Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/May-2013

Featured picture tools
Featured pictures (on Wikimedia Commons) Featured picture criteria Featured picture candidates (on Wikimedia Commons) Featured picture thumbs Featured picture archive Picture of the day (Guidelines) Picture of the day archive (and schedule)
v t e

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

	Older Archive
	Miscellaneous Archive
2004:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2013 at 06:18:46 (UTC)

Reason

Very high quality, good EV (greater EV viewed as a set).
The North Africa Series of United States Silver Certificates was issued in $1, $5, and $10 denominations, with series dates of 1934, 1934A, and 1935A. Similar to their Hawaii overprint counterparts, the North Africa series was issued during World War II, but for use in Europe and Northern Africa. Had U.S. Forces suffered defeat, the entire series would have been demonetized. Blue serial numbers were standard, but this was the only issue of Silver Certificates with a bright yellow treasury seal.

• 
  $1 Silver Certificate (1935-A), depicting George Washington
• 
  $5 Federal Reserve Note (1934-A), depicting Abraham Lincoln
• 
  $10 Federal Reserve Note (1934-A), depicting Alexander Hamilton

Original – The North Africa Series of United States Silver Certificates were issued in $1, $5, and $10 denominations. Similar to their Hawaii overprint counterparts, the North Africa series was issued during World War II, but for use in Europe and Northern Africa. Had U.S. Forces suffered defeat, the entire series would have been demonetized.

Articles in which these images appear

Silver Certificate

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle

Creator

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (Image by Godot13)
From the National Numismatic Collection, NMAH, Smithsonian Institution.

• Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support More currency sets please... ;-) — raekyt 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice work as usual. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 05:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sweet! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:US-$1-SC-1935-A-Fr.2306.jpg, File:US-$5-SC-1934-A-Fr.2307.jpg, File:US-$10-SC-1934-A-Fr.2309.jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2013 at 11:12:33 (UTC)

Reason

Of striking, eye-catching resolution. Verifiable as source has been provided. No digital manipulation. Used in numerous articles here. Great picture... And it's in public domain! This portrait of Dick sure looks good.

Articles in which this image appears

Richard Lugar, United States congressional delegations from Indiana, List of United States Senators from Indiana, Denison University

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Tennisace101

• Support as nominator --☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good photo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good quality and good EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great quality and nice image.--BNK (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good quality. --Godot13 (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dick Lugar official photo 2010.JPG -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 May 2013 at 07:53:22 (UTC)

Reason

wonderful photo of a classic sailing yacht in action

Articles in which this image appears

Yawl

FP category for this image

yachts

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 07:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many artefacts (likely due to the camera), and WB is too blue. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per King of Hearts. Also, despite being the lead image, I don't think it has much EV; I am completely clueless about sailing, article says that a yawl is a double-masted boat, yet I don't see the two masts in the picture. Perhaps if taken from the other side where the sails don't cover the masts? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second mast is the little one in back. Two sails on the mainmast, one on the mizzenmast. 72.241.211.53 (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. Silly me, thought that was another boat.... --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 02:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 May 2013 at 18:26:33 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Point Pinos Lighthouse

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Frank Schulenburg

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good quality and good EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quality image '''SAMƏK''' (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support You can see the light. Wonderful photograph. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice composition. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mediran (t • c) 07:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Point Pinos Light during reconstruction (2013).jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 May 2013 at 23:15:59 (UTC)

Reason

high EV, high quality, high resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

Danny Dyer, West Ham United F.C. supporters

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Hilton1949

• Support as nominator --Yaneshü (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• weak oppose Image quality is very good, but it would have been nice if the subject had been in the centre of the picture. Image is slightly tilted towards right.--BNK (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I understand the difficulties involved in taking a candid portrait of someone, but I think this one has too many aesthetic flaws to be a featured picture. The angle is bad, his face is off center, his mouth is agape, he has a blank expression on his face, the top of his head is cut off, and he's slouched to one side. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer loosely tried to follow rule of thirds, that sometimes causes top of head to be cut off, which is not 'wrong'. That said, the alignment to the thirds is only horizontally, vertically it is off. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then that's another reason why I'm not a big fan of the rule of thirds, especially for a human portrait. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Image has good EV, but is noticeably out of focus. His facial expression seems outright unnatural. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 May 2013 at 23:55:31 (UTC)

