Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2019 at 07:46:02 (UTC)
Scene 1
Scene 2
Reason
They're two of very few - possibly the only - free images for this work, and are rather good ones. Focus more on the sets than the scenes, but hint at most of the objects that come to life, save the animals in the garden. This was nominated once before, but fell into one of those weeks no-one was around. It passed on Commons by Rule of the 5th day, though, and, if anything, I'd have thought Commons would judge this much more harshly.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 11:35:04 (UTC)
Reason
Good descriptive picture to a well-sourced article on the most controversial boat launched from the vessel with only 12 on board (out of them 10 were men, and out of them 8 crew members).
Change to Oppose - Sca Reading above I understand why it doesn't meet criteria. Close it if needed. Kind regards and looking for further good pictures! --LLcentury (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Change to oppose - Since I don't have a clue idea on how to fix a picture, I regret the nomination. Kind regards & Best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2019 at 16:28:48 (UTC)
Reason
Huge encyclopedic value. The extent of the photo's significance to the events has even been written about in e.g. The Guardian and The Sydney Morning Herald. Seems like a good example of EV outweighing some elements on the technical side that would typically prevent an image from being promoted. See also the Signpost.
Support. This is a case of the picture of itself being an item of interest - and this is partially because of the technical imperfections. The nominator's claim of high EV holds up. --LukeSurltc08:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oppose – This depicts an emotionally charged recent event, and the image captures that. However, I wonder how much the original image was manipulated for effect – the hands for instance. Color? Saturation? In other words, is this a picture of how things really were? – Sca (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hear your concern, but I would argue (as others have) that the EV of the image outweighs those technical concerns. However, if you still have outstanding issues, what solution would you propose? Cwilson97 (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2019
From the Guardian and Sydney Morning Herald stories above we have a pretty detailed account of how the image was taken. "The photo, which first appeared on a city council Twitter feed, appeared as taken with barely any touch-ups or editing." —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you are opposing because of ... a feeling of wondering if something is manipulated? The hands in particular? What evidence do you have for this (and/or that the accounts in the publications are lying/misleading)? Are you saying the hands are copied in? Or just that the saturation was changed (as it has been for many or even most FPs, to some degree). Oppose because you think the technical specs are more important than the broad press coverage this has received reporting on the significance of the photo to the events, or because they're wrong, but not because of some hunch of bad faith on the part of the photographer or some allusion to [over-?]post-processing. There are plenty of valid reasons to oppose this one -- it's the quality is not typical of FPs, after all -- but this one I don't get. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the picture does not really describe either of the main topics, but is tangentially related to both, so I do not see strong EV for this artistic photograph. Mattximus (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how the photo of Jacinda Ardern in one of her most important public appearances is only tangentially related to Jacinda Ardern. And the feeling here in NZ is that photo is absolutely an important part of the mosque shootings aftermath. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't get it, but the evidence convinces me this image is iconic of the event. I suspect, if it doesn't pass, coming back in a month with evidence of its enduring importance will make it pass. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs01:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – there are sufficient sources on the photo itself that it would be notable even in the absence of the surrounding context, which I think suggests sufficient EV; it's great to have a notable news photo available to Wikipedia straight after the event. TSP (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, but could we perhaps hold off promoting until permission is confirmed with OTRS? I am definitely excited that we have an image that has been so widely commented upon, but I think the EV could be better grounded if one or both of the articles discussed the photograph, even if it's only a line or two - hence the "weak". Josh Milburn (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, OTRS seems really backlogged. If no problems have arisen in the two months, I'm happy to promote this, instead of junking the FP status. I think it has enough supports for that to happen? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs22:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason why we shouldn't wait the backlog out. That said, I posted an inquiry on the Commons OTRS noticeboard. MER-C16:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this picture seriously considered for promotion when half of her face is covered by weird lens glare. This photo has meh EV at best, and is intended for "artistic" purpose. I have a hard time believing that an editor with enough interest could not get permission for something like this that is way more visual without appealing to "artistic" artifices. 71.197.186.255 (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2019 at 23:10:50 (UTC)
Reason
EV: official portrait of the first black woman to go to space. As far as NASA portraits go, this is one of the nicest I have seen. Great detailed look at her suit and helmet. Her hair also looks really cool.
