do love a challenge, though. Atsme📞📧 02:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support --PetarM (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Promoted File:Spotted Trunkfish.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 00:07:29 (UTC)
_-_left_hand_screen.jpg)
_-_right_hand_screen.jpg)
- Reason
- The Pine Trees screen (Shōrin-zu byōbu, 松林図 屏風) is a pair of six-panel folding screens (byōbu) by the Japanese artist Hasegawa Tōhaku. These timeless classic images of Japanese art are widely used, and already featured on Commons and :ja.
- Articles in which this image appears
- (left panel) Shōrin-zu byōbu (article on the work), Byōbu (type of work - a folding screen), Hasegawa Tōhaku (artist), typical of the Hasegawa school, Ma (negative space), Buddhist art in Japan, List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)
- (right panel) History of painting, Culture of Japan, Ink wash painting, Landscape painting, History of Asian art, Japanese painting, Japanese aesthetics, List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings), Japanese pine, Shōrin-zu byōbu
- FP category for this image
- Artwork/East Asian art
- Creator
- Uploaded by User:Bamse, from Emuseum
- Also
- My first time trying this process, so please excuse screw-ups!
- Support as nominator – Theramin (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support everyone. Theramin (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment – Correction below per Janke and Bamse.
there are stitching or scan jumps where the panels meet, visible at full size, for instance on the top image labeled "Original – Left panel" the jumps are at (x,y)=(2855,855), (2855,2375), (2855,3900), (2855,5425), (2855,6955) pixels relative to top left corner. Similar jumps where the other panels meet. Also an artifact at (x,y)=(5600,25). The bottom image has similar artifacts. Not sure if this is a dis-qualifier though. Bammesk (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Are you sure they are stitching artifacts? They don't look like that, rather like cuts & folds in the canvas keeping the parts together when zig-zag-folded. --Janke | Talk 07:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- I also suspect that these are due to the folding mechanism rather than stitching artifacts. A few points to support this:
- (i) they only appear at every second connection (i.e. between the 1st and 2nd, between the 3rd and 4th and between the 5th and 6th panels), which makes sense if you consider that the screens are zig-zag folded
- (ii) if they were stitching errors, why would they appear at such particular spots?
- (iii) what you call "artifacts" looks a lot like the connection in this image (though I don't know if this screen actually uses such hinge)
- (iv) in any case, whatever they are, they don't affect the artwork at all bamse (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. Thanks for fixing my bad. At full size (100%) the spots looked abnormal. But now zooming in at 200% they look like an integral part of the canvas/artwork. Bammesk (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support – inline citations in article Shōrin-zu byōbu would be nice. Bammesk (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support – Fulfils criteria. --Janke | Talk 05:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Very nice scan but I am concerned the main article will be deleted as it has no inline citations whatsoever, which would then reduce the EV. Mattximus (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Atsme📞📧 02:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support Gnosis (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Promoted File:Hasegawa Tohaku - Pine Trees (Shōrin-zu byōbu) - left hand screen.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Promoted File:Hasegawa Tohaku - Pine Trees (Shōrin-zu byōbu) - right hand screen.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 09:22:25 (UTC)
.JPG)
- Reason
- illustrates article clearly. FP on Commons
- Articles in which this image appears
- Savanna hawk, Daggett's eagle
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- charlesjsharp
- Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support – inline citations in article Savanna hawk would be nice. Bammesk (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- sorry, not sure what you want me to do @Bammesk:. I'm not an ornithologist. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- It is a suggestion, not a requirement. I figured nominators are more likely to have an interest in the subject of the article. I had to look up ornithologist!! you never know how many "logists" there are! I found an online source, I think I can do something. Bammesk (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- too much else to do!!. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support Atsme📞📧 02:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support – Looks good to me! Mattximus (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Colors, background. --PetarM (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Promoted File:Savanna hawk (Buteogallus meridionalis).JPG --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 09:34:53 (UTC)
_mating_female_typica.jpg)
- Reason
- These are the UK's smallest damselflies and fly weakly close to the ground, often on boggy ground, making photographing them a soggy experience. High EV even though the image is not the lead picture. FP on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Small red damselfly
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
- Creator
- charlesjsharp
- Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support Atsme📞📧 02:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 03:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2017 at 23:24:14 (UTC)
- Reason
- As the earlier one appears to be going well, I thought I would try another timeless classic image of Japanese art. The Broken Ink Landscape scroll ([haboku sansui-zu] Error: {{nihongo}}: text has italic markup (help), 破墨山水図) is a splashed-ink landscape painting on a hanging scroll. It was made by the Japanese artist Sesshū Tōyō in 1495, in the Muromachi period. The ink wash painting is a National Treasure of Japan and is held by the Tokyo National Museum.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Just Haboku sansui for the full image, but an extract showing just the main landscape painting, without the accompanying poems, also appears on Buddhist art in Japan, List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings), haboku (illustrating hatsuboku), and Sesshū Tōyō.
