Support – Not the sexiest fish to look at, but very high EV given that the species is now extinct in the wild. Will be a good pic of the day to drive readers to the article. Choliamb (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I wonder if this image might be a good addition to the article Virgin of Los Remedios as well. At the moment that article is illustrated by two photos of figures of the Virgin herself, which are iconographically almost identical. The second one is small and low-quality (335 x 502 px) and it provides little information that isn't already provided by the first one; perhaps it could be replaced by the nominated photo of this altarpiece, which serves as a fantastically elaborate frame for a similar figure? Choliamb (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Good timing to coincide with the blockbuster Vermeer exhibition in Amsterdam right now. (Although as my wife points out, it's a little scary that 28 of the 37 known Vermeers are now gathered together in one place. If there were a fire or some other disaster, it would wipe out three-quarters of his surviving works in a single blow.) – Choliamb (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you create a nom using Template:FPCnom, the article line says: "links to the article(s) that use this image, in order of where the image has highest encyclopedic value". The museum article wasn't listed initially, and it should be listed as the first article. In the museum article, this image has EV, but I wouldn't call it strong EV. It is placed at the end of the article, and it's competing (EV-wise) with a nice (though technically subpar) image in the infobox. Bammesk (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't listed the article initially because the image was added to it just days before the nomination. My apologies.
Oppose This is just one type of Qurabiya from a specific country, there are 6 other, completely different types pictured in the article. Several different toppings cause the uncertainty seen in above comment. Janke | Talk19:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the perspective distortion caused by the use of a wide angle lens so close to subject. There's plenty of open space around the White Tower (compare, e.g., this photo, or the photo currently in the infobox for the article), so there's no need to get this close. The distortion is unnecessary and reduces the EV. I also find the ugly concrete platform and the figures in the foreground a little distracting. This is a perfectly fine holiday photo, but I don't think it rises to the level of FP. – Choliamb (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I actually like this scene showing some context around the tower, including people, but the photo is not technically perfect. Sharpness could be better and there is some chromatic aberration (most noticeable on the top). The top crop is too tight to my taste. Also colour saturation seems a bit too much. Lion-hearted85 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2023 at 21:18:26 (UTC)
Reason
A well-composed image, with sharp focus across the dessert (it's called both a cake and a pie, which I suspect may be translation issues). Already a featured image on commons. If the nomination goes through, I'd like to run this image as picture of the day on the US Pi Day (March 14th).
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2023 at 15:42:35 (UTC)
Reason
Quality image of the original Xbox 360, first released in May 2005. Its lifespan was 2005 to 2016. According to its article, the Xbox 360 (in its many versions) is the 9th highest selling home video game.
Support - Evan did/does some great work. I'm a little leery of the close crop, but in the end it does seem to be best suited for the use in the infobox on the console. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I agree with Chris. Evan's work is meticulous, incredibly consistent, and of great value in illustrating Wikipedia. Hundreds of articles wouldn't be the same without his contributions. Lion-hearted85 (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image is too soft for a giant 21 x 12 feet painting. At 4313 × 2473 pixels, the scan rate is 17 pixels per inch, it's too low. Bammesk (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Flashy stage environment makes an action shot for any performer, really. This is particularly important in cases like this where the stage persona (Conchita Wurst) is explicitly distinguished from the performer (Thomas Neuwirth). Excellent presentation, noise is understandable due to technical constraints (wish I could bring my camera into performances! Some images could have been FP worthy), and great dynamicity. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2023 at 22:45:17 (UTC)
Reason
Chicago first received rapid transit when the South Side Elevated Railroad opened on June 6, 1892. Ten stations opened that day, eight of which looked like this 1904 image of the station on 18th Street. The railroad subsequently expanded southward, but the station houses on the extension looked quite different from those on the original portion as depicted here.Unfortunately, the city didn't like these street-level station houses that blocked under-track alley access. When the railroad wished to construct a third center track for express operations in 1907, they were only allowed to do so in exchange for demolishing these station houses and replacing them with mezzanines. Therefore, despite the historic significance of these station houses, pictures of them are rare; none were known to exist in 1995, and even today I know of only twoother pictures of these houses, neither of which are of as good quality composition-wise as this.While the rarity of these images should dovetail nicely with this particular image's EV, I am aware that it is rather small. It was originally even smaller, although it was the largest size available on the internet. I actually enlarged it and quadrupled its size (doubling each dimension) in the course of my restoration, but I fear that anything further will start stretching out any artifacts or other blurriness. I've e-mailed the Library of Congress for help in obtaining access any other possible copy of this negative that would yield a larger size if need be.