It kind of looks lik it's glowing a bit... both from the obvious mark visible in thumbnail, and other places, for example, under the arms. It's an excellent image, but I'm not sure I understand what's going on there. Charles? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs14:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rather nice architecture IMO , the shape reminds me of the Walt Disney Concert Hall, but let's hope this one won't reflect and concentrate the sun's rays that melted cars parked in front of the Disney Hall... --Janke | Talk17:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2019 at 02:03:00 (UTC)
Reason
Notable sufragette, one of the founders of the Metropolitan Opera, playwright, divorcée in an era when that was shocking - Alva Belmont was a powerhouse of her time. And this is by far the best image I've found for her. Now, mind, it's from after she was a bit older, but given she never stopped being active (and was doing a LOT in 1922), that's not a huge deal. It does open us up to having a second FP, perhaps. I chose this one as it focused on her face more than some of the others.
A couple notes:
I didn't bother waiting a week for the image to stabilise because the article was last edited two months ago. The 100th anniversary of Women's Suffrage in the U.S. is next year, though, so getting the suffragette articles ready is a good idea.
There is a bright patch on the bridge of her nose. It also appears in File:Mrs_ohp_belmont_5-20-22.tif - which was taken around the same time, but which clearly has a different background and pose, so I believe the lighter bit to be genuine.
It's the photographic process in question. Given it's in use at Nadar, and being displayed as a carte-de-visite, it'd be misleading to change it too far. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs12:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2019 at 03:12:17 (UTC)
Reason
The lead up to the USA's hundredth anniversary of women's suffrage continues with Pauline Adams. How about a suffragette who was arrested for protesting, got sentenced to 60 days - then appealed and won. And who, when suffrage passed, decided to qualify as a lawyer. And did? Image is quite nice for the time, and, if you compare the before with the after I'm pretty sure you'll be impressed. Think the shadow on the left is natural, so I've left it in, but reduced it a smidgen. Would have preferred if the cup wasn't cut off, but... not much I can do there without being certain of the cup's shape. Easy to think you know, then discover that you don't.
Support - Strong EV makes up for imperfections in the composition (it would not do, however, to illustrate an article about cups :) ). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, thanks for your participation, how would it be better cropped I have no idea on how doing that, Best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The contrast can be adjusted, to a point, but the background and the squint in his eyes from the lighting cannot. And we're not asking here for the best version of this specific picture that can be attained, but for a picture that meets the standards for being featured. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2019 at 17:14:17 (UTC)
Reason
To replace existing FP File:Grapsus grapsus Galapagos Islands.jpg if successful. This image has displaced the existing FP in the article and has higher resolution and detail.
Support Lovely. Some parts concealed, but it helps show the camouflage, and a natural environment is never perfect (with the exception of your chameleons). Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs15:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I will go against the grain here and oppose on the grounds that this will be the 5th (!!!) featured picture of a cheetah and I don't know what this one adds. Even though it is an excellent photograph. Mattximus (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the head is distinctive enough to be significant in its own right here. The image is in the description section, but the only description of the head is that there is a "large head and bill. It has [...] an orange or pink bill with a white or brown nail (hard horny material at tip of upper mandible)" This may be one of those images that is rightfully an FP on Commons, but which doesn't add enough here, but it is an excellent image, so. .. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs15:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, I think the problem is A. the description doesn't describe other parts of the head, like the eyes, and B. the caption doesn't emphasise the points to note. I think this may be fixable. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs16:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. The background blur is the natural consequence of using a long lens on a DSLR, rather than anything that happened in postprocessing. With a 400mm lens, even f/10 won't make the background sharp. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2019 at 20:45:39 (UTC)
Reason
First off, I am new to this section, I am trying to contribute and I apologise If I fail criteria. Second, sorry for my English. Third, I think it's a good picture which links to a well-sourced article.
Comment, the picture was larger, I cropped to not be so much space behind him. Tell me if I need to crop it more or do what in case it's fit. --LLcentury (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've got it, but basically, using GIMP, and the slightly fuzzy-edged circular brush at around 20 px, use the clone and healing brushes, matching colours and patterns as best you can. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs14:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only a question, I put him under "Others", but he served for the UK in the two World Wars, should I put him in "military"? --LLcentury (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is it just me or has the perspective correction (or for all I know tilt-shift lens) been taken so far on this one as to make it look unnatural? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Partially Done, changed picture friend, already done. Check it please. I removed marks and stains from the picture but there are still marks. Check it please. Thanks. --LLcentury (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose not a bad shot, but I think for encyclopedic value a shot taken at street level during the day would be better. Mattximus (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the new street-level replacement for the originally-nominated aerial photo. There is a huge amount of haloing around the obelisk from overprocessing, the clouds are weirdly varying colors, and it looks artificially oversaturated and undercontrasted. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Speedy close at this point. At 22:00 last night, the nominator LLcentury replaced the image with a completely different one; so the first two votes and the last three relate to different pictures (of the same subject).