- FP category for this image
- Artwork/East Asian art
- Creator
- User:Bamse from Emuseum
- Support as nominator – Theramin (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support - AGF on this, because the large image viewer isn't working. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support Original. The bottom image is an extract (derivative, crop) of the top image labeled "Original", so I doubt we need it as a FP. I checked the top image at full size and found nothing unusual. Bammesk (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC) . . . P.S. inline citations in article Haboku sansui would be nice.
- Support Original only. I am concerned that the article will be deleted as there are no inline citations, reducing the EV. Mattximus (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 00:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2017 at 23:50:16 (UTC)
- Reason
- My third and likely last nomination of an iconic image of Japanese art, for the time being at least. Irises (紙本金地著色燕子花図, kakitsubata-zu) is a pair of six-panel folding screens (byōbu) by the Japanese artist Ogata Kōrin of the Rinpa school, from 1702, and now held by the Nezu Museum in Tokyo. They are shown in the reverse of the current (2004) 5000 yen note. While the originals remained in Japan, it is believed that a woodcut reproduction may influenced the Impressionist works of Vincent van Gogh, including his Irises.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Both panels are used in Irises screen, but there are versions in other articles, from Ogata Kōrin and Byōbu to List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) and Genroku bunka. Some of these should probably be replaced.
- FP category for this image
- Artwork/East Asian art
- Creator
- Uploaded by commons:User:Bigjap from the Nezu Museum
- Support as nominator – Theramin (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Below the minimum resolution. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - per Crisco, well below min resolution. Mattximus (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I am relatively new at this, so may I ask, what "minimum resolution" is being applied here? The first two panels are 2,000×835 and 2,009×830, and the third one is 3,904×1,636 pixels. I see WP:FP? indicates a minimum of 1,500 pixels in width and height, subject to exceptions. The third one, at least, meets the minimum, surely? And given these works are held in the private collection at the Nezu Museum, how would you propose that we secure a higher resolution image? Do we have to wait for the museum to release one with an appropriate licence? Theramin (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- We would either have to have someone at Nezu take images, or wait for the Museum to release a higher resolution digitization. Exceptions to the minimum resolution are only rarely granted; indeed, images such as painting digitizations are often held to a higher standard. I think there's only a couple exceptions made a year.
