Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2024 at 02:49:10 (UTC)
Reason
Recent news of Pope Francis' plans on canonizing Carlo Acutis had me checking his Wikipedia page. And I thought this could this picture is a good presentation of the first millennial saint, especially with it being good EV for its article its apart of.
Support per nominator. The quality of this image is remarkable for the time and it has very strong EV given it provides what looks like a very realistic depiction of one of these guns in combat. Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2024 at 00:44:33 (UTC)
Reason
Meets all criteria plus has high EV value on several articles. Reverse image search on Google indicates dozens to at least a hundred of RS media outlets have used it.
I agree with Sca that the article needs work for this to be featureable. Judith at the Banquet of Holofernes acknowledges other identifications and adds "Today it is considered to be Judith at the banquet of Holofernes." But it does not indicate what "Today" means, and the citation is just "museum website." Furthermore, the painting is still in a gallery at Sophonisba, with no source. If there is an ongoing controversy, the article should document it; if not, the two articles shouldn't contradict each other. This could definitely be featured if these issues can be resolved. blameless15:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2024 at 18:23:52 (UTC)
Reason
The Lockheed T-33 in flight in 2016. This aircraft was produced from 1948 to 1959 and served primarily as a jet trainer aircraft in the U.S. Air Force until 1997, and in many other countries (Bolivian Air Force until 2017). The aircraft is no longer in service. This photo was shot in 2016 during an air show in Alaska, US.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2024 at 07:22:05 (UTC)
Reason
Beautiful, of excellent technical quality and composition. Wikipedia's only portrait of Mwambutsa IV Bangiricenge, the penultimate king of Burundi (all other photos are of him in groups). Used quite essentially on the subject's own article, among others.
In a way, I'd prefer it higher resolution, so we can see the stitches. But I reall find it a bit irrestistable. SupportAdam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.00:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a higher quality (complete) scan of the embroidery online, but I think that this scan serves the purpose of presenting the artwork well enough. ―Howard • 🌽3313:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a weird one, but for presentation purposes it works when the tall image template is used. I think the reproduction quality is good, and I like the uniqueness of the source work. Moonreach (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 1Comment I saw this work when it was displayed as part of an exhibition of Parker's works in Sydney a few years ago, and this image doesn't really do it justice. While it has strong EV by capturing all of the work, it doesn't really get across that this is a huge work - it ran for about a third of the length of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney. A set with this image and an image that captures the work's scale would have stronger EV and impact. Edit: that said, the EV is excellent here and the quality is high, so I can definitely support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found two images (here and here) that demonstrate the true scale of the embroidery, however I'm not sure if the photos are of the technical quality required for an FP. ―Howard • 🌽3313:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 – I rotated the image and cleaned up the edges, uploaded as Alt 1. Pinging participants @Howardcorn33, Moonreach, Adam Cuerden, and Nick-D:. The resolution isn't high for such a large artwork, but it's still impressive. It can be replaced later with a higher resolution scan. Bammesk (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2024 at 00:26:15 (UTC)
Reason
A fine photograph of the artist, by Nadar, a famous photographer. Conveniently close in time (within a year or two) to what I'd say were his most famous works: his Bible and Dante's Inferno illustrations, which does put this in fairly early photography, but... it's a good one. Bottom isn't quite straight, but, well... I mean, I can digitally fix that, but don't think I should. It's honestly surprisingly common in prints and engravings for them not to be quite square, and it's never clear why; honestly, it's probably just that it's not that noticable if you don't surround it with a true rectangle.
Support – Great restoration. My only problem is the border surrounding the portrait, but that can't be helped without diminished the historical value of the image imo. I love Doré's illustrations, so I'm very happy to see his picture restored. ―Howard • 🌽3313:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed I accidentally linked the PNG not the JPEG in use. (PNG is lossless so good to have if I notice a dust speck later or the like). Fixed that. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.18:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Adam, nice restoration but why is the resolution of the restored image (2,385 × 3,000) lower than the original image (3,340 × 4,201) ? The source link: [1] on the file page needs correction [2]. Bammesk (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember I had some trouble with getting the fullsize version. I'd have to restart the restoration, though, to scale up. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.16:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I understand. It has the votes and it meets the 1500px criterion, so you don't have redo it if you don't want to. Bammesk (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2024 at 13:48:40 (UTC)
Reason
Reproduction of the ciliate Colpidium (a single-cell eukaryote) by binary division (fission). Good addition to the Reproduction section of the Ciliate article. Featured media on Commons.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2024 at 01:00:13 (UTC)
Reason
Unique moment with the Moon and Christ the Redeemer statue. This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2020. Featured picture on Wikimedia Commons. Featured picture on the Indonesian language Wikipedia. Featured picture on the Turkish language Wikipedia. This image was awarded with the 5th prize worldwide in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, and it was awarded with the 7th prize in the national contest of Brazil in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019. High quality and resolution.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2024 at 01:11:57 (UTC)
Reason
Anne Boleyn was Queen of England from 1533 to 1536, as the second wife of King Henry VIII. The circumstances of her marriage and execution by beheading for treason, made her a key figure in the political and religious upheaval that marked the start of the English Reformation. High quality and resolution.