@LLcentury: please don't do this. If you want to nominate a different image, start a new nomination. (You can say on the original nomination that you're withdrawing it if you want to). Or, if it's a variant of the original image, you can add a second image labelled "Alt 1" or similar.
I think this nomination is now irretrievably messed up and it should just be closed; if anyone still wants to nominate either image they can start a new nomination. TSP (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologiesTSP, I didn't know that, please accept my profuse apologies.. Will not happen again, close it please. :) Very Kind Regards. --LLcentury (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2019 at 03:30:57 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image of small bird in flight at sea from a boat in swell. Photographing pterodromas is never easy - I got one crack at this as it passed the boat.
Nonsense. It's just not taken with a crop body and a large aperture. The depth of field is about half of what it is with a 7D, 400 at 5.6 if you do the math. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise as I do not have experience with your camera set up. But grateful if you send me the out-of-camera image before any processing then I scan stop imagining things! Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't see the blurred background to be a significant problem. Much of it was likely out of the depth of field at f/4 anyway. MER-C14:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of EV. It's clearly a matter of opinion how much one post-processes an image. With this amount of processing we are not judging a genuine wildlife photo. I'm not happy with that for encyclopaedic value. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I should have said is that the EV here is for the bird, not the water. The bird is in focus, so that's why I said it has high EV. Mattximus (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're making it very clear you have no experience with full frame cameras and big prime lenses. Much less noise and more subject isolation from the background is normal. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fine capture. DoF looks normal for this sort of photo. I can see what looks like a little bit of pan-motion blur on the crest of the wave but I don't think it's problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise as I do not have experience with your camera set up. But grateful if you send me the out-of-camera image before any processing then I scan stop imagining things!. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp and JJ Harrison: I hope you won't mind me butting in, but... you're both fantasic photographers, but each of you do things in a unique style. And I think that's causing a little conflict. You might want to just discuss your setups away from FPC, get to know the others' decisions, because your similar subjects but very different techniques seems to be causing a lot of confusion about what the other is doing. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs01:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Adam. I have already made contact by e-mail, apologised, and asked to see unprocessed out-of-camerfa images so I can understand John's post-processing techniques. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the blur is just shallow DOF, not post-processing (the author will know). But I see a problem in the dark patch in the BG, it is very distracting. --Janke | Talk10:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't mind the blurred background, the subject is in focus (apart from a bit of the tail), and sometimes the background distracts. Great EV. Mattximus (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2019 at 13:00:58 (UTC)
Reason
A really nice image of a notable recently-launched author. One of the best from Rhododendrites's BookExpo photography of the last couple days. I was worried because of a couple distracting elements in the original photo, but they cropped right out with a really nice photo left behind.
Oppose – sorry but I think there is a better picture of her in the article: This one, it doesn't meet the 1500px requirement but IMO is a better depiction of her. Somehow her expression in the nom image is a bit unusual (or perhaps uninteresting). I know it's a subjective thing but that's just my opinion. Bammesk (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Despite the distracting background in the image linked above by Bammesk, I think the author's expression in it is much better. She just looks bored here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't think it's overexposed — that would have blown out the sky and/or the details on the bride's dress. Good EV, high-quality capture, nice slice-of-life details. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Seems like a pretty good capture. I rather like the light for a straight-forward shot of this kind of subject. Nothing fancy, but we don't need fancy. Weak support because there's purple chromatic aberration in the trees that should be fixed. Weak support rather than neutral because it's not on the main subject and I feel like enwiki's FPC should be less pixel-peepery than Commons :) — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Used only in a gallery. Should really be mentioned in prose for full EV, it's, as you said, one of the most important places in the building. Also I think we should expect a higher resolution image of this subject to be FP. MER-C17:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2019 at 12:21:37 (UTC)
Reason
This is the onlybest available photo of this historic event. Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/V-E Day. There is simply no way to avoid the headless men.