- I am relatively new at this, so may I ask, what "minimum resolution" is being applied here? The first two panels are 2,000×835 and 2,009×830, and the third one is 3,904×1,636 pixels. I see WP:FP? indicates a minimum of 1,500 pixels in width and height, subject to exceptions. The third one, at least, meets the minimum, surely? And given these works are held in the private collection at the Nezu Museum, how would you propose that we secure a higher resolution image? Do we have to wait for the museum to release one with an appropriate licence? Theramin (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't get behind the ALT as it is clearly oversaturated. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- The original alternate was CMYK, which doesn't handle well in a browser. I replaced it with a RGB conversion (no other changes), and sure enough, the saturation dropped... (Remember to purge the page cache!) --Janke | Talk 07:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Janke. That looks much better. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Fine, so I guess that means the two original images are hopeless? I'll let you all decide between yourselves whether the third one qualifies or not. Theramin (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Would need the other panel in hi-res in order to qualify, not complete with just one... --Janke | Talk 06:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- The original alternate was CMYK, which doesn't handle well in a browser. I replaced it with a RGB conversion (no other changes), and sure enough, the saturation dropped... (Remember to purge the page cache!) --Janke | Talk 07:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't get behind the ALT as it is clearly oversaturated. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 00:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2017 at 20:41:17 (UTC)
_male_underside.jpg)
- Reason
- quality image illustrating the article. FP on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Leptotes pirithous
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
- Creator
- Charlesjsharp
- Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 22:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose – not used in any article in the English wikipedia, and we already have a FP of this here nominated a month ago. Bammesk (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)... struck per below. Bammesk (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- My error @Bammesk:, I linked to wrong article. Different species. sorry. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support Sandvich18 (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Promoted File:Lang's short tail blue (Leptotes pirithous) male underside.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2017 at 20:59:36 (UTC)
_female_head.JPG)
- Reason
- The head of this bird is its defining feature. FP on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Bare-faced curassow
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- charlesjsharp
- Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 22:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support Bruce1eetalk 08:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support This is a high quality image with strong EV Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Promoted File:Bare-faced curassow (Crax fasciolata) female head.JPG --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2017 at 10:56:45 (UTC)
- Reason
- Passes W3C validation, meets all other criteria for an SVG diagram. Previous nomination failed to earn enough "Support" votes to qualify, have now revised it greatly. Already a featured picture and a finalist for Picture of the Year 2016 on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Limpet, Patellogastropoda
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
- Creator
- KDS4444
- Support as nominator – KDS4444 (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment – I'm not sure about the black background, even more so if it's a gradient. Why did you change it? Other than that, I think it looks great. Sandvich18 (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
OpposeBetter and clearer with white background. lNeverCry 22:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)- Comment - I'd support with a white background. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- It looked to me like the shell was coming out odd-looking with a white background, and that its presence was clearer without it. Right now, however, this doesn't look so bad, so I have changed it back to white again. Thoughts? @Sandvich18:, @INeverCry: KDS4444 (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- The labels look disorganized (text alignment is inconsistent and looks disorganized, positioning of the lines can be adjusted to make them look more organized, some lines terminate on the shadow area). Bammesk (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Looks much better! I agree with Bammesk, though - sometimes the label is too far from the end of its corresponding line, and there shouldn't be any text on the shadow. Speaking of the shadow, could it be stretched a bit to the left? Sandvich18 (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm leaning towards oppose, but there are just some small issues with the text aligning with the line that can be fixed. Look at dorsal food channel, that text seems to be floating quite far from any line. It just looks disorganized. Mattximus (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Mattximus: You are leaning towards oppose... because of the location of some of the lines, a thing fairly easy to fix. Do you or does anyone have any problems with the drawing, which is the centerpiece of the illustration? Because I can fix the placement of lines if you do not like how they are on the page, and I can change the size and location of the text if it "seems disorganized", but what I would like to hear, now that I have worked on the illustration for over two years, is that you support the drawing as a Wikipedia Featured Picture, and have some fairly minor concerns over the text and lines 'n' such! I created this drawing out of thin air— I drew it from some simple black-and-white 2-dimensional 100-year-old biology text book pictures and augmented with colors taken from some more-recent overhead photographs to create a rendition of this animal in the way it looks in vivo, alive in its shell, in a way it can never be photographed and has never before been drawn, and the result is technically highly accurate and very complex, and I think it is worth being a featured picture on Wikipedia. Could we make that the issue, while I go back and switch around the lines and labels (which I will be glad to do)? KDS4444 (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what you want, if I say the word support then that means I support the entire image, not just part of it. So I can't do that until the words and lines are fixed, and some other minor issues (where is the mouth? does it have one eye or two? Is it actually an eye? Why is it tentacles (plural), and not cerebral ganglia? etc...). The picture is very nice if that is what you want, but the procedure here is to only support if/when everything in the image is perfect. Mattximus (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- KDS4444: I see the changes, much better. May I suggest a couple of things: 1- now that the font is smaller, many (most) labels can be single line text (not double), that way there won't be any misalignment in the left/right justification of text lines, BTW not all browsers display SVG text and text alignment exactly the same, single lines eliminate one browser factor/freedom. 