Comment as of the time of this comment, the unrestored, uncropped version pops up whenever you click the image, but the thumbnail is the correct cropped version and appears on Commons. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too small per FPC criteria, visibly upsampled, too... PS: To see the "correct" file, purge your browser's cache. Janke | Talk19:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Little lesson in the LoC: Anything taken from the "American Memory" section of the site exists elsewhere, usually at much higher resolution. As such, the source for this indicates we likely can do better. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!03:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Getting official photos of contemporary politicians in an acceptable license at high resolution is still a rarity. This one is also quite competent. It doesn't have the "wow" for Commons, but its use in something like 12 pages shows there is good EV here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The Roosevelt portraits are twenty years apart, from different periods in his life (i.e. in the military and after his presidency). These are images of Grant in a suit from roughly the same period (and, stylistically, I think File:Ulysses S. Grant 1870-1880.jpg is the better portrait). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This rather obscure pic. of a famous person lacks EV. Also, building models in foreground seem oversaturated. – Sca (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Dust spots on image need cleaning. Crop of the model is too tight, such that parts of the model removed. Also, as Sca has noted the model is overlit vis-a-vis the subject, resulting in an unbalanced image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Something like File:Kiwifruit - Golden (Soreli).jpg would have more EV IMO. Also, don't think a focus stack was necessarily required for a cross section --Muhammad(talk)11:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The infobox image in the article both provides a much clearer idea to the viewer of how this place is arranged, and a much less boring composition. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2023 at 17:16:15 (UTC)
Reason
This photoportrait is one of the most widely used photos of Stravinsky across Wikimedia projects and is essential to Wikimedia Commons' collection. It's a high quality image for FP.
@Crisco 1492:@Vinícius94: Thanks for your comments, I've done a bit of restoration work by removing the white dots and the scratch. I uploaded the new version, but I realize I uploaded it to the original file instead of under a new filename- sorry about that. I hope it's good now. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose the last (9 March 2023) version. Please compare the original (Sep 2020) version with the last (9 March 2023) version. Everything in the image has become pixelated and the whole face changed (I suppose this is an AI regeneration), and curiously the eyes gained colour. Please note that the face in the original photo is out of focus (the focus is on his elbow and vaguely on the score) and this can't be restored. I would rather support the original version, even if technically not perfect. Also, per Commons overwriting rules the crop should be loaded on a separate file. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for the comments- I hadn't noticed the coloring change after exporting it, I don't know what happened; my knowledge in photo restoration is limited. I'm suspending this nomination for now and will renominate it once I've fixed the problems. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lion-hearted85, Crisco 1492, Janke, and Vinícius94: Thank you again for your initial comments and reviews. I've since uploaded a new restoration attempt and I'm removing it from suspension. My main changes were removing the two major scratches and removing some white specs. Thoughts on the new version? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – @MyCatIsAChonk: Thanks for your dedication in restoring the photo. It seems satisfactory to me now. I saw also that you saved the last version with less JPEG compression. I have struck through my previous vote. Indeed, this is an essential, high quality photo with high EV. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chris. The top crop is a bit annoying, sharpness could be generally better, and focus falls off significantly on the left side. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Used in many language version Wikis. However, a photo of this type could be improved by focus stacking. --Janke | Talk11:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I have performed a quick search on Commons of "pencil sharpener" and this, honestly, is the best one in terms of presentation, composition and quality. Even if there are dozens of different types of this tool, this deliberately illustrates one of them (instead of showing many), and I think it's quite a typical and common one to generically illustrate the pencil sharpener. I also think it's useful to show it in use. Overall, I find this image having good EV indeed. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – As has been said on Commons FPC, this is a very good portrait which is able to create interest and connect with the viewer, but the photo has been processed and denoised quite aggressively. I wished it had more sharpness. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – On the right side of the composition, it's unfortunate that the backdrop for this shot tends to lessen contrast with the subject. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - When you're shooting at ISO 1000, somewhat aggressive denoising is par for the course.... I'm amazed Rhododentrites was able to get f 5.6 and 1/200 in an indoor event. But, technical stuff aside... excellent pose, framing. Background is sufficiently contrasted from the shirt, especially at full size — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With that I meant that this photo manages to represent well (for better or for worse) the "feel" of this site. If some of us have developed a personal feeling about this view despite never (I suppose) having been there, like me, I would say this is a strength of this photograph. This is just a personal opinion, though, I may be wrong. On the technical side (choice of the time of the day, execution, post-production) it seems a solid photo to me. I agree that the wide ratio and the large file size makes it quite impractical to use, but this choice gives an opportunity to see the production site in its whole extension. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I can observe, with my humble experience, that since this shot is taken looking bottom-up (tilting the camera probably halfway between 0 and 90 degrees vertically), the vertical perspective distortion is intrinsically pronounced (can't be straightened). The horizontal lines of the front wall have probably been straightened. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Wanted to come in here to give a fifth, but the cut-off chandelier is a deal breaker for me. It is still an excellent representation of the roof and upper walls, and a break from the average perpendicular view of architecture. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]