Comment – A justly famous photo that obviously has been around since the event 74 years ago. My question: Why would we promote this familiar, widely known image now? – Sca (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FP?: The same reason we promote any FP because it [a]dds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs13:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adds is a present-tense verb, connoting current action. A photo with the history of WP use outlined above isn't "adding" anything to Wiki now. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding the meaning of Adds. But well ok. The existence of such a criterion is news to me. If this project expects new photos or photos newly added to an article, it should or would be stated in WP:FP?. --- Coffeeandcrumbs16:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sca's argument makes no sense and is definitely not Ok, it's like saying a hospital cannot benefit society today because the hospital was established 20 years ago. Bammesk (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not like that. Suppose the hypothetical hospital still had exactly the same operating room and equipment as it had when it opened. Would it make sense to argue that said operating room suddenly adds great benefit to society? The Keitel photo's EV began when it was added to the articles. (And its weighty historical value aside, it's a poorly framed composition that can't be fixed.) – Sca (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is like that, because you wrote: "how does a photo (…) one that's been displayed in the target article (…) for at least eight years (…) now suddenly add significant EV? (…) A photo with the history of WP use outlined above isn't 'adding' anything to Wiki now." By the way, FP criteria doesn't say "suddenly adds". About "suppose": no there is no reason to suppose, the argument isn't about health care quality and operating rooms. If you want to elaborate, do it on your original argument. Bammesk (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a very historically significant image, but it's just not a good photo. The top of Keitel's head is cut off, as is the bottom of his hat, and there's nothing which clearly puts the photo in context. If WP:VPC was still going, this would be a good candidate for that status. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadows just look wrong on it. I did some experiments, and discovered the only way to fix it is to pull the shadows way down. Which does, admittedly, look substantially better; the image is horribly faded. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs07:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - It's a striking image, to be sure. The problem is it's just such a severely compressed jpg. It's a 19 megapixel photo squeezed down into a 1.55 megabyte file, and it shows in the quality. If it were a one-of-a-kind shot the EV would push me the other way, but we actually have a category full of them. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2019 at 02:06:21 (UTC)
Reason
High technical standard and composition (QI). Rare picture, compelling with Jordanian site in the background and active baptisms occurring. Landmines surround the area. Adds to Jesus article in the appropriate section (Historicity of events#Baptism)
Oppose, for two reasons: 1. Has not been in article the required time. 2. This is a modern construction, thus I don't see the EV in that article. --Janke | Talk08:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – A snapshot of an entertainer "meeting fans" at a commercial event called BookCon. Seems promotional, lacks EV regarding the subject's professional roles. Sca (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - text in background is distracting (comments in Nic Stone also apply), there is something jutting in from the bottom left corner DannyS712 (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – A snapshot of an author and graphic designer at a commercial event called BookCon. Lacks EV regarding the subject's career, and the target article about her is a stub. Seems promotional. Distracting text in background. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Promotional"? I went to a convention as a volunteer specifically to take pictures for Wikipedia. Does that context ruin the value of the photo because it's a "commercial event"? She has an article and passes our notability criteria. There's no requirement that the article a picture is in be at a particular state. You can always WP:SOFIXIT, of course. What sort of picture would add "EV regarding the subject's career"? This is an author and illustrator at an event for authors and illustrators, signing a book she authored and illustrated. Oppose if you don't think it's a good picture, sure, but the rest is irrelevant. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "promotional," it seems you are promoting the subjects of these photos, for whatever reasons you may have. IMO, neither photo fulfills Criterion No. 5. Others may differ. – Sca (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside, for a moment, your bizarre accusation of bad faith... I didn't ask for what photo you think adds EV for a random subject. That's an athlete. There's an obvious context for an athlete: at an athletic event. What sort of picture would add EV for this subject? The equivalent of an athlete with a tennis racket smiling off to a fan at a sporting event -- if it is not an author with a book smiling off to a fan at an author event, what is it? Authors don't have a uniform or a prop other than a book or a pen. They don't make their living doing things in front of people; they make their living in a room at home, writing. They support that work through this kind of event. Sure, some authors become celebrities and make other kinds of public appearances, and some authors' work lends to some form of public performance, but for a typical fiction author, unless they're also teaching, this is the visible part of their career -- showing up and signing books. In other words, you have not clarified, but just further reinforced that you continue to operate according to your own inscrutable FP criteria. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are promoting the point of view that going to an event known to involve famous authors, with the intent of improving our coverage of pictures of famous authors, is promotionalism. Where do you think open-access-licensed pictures come from? Would it be more appropriate and less promotional to wait until those authors tell their publicists to release a photo as open access, rather than using photos from a volunteer Wikipedian? Do your opinionated edits count as promotionalism for your opinion? Should your promotionalism of your opinion disqualify you from contributing to FPC? Because that may not make much sense, but neither does what you are saying. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"promoting the subjects of these photos"? Otherwise known as taking photographs to illustrate Wikipedia articles? Strange interpretation of "promoting". And what relevance is stubbiness of target article? PamD20:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And lacking Encyclopedic Value? What can be more valuable to the encyclopedia than an image of the person who is the subject of the article. I don't understand that comment. PamD21:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article illustrated remains a 75-word stub. The "stubbiness" of the target article is relevant because stubs provide little information and therefore have little EV. – Sca (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Heaven knows where we're meant to get pictures from, if people object to promotional photos (even when they're not actually promotional), object to unposed ones, regularly reject posed ones as too forced in the past, and object to pretty much any background. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs12:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am neutral on voting. I would have supported if the glass frame wasn't covering her eyes so much (and I might be too strict on this). I agree with David Eppstein and others above. Bammesk (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I like the facial expression and it's a good action shot of a book author doing something relevant to her notability (signing one of her books), a better choice than just a straight headshot. And I think the background text is ok because it sets a context that is relevant for the photo. But the capture is a bit noisy and her signing hand and pen aren't quite in focus. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, nice capture of expression, background text is legible enough to add context but de-emphasized enough not to be clutter. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So is this from the North Korean, or the South Korean government? Also, is North Korea part of international copyright laws? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs23:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer it if the copyright had been checked before deletion, but, since this seems unlikely, Support barring evidence that the copyright tag might be wrong. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs03:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize If I failed in the copyright checking, I thought that since it is property of the Government of South Korea, they could do whatever they wanted with it. Cheers. --LLcentury (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The foreground bokeh looks odd, its transition to the in focus area is abrupt, as if it is software generated, or the result of some sort of focus or aperture stacking. Bammesk (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You've cropped too much from the right. Never a good idea to crop a wildlife photographer's image. Just ask and see if he/she agrees. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Armbrust's reading of consensus. JJ Harrison's comment above "I don't feel strongly about this" shows dissatisfaction and resistance, it doesn't show willingness and support. I see 3 supports for the Original and 3 for the Alternate, not enough to promote either version. I have moved the nom to this section, hoping we get clarity. Pinging participants in case some may choose to comment: @JJ Harrison, MER-C, Geoffroi, Adam Cuerden, Mattximus, Charlesjsharp, and Armbrust:. Bammesk (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In "I don't feel strongly about this", I hear more resistance than acceptance. I agree that JJ Harrison can clarify. As is, I think we shouldn't close it as promote. Bammesk (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – the bottom has slightly brighter background and it shows at thumbnail size. Bammesk (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC) . . . Can the bottom be improved?[reply]
Weak support For something that's so iconic, and I presume on display, less than 100dpi seems a little low. But it's well above our minimums. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs19:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - From Commons FPC: "[this image] is processed by original author in order to give highlight to the subject (airport terminal building) itself. The photo was taken in real color, and then processed into grey-scale in most area except the terminal building". MER-C10:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The framing, yes, the line no. But fixability is not an FPC criterion. We have I don't know how many tens or hundreds of thousands of competently exposed and focused headshots on Wikipedia; we should be looking for images that go beyond that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. File:Squaw Valley Cable Car.jpg has an ugly blue cast, a weird obstacle in the top right corner, and is too low-res, but it has snow and it also shows how close everything is to Lake Tahoe. It gives a good idea of how much better a picture of this subject could be if it only combined the general image quality of this one with a better choice of date and vantage point. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The subject is notable and we have many photos of him but I think this one is the best. The image quality is high, composition ok, and facial expression good. The text is a little distracting, but on the other hand it sets the Korean context for those who might not know him but recognize the script. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 02:21:38 (UTC)
Reason
A high-resolution, beautiful, colour image of the première of a Donizetti opera, from 1835 (and, annoyingly, in WAY better condition than the Massenet posters, which are, like, half a century younger!). Colour is a little basic, but proper colour lithographs were still in development then, and this is great for the time. Plus, it uses what colour it does have very effectively despite the simplicity.