2- once the text is mostly single line, then perhaps (or perhaps not) some of the text and associated lines can be brought in closer to the shell (centerpiece), not too close to congest things, but closer than you have now. I am leaning to support, but I like to see at least suggestion #1 implemented. Bammesk (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC) .. cleaned up reply. Bammesk (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Have now placed all text on individual lines, have distinguished "left" or "right" for those labeled organs which are bilateral, and have rearranged some of the labels and lines so that they should be easier to associate with each other. It looks like it is rendering correctly when viewed in a browser window, though the Commons PNG version of the file still seems to be putting too much space between some of the labels and the lines. If anyone has suggestions on this, I am open to trying to fix it. Are there any other aspects that I should still try to adjust or fix? KDS4444 (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- About too much space between labels and lines . . . You need to "right-justify" the text in those instances. Currently all your labels are left-justified. See the first couple of minutes of this video. Also, it helps to center-justify some of the labels, for instance "Digestive gland", and others as you see fit. A couple of other minor fixes: "stato-cyst" has an extra dash, "Perivisceral lobe" has an extra space between the two words. You can always renominate the image if you run out of time. Bammesk (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC) . . . BTW labels look fine on your other FPs: [2], [3], [4]. Bammesk (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- ...Or I can convert the text to outlines, since this will finally preserve my original intentions with regard to the text (I had much of the text right justified already, but it refused to appear that way in the PNG version of the image). I think this will resolve concerns with regard to the appearance of the text, though it looks like it will be too late to save this nomination, as two support votes (one from me) and one oppose does not bode well for a 3rd nomination, does it... And I do not know what more to do. The wall seems to be brick and my head is getting contused. KDS4444 (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Everything looks great, that's a Support vote from me. And I believe INeverCry's vote could be overlooked since it's pertaining to an older version of this image. Let's hope it gets promoted! Sandvich18 (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support I think this is a great diagram, and I think most of the concerns above have been addressed - it would be a shame for it to fail again due to lack of quorum. TSP (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- (Looking again, I think this actually already reaches quorum? I'd missed Sandvich18 and Bammesk's support votes because they were in the discussion.) TSP (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yay! Yes, I think we are there now. KDS4444 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Promoted File:Saltwater Limpet Diagram-en.svg --Armbrust The Homunculus 11:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2017 at 22:37:12(UTC)
- Reason
- The cathedral of the Incarnation in Granada is a magnificient example of the 15-16th century architecture of southern Spain. Unique 300 degree-wide panorama shows the majority of its interior, with carefully tuned HDR to maintain perception of depth while keeping all features of the illuminated ceiling and pillars, as well as the details in the darker side chapels.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Granada_Cathedral
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Creator
- User:FDominec, using Hugin
- Support as nominator – FDominec (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I would prefer this sort of image with no tourists and it doesn't appear to be of the same quality that we often see of Church interiors. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – Despite the size of the image, detail is definitely substandard. Perspective seems a bit skewed too. Sca (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Whoa, terrible pixelation makes it very hard to see any detail. Mattximus (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. --Z 12:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Weak support - --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2017 at 18:34:27 (UTC)
_-_Dome_interior.jpg)
- Reason
- Famous dome of Rome
- Articles in which this image appears
- Pantheon
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Creator
- LivioAndronico (talk)
- Support as nominator – LivioAndronico (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose because of the slightly tight crop on the right border. --Z 12:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Why MSM? Too much work explain? --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Livioandronico2013: He's blocked for 6 months...
lNeverCry 05:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support Could use a very slight crop at left or a little more space at right to even things out. lNeverCry 05:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Done INeverCry and Z. Better? Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)- Unfortunately that would hide the lowest row of the cavities. --Z 11:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- The far right side, particularly the lower right area is too soft, it is noticeable compared to other areas. It might be a lens issue, if you used a kit lens, that might be the reason. Bammesk (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
_-_Dome_interior.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Dome_interior.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 02:11:22 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- With George Romero's resent passing, looking at his image I thought it meets the criteria for Featured Picture status.