Oppose as is but . . . . There is a much higher resolution version available at the source website: Here. This high resolution version should be uploaded to Commons (as the original file), then a lossless crop file can be created using the Commons:CropTool which runs at Toolforge Here. I would support if that's done. The image has good EV and is used in many articles. If you aren't familiar with the upload and crop process, Commons:Help desk can help (or guide you through it). It's an easy process after you do it once. Also, the nominated crop is a bit too tight, it cuts off part of her finger at the bottom. Bammesk (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second picture displays a behavior that is note often photographed : we can see that while the bird is flying away from the flower in the background, it is looking at the flower on the right to choose it before landing on it. In my opinion this has interesting educational value. As for the first picture, I’ve seen no other photography on the internet showcasing fully the yellow part of this bird (only drawn illustrations in books) as this bird is usually only photographed in static position with wings closed. So I think both pictures are FP worthy for different reasons — Giles Laurent (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2024 at 18:56:24 (UTC)
Reason
One of the canonic works of silent cinema. It's best known for its bold, fantastic mise-en-scène which has made it the enduring image of German expressionist cinema. Due to a configuration issue, it hasn't been possible for us to host a high-quality copy on English Wikipedia, but thanks to a recent upgrade we now have a great transfer of it.
Comment - Does this run afoul of criterion #4 - i.e. it is not yet in public domain worldwide? It will be, in 2025... --Janke | Talk19:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before opening the nomination, I checked if there was any restriction like that for featured pictures and didn't find anything. WP:FP?#4 just requires that it be "available in the public domain or under a free license", which for our purposes on enwiki has always meant PD-US. hinnk (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2024 at 05:47:28 (UTC)
Reason
Extremely high EV (one of the most well-known tornado photographs in history). It does not pass the basic criteria for high technical standards nor high resolution. However, given what the event was and how famous the photograph is, the exception clauses can be played, given the EV. As an EV note, a reverse image search on TinEye showed 224 hits, one of which is the Associated Press, who used it in an anniversary video/article back in April 2024. EV is why I believe this should be a featured picture. An additional note, one of the articles (1974 Super Outbreak) has been an "On this day" article three times.
Oppose - for several reasons. Did you at all check the Featured Pictures Criteria? Does not pass #1, 2, and 3. (On the intro on the FPC page you can find the link.) --Janke | Talk09:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: WeatherWriter did check the criteria, they even mentioned that the nominated photograph does not fulfill the recommended criteria in their reasoning. In addition, the criteria states that exceptions to recommended FP rules can be made on a case-by-case basis. Considering the wide usage of the image, its notability, its educational value, and its uniqueness, I believe that the image deserves the FP recognition. ―Howard • 🌽3311:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Janke: Yes, I did read the Featured picture criteria prior to nominating. I actually noted that it did not pass point 1 and 2 in the nomination (noting, it does pass point 3, even though you say it doesn’t). If you actually read the criteria, specific point 1 and 2, “Exceptions to this rule may be made…”. For point 1, they can be made “…for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed.” and for point 2, they can be made “where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired. This should be explained in the nomination so that it can be taken into consideration.” My reasoning for point one was explained fairly clearly in the nomination, given it is used by news sources all across the globe and all throughout the last few decades. Also, it is obvious that it is “impossible” to get higher quality image of that tornado, given it occurred over 50 years ago and only occurred for 39 minutes. With all that said, would you feel like changing your !vote to either support on grounds of the exceptions or at the very least, change it from “did you read the criteria” to some other reason to oppose. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)03:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I did not read your description well enough. My quick oppose was a gut reaction to the egregious quality of the image. It is probably a scan from a printed, rasterized image (the "removed squares" edit suggests that). BTW: One of the uploads is in color, no explanation? PS: Found a larger, sharper version (watermarked) with an image search, so there must be a better version somewhere... --Janke | Talk12:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The colored image is edited and not the original. If you found an exact larger version, then please link it. Chances are, if you found a "better version", it is not free to use whatsoever. This happens to be a public domain image of the tornado, the only one I am aware of that is free-to-use, hence why every media outlet uses it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)13:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A higher resolution version exists. Unfortunately, there is no indication of copyright status at the source, but if the low-resolution version is PD, the higher-res one might be (emphasis on "might"). In any case, this version is clearly not featurable given that a better-quality version exists, but if the copyright status can be cleared up, this can perhaps be revisited. blameless00:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovely painting, good reproduction, decent EV (although it's used more prominently on the page for Chagall, the subject, than Pen, the artist). Moonreach (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Good shot and composition, but resolution takes it out the FP threshold. I'll support a high res version. Since the subject is alive and it can be retaken, this is not exactly a historic image which can be an exception. Ping me if any high res is available. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn I'm aware of that. However, this image is different. Instead of being a regular portrait of the bird, it shows behavior (predation, part of puffin's diet). Although we already have two FPs of this species, they are not the same as this image. ZZZ'S14:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photo with strong EV. This is a good example of an example where a night photo of a building has strong EV. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I realize that this has been recently restored, explaining the huge color difference between this and past images, but even so it looks oversaturated and overcontrasted to me compared to the images of the restored version released by the Louvre for publications in ArtNet and Smithsonian Magazine. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link includes photos both of the pre-restoration version with the black-blue background and the restored version with a more vibrant blue. But not as vibrant as this image. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2024 at 17:20:57 (UTC)
Reason
High quality and resolution. Featured picture on Wikimedia Commons; featured picture on the Persian language Wikipedia; it is considered to meet the Quality image guidelines on Wikimedia Commons.