Support - Very nice picture, I only regret the film grain if that's what it's called, but nonetheless I think it's normal on such images from my lack of knowledge. Nice job Adam. --LLcentury (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a lithographic print. The "grain" is inherent in the printing technique, not a defect. Halftones need to be "grainy" or "screened" in litho printing. --Janke | Talk16:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Halftone isn't quite the word I'd choose, as that's usually used for a different technique. But, aye. The point of lithography is you put acid on rocks to make pits to hold ink. It's essentially random at a fine scale. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs22:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ehrmmm... not quite. Lithography is planographic, like offset printing. The image is drawn on the stone with fatty media that will hold ink, while the wet stone won't... Any pits only give a "tooth" to the surface, hence the drawing will be "grainy". --Janke | Talk13:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary oppose Hi LLcentury, thanks very much for nominating that image. I am inclined to support the image for FP, but the Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria include the statement "It is preferable to wait a reasonable period of time (at least 7 days) after the image is added to the article before nominating it, though this may be ignored in obvious cases, such as replacing a low-resolution version of an image with a higher resolution of the same image." I suggest that you withdraw this present nomination but return in seven days if the image remains in the article at that time. Thanks again for your nomination, and in the meantime you can look for other images that have been in articles for at least seven days and/or you can vote on existing nominations. Welcome to Featured picture candidates, and I hope that you will remain active here. --Pine(✉)02:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I like the composition and I think the distortion is a fair price to pay for getting this nice wide view of the theatre. But there is more unsharpness and chromatic aberration than I'm comfortable with. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Given that she is primarily notable for being a muse, and wrote a great deal herself, I'd drop her in artists and writers. In any case, great candidate! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. There's a lot of options here. We have occasionally multi-categorised an FP. Of course, none of this matters to voting. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs20:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 20:02:36 (UTC)
The Shinkansen N700A Series Set G13 high speed train travelling at approximately 300 km/h through Himeji Station. This photo was captured with a line scan camera using strip photography.
Reason
Interesting and innovative documentation of this rolling stock. Featured on Commons. There are 16 images here, and they are nominated as a set.
Support very encyclopedic, and when collated, an excellent display of the scale of the object. A real accomplishment. --LukeSurltc19:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Commons has 37 images of this subject but this one is clear best. It's a little soft around the edges but I think its other qualities make up for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 23:55:35 (UTC)
Reason
I think it's an iconic image of WWII. I had some doubts over the inky shadows last time. It turns out there was an undocumented restoration with an accidental bad levels adjustment, so I repeated the whole restoration from scratch. Sorry I didn't spot that sooner, LLcentury!
Oppose – Per opposition to previous nom three weeks ago. It's still a poorly framed old snapshot that's been published extensively for three quarters of a century. – Sca (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: An "old snapshot"?! This is the signing of one of the most important documents of the 20th century. This is the surrender of the Nazis. Surely the enormous EV should go a long way? Geoffroi (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: Your previous oppose focused on Wikipedia having had it a long time, so it wasn't bringing anything new to the table. I'd have thought the new restoration would have at least partially dealt with your previous oppose. I mean, I don't want to tell you what to vote, but I don't quite understand your objection. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs18:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – with thanks!!! The moment this photo captures is huge. It is like traveling in time. The viewer is given a glimpse into the past. A past that should be remember and rebuked. Look at the arrogance: the glove(s), the riding crop. Per WP:FP?, A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. --- Coffeeandcrumbs02:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It might be a significant moment in history - it isn't, really - but it's still a shitty photo. Look at all the phone shots and selfies of the Mona Lisa; they aren't great photographs. It is poorly composed and cluttered. It's someone holding up their camera and pressing the button. There's nothing artistic about it. --Pete (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A better shot of the Mona Lisa is always and is still possible. Without a time machine, a better shot of this moment will never be possible again. --- Coffeeandcrumbs02:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – image has EV (in the article as FP criteria says), historic images don't have to look good. And in this case: signing a paper takes seconds, this wasn't a photo op, this is a wartime photo, yes composition can be better, but composition isn't everything. Bammesk (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: One can only guess what the top of Mr. Kojima's head truly looks like. It may work as a quality image, but for a photograph of an important game designer, this guy certainly deserves something even better. Gamingforfun36501:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great image, I wish it were not buried in the article. I guess there is a bias to show them the species in butterfly form instead of caterpillar form. I wonder if it's worth including these forms in the infobox one day... Mattximus (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the appearance of an imago is easy to determine this is not the case of the caterpillars, because there are several stages of development which are very different from the appearance of the terminal stage. The collections of specimens mounted for caterpillars exist but are long to prepare it is necessary to blow the caterpillar with a small straw to restore its volume ... it is almost a universe apart that does not interest much of 'entomology. It seems likely that we can use these images in the infobox, but it is useful to show them in the article. Thank you for this appointment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure, his shoulders are not visible. I just keep nominating LOL. I have sometimes luck other times not. Nice place however.