- Articles in which this image appears
- George A. Romero, It (miniseries), Millennium (The X-Files), +2
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
- Creator
- Flickr
- Support as nominator – GamerPro64 02:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor photo (framing, etc.) --Z 12:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – Romero has been nominated for listing only under Recent Deaths on WP:ITN/C. There has been some discussion at ITN about running mugs with notable RD listings, but so far the idea hasn't been accepted. If it were accepted, that's where this pic. (much cropped) would be appropriate. Looks like this 2009 pic. has been in the infobox at George A. Romero for quite some time, so it's not really "adding" any EV now. Sca (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Z. Shame we can't get anything better now (unless we reach out to a professional photograph who did work with Romero) but this is too far below the quality threshold. I have no idea what Sca's rambling has to do with the FP criteria; ITN has nothing to do with this process, and Romero's physical appearance did not change too much between 2009 and his death. Length of time an image has been in an infobox is generally viewed as a positive, rather than a negative. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- • Please see WP:NP.
- Criterion No. 5 – Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article.
- Note that adds is a present-tense verb. The criterion does not say added. As mentioned above, the photo is eight years old, and it needs cropping. Sca (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood that criterion. If it has been in the article for quite a while it adds to the EV because it's stable, and hasn't been replaced suggesting no better alternative has been found. It's a good thing if it's been there for so many years, it indicates that it is likely the best photo we have at the moment. Mattximus (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, Sca misunderstood the criteria. "Adds significant encyclopedic value" means compared to no image being present, not "compared to ten years ago" or "compared to last month". In fact, stability is often used as evidence of encyclopedic value at FPC, something that Sca -- who has commented at this venue frequently for at least three years now -- should know.
- Compare the similar wording at WP:NFCC: "[images] ... significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The only difference is that the NFCC is explicit with the clause "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", whereas the FP? considers itself already clear. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood that criterion. If it has been in the article for quite a while it adds to the EV because it's stable, and hasn't been replaced suggesting no better alternative has been found. It's a good thing if it's been there for so many years, it indicates that it is likely the best photo we have at the moment. Mattximus (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- • No one is proposing removing the image from Romero. Thus, to speak of the article without his pic. is a red herring. And yes, FP's should be images that are new or recent to English Wikipedia. This reflects the basic reader-interest factor of timeliness.
- • In this case, the nominator may be a fan of Romero's work who felt moved to nominate this photo when he died (on July 16). This is speculation on my part, but if correct it's not a valid reason, IMO, for nominating the photo as a main page feature. Among other considerations, it's likely that, if promoted, it would not appear until some weeks or months after the subject's death – in which case it would not be timely topically either. (Hence, there's been discussion of running mugs with RD-only listings at ITN.)
- • As to ITN having nothing to do with FPs, au contraire: Both are fixtures on the main page of Wikipedia – our front page – seen by millions daily. Sca (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- "FP's should be images that are new or recent to English Wikipedia" this is simply not true, nor has it ever been true, nor do I see it becoming a rule in the future. Where did you get this information from? Mattximus (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm with Mattximus; Sca, I think you're way off here. There is no requirement at all that "FP's should be images that are new or recent to English Wikipedia", just as there is no requirement that FAs, FLs, and so on need to be new to the English Wikipedia. That's not part of the criteria and it's not something I've ever seen playing a factor in discussions here before. If you feel it should be part of the criteria, you can propose it, but I can't see the proposal getting far. (Also, FP and POTD are separate; there's nothing stopping us promoting images to FP status but holding them from the main page if there is a genuine worry.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Not properly cropped. --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 03:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 03:54:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- Quality image of a recent geological event. A rift in Antarctic ice, photographed November 2016, expected to break into an iceberg in 2017. Possibly the first stage of a process that could raise sea levels by 4 inch (10 cm). The airplane engines help establish the viewing angle / position. Good EV, photo is discussed in the article Larsen ice shelf.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Larsen ice shelf, 2017 in science
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
- Creator
- NASA, photo by: John Sonntag, upload by: User:Melikamp
- Support as nominator – prefer original. Bammesk (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment- Please select other image where third objects don't distract. --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment – I don't necessarily object to seeing the aircraft engines at the side, but the framing of this shot is unfortunate, with the rift also off to one side and too great an expanse of snowy ice on the other. Sca (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support - It is a very rare photograph showing the rift. The quality is not that great as there are some CAs, but the EV is so high that I am willing to overlook those. Nikhil (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The engines are not right for this type of photo. There must surely be a better one somewhere. Also caption is misleading. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- I sourced the caption, please feel free to edit (reword, improve) the caption. Bammesk (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- How about a vertical crop? Crop out the engine at left, and balance by cropping at right - file is large enough... --Janke | Talk 17:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- This photo is a documentary so I prefer keeping it as is. (but I have no objection if alternatives are introduced) Bammesk (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support I don't mind the aircraft. This photograph was all over the place when they first announced the rift so the EV is exceptional. I don't find much wrong with the quality either. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think it would be improved by cropping on the right, to get the rift more or less in the center. Sca (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- I introduced an alternate. Will create a file version if/when needed. Bammesk (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think it would be improved by cropping on the right, to get the rift more or less in the center. Sca (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support Alt. 1 – Now we're looking at what we're looking at. Sca (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support original pretty much per Etienne: this is probably the best-known photo of this topic, and does a good job of illustrating it. The engines aren't ideal, but do make for an interesting shot. I prefer the original to the crop as it more clearly displays the scale of the rift. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support original -- Historical moment. Don't mind the engine. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support original - better sense of scale with the wide shot. Mattximus (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support original - great one! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Promoted File:LarsenC photo 2016315 lrg.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2017 at 09:16:48 (UTC)
.JPG)
- Reason
- High definition image illustrates article well. FP on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Rufous-tailed flycatcher
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Charlesjsharp
- Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 05:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support – Good comp and lighting; nice color balance. Sca (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Nice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support – Another great picture. Sandvich18 (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support – very nice. Bammesk (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support – per nom. Mattximus (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support – Yet another awesome picture of a bird species! Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- • It's such a charming photo that hate to mention this, but I just noticed that the article is the very briefest of stubs. Assuming the pic. will be promoted, it would be good not to run it until someone, hopefully, upgrades the article. Sca (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Promoted File:Rufous-tailed flycatcher (Myiarchus validus).JPG --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2017 at 07:55:48 (UTC)
- Reason
- Freely licensed image, meets all the requirements for an SVG file. See description on Commons for more about the significance/ juicy details of the image (like, What are there all those funny keyhole things in the enamel? and is the dentin really shaped like that? and this is why I need to brush more, and floss, etc.).
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tooth decay
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
- Creator
- KDS4444
- Support as nominator – KDS4444 (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 05:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Makes me think of the waiting room at Dr. Kanne's office – he of the low-speed drill. Sca (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Weak opposeI'm a bit particular for images like these. I wonder where the nerves came from, the just sort of materialize near the base of the tooth. They should be similar to the vasculature. Mattximus (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Have added lines to indicate path of nerve (which more or less parallels that of the blood vessels). This puts it in line with (really, ahead of) most textbook images of a decaying tooth (see here for a long list of examples that aren't quite as good!). KDS4444 (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Darn. KDS4444 (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2017 at 14:04:04 (UTC)
_underside.JPG)
- Reason
- illustrates article well. FP on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Anartia jatrophae
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
- Creator
- Charlesjsharp
- Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 05:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- The upper right corner needs a touch-up. Bammesk (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oops, amazing no-one else noticed it! Thanks, @Bammesk: Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Mattximus (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful! Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Promoted File:White peacock (Anartia jatrophae jatrophae) underside.JPG --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)