@LLcentury: It's not the shoulders. The problem is that the left side of the photo is unbalanced and tightly cropped. There should be more room at left to balance the portrait. Geoffroi (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2019 at 05:12:04 (UTC)
Reason
I'm kind of fascinated by this opera; a sort of French Tell-Tale Heart, with a ghost onstage. Haven't found half so much about it as I'd like yet, though. Well, one day I'll get to see it. This also continues my quest to not have to go back to and finish bloody La Navarraise, a poster that has a nightmare-amount of fluff all over it.
Comment@Adam Cuerden:, @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: - Another nice detail here is that the opera is based on a collection of stories by Erckmann-Chatrian, two of the most popular French writers of the 19th century. Their series of historical novels of the French Revolution and Napoleon are still well-worth reading and available in English translation. Geoffroi (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't agree with Bammesk here, because it's a semi-reflective charcoal-black-painted jet. Since it's symmetrical, so you can see the other side, there's no real detail hidden by the shadow, but lightening it would misrepresent the actual colour and reflectivity. Compare File:F-117A_GBU-28.JPEG and File:F-117A_GBU-28.JPEG - the way it's painted clearly means small differences in lighting are heavily emphasised. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs14:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 05:35:10 (UTC)
Reason
Martha Ann Honeywell was an American artist born without hands or forearms, and with only three toes on one foot; nevertheless, she created cut-paper pieces such as this, as well as silhouettes, using her mouth and toes. She appeared as a sideshow act throughout much of the early 19th century. Cutouts with the Lord's Prayer at the center, such as this, were sold by her as souvenirs. The text at the center is the standard text of the prayer; underneath it's signed "Written without hands by Martha Honeywell".
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 08:39:41 (UTC)
Reason
A high-quality image of the original production, in excellent preservation 185 years later. Impressive quality. Aquatint offered a range of greys that later printing techniques can't replicate as well, and this image uses it beautifully. Look at the right side of the image.
Articles in which this image appears
I puritani, may stick in Aquatint, but that article is way over-illustrated.
Oppose Unbalanced composition, not among Wikipedia's "best". Is there any EV at all in this snapshot of a person on the phone? --Janke | Talk20:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it was never my intention to promote any POV. Though it would be great to look at the talk page of the project to see a point I needed to express. --LLcentury (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...Let's pretend I didn't miss that. Should've rechecked after the levels, some damage likes to hide until the colours are tweaked. It's fixed now. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs19:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I always prefer real photographs to a painting, however given the date, I'm not sure that we can get high quality photographs. For example, is it even possible to get a high definition of this image or is the source too poor? Mattximus (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: My philosophy is that if a good photograph of a ship from this period exists, that's fantastic, but for specific ships, I'm not going to hold my breath. I think lithographs and paintings can be useful for showing colour, which is otherwise lost from this era, which is. however, most important for the camouflage painting of the First World War or thereabouts.
But which ships have photographs taken in the first place, in good enough condition to matter, and available high-definition is such a crap shoot that I'm not sure it's worth considering unless we have one to hand. Plus, this era of ships go through so much reworking in a desperate attempt to keep them relevant that, unless you happen on photos of them in the same state as in the lithograph, they're complementary anyway. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs02:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to view them as separate, but related, things with the illustration conveying a lot of different information related to the art. My favorite example is this beauty, an illustration of the sinking of a Russian battleship by a Japanese mine during the Russo-Japanese War: File:Sinking of the Petropavlovsk.jpg.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]