Reason

Selected German Wikipedia, Quality image(assessed using the Quality image guidelines)

Articles in which this image appears

Saxony

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Kolossos

• Support as nominator --'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, its a good picture of a very pretty house, unfortunately the shadow in the centre is too distracting --Andrew 17:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Good technical quality. That said, shadows are severely detracting, and EV is little. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose yes, the house is really wonderful. However, as what have mentioned above, the shadow in the center is distracting. Mediran (t • c) 07:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 May 2013 at 00:22:31 (UTC)

Reason

An old picture, Quality image and Selected German and Turkish Wikipedia

Articles in which this image appears

Benz Patent-Motorwagen

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

DaimlerChrysler AG

• Support as nominator --'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral There may be a size requirement issue, the image isn't lead (I'm lifting someone else's term) in the article, and I actually prefer the lead image in Benz Patent-Motorwagen, except it's a tiny photograph. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small on both sides... — raekyt 06:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 May 2013 at 02:43:27 (UTC)

Reason

Large size, high resolution, two-month stable in article. This is one of the best and largest portraits we have of her. Because I cannot locate the studio, date, or film that this studio portrait was created by/during, the EV is largely based on her appearance, which I'll explain: this image replaced a previous (and, I was hoping, a potential FP candidate) studio shot that could be dated, but someone with far more knowledge than I switched it because this photograph represents Goddard in her "heyday", during the late 30s to 40s. I am assuming the hairstyle is the clue. (The current nomination is also sharper, while the above linked studio shot is a bit blurry.)

Articles in which this image appears

Paulette Goddard

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Unknown studio

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The lighting isn't the best, but otherwise quite good, especially at full size. Brandmeister^talk 07:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right and it didn't even occur to me to fix it before the nomination (my absent-mindedness is not to be trifled with). I tried to emulate other studio photographs that have much less contrast. The original scan is extremely harsh, I agree. I support alt for what it's worth. Also for the record, I did just replace Original with Alt in the Paulette Goddard article, so if seven days are needed for stability, this nom can be put on hold. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have Photoshop or some other program that does the same, try midtone adjustment, shadow reduction and some levels instead of contrast adjustment. That combination looks better IMO. Brandmeister^talk 08:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt Brandmeister^talk 08:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I still support alt, nice. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose alt 1, neutral original. The edit looks weird in part because the original is so heavily airbrushed; for example, there's a weird line running about 20 pixels parallel to the right side (her right) of her face. In any case, this is a scan of a print, not a negative, and I suspect the high contrast is deliberate--this was not an uncommon style for publicity photos. Chick Bowen 23:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! Taking Brandmeister's comments into account (and Brandmeister is welcome to make any further suggestions) any suggestions what I can do to improve the original to gain your support? Even if this image doesn't pass this round, I wouldn't mind continuing to work on it. Or do you think the image is irreparable? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a style that doesn't appeal to me that much, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask. A lot of dodging, burning, and airbrushing was standard practice for these stock publicity photos, and goes along with their slightly artificial look. I prefer in-character publicity shots or proper portraits of celebrities. Chick Bowen 00:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 May 2013 at 01:10:39 (UTC)

Reason

A striking picture of an unusual artwork

Articles in which this image appears

Herring Island (Victoria)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

GailLeenstra

• Support as nominator --Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Harsh shadow, object goes out of focus. Do you think you'd be able to return on a day with more diffuse light? I would try to retain the entire sculpture in focus. As for EV, I'm not sure it stands out any more than the other images on the article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pshh, sorry, thought you were the creator. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 May 2013 at 04:43:09 (UTC)

Reason

Very high quality, good EV (greater EV viewed as a set).
Series 1928 United States Notes were the first small-size (i.e., modern-era) banknotes printed in the United States in $1, $2, and $5 denominations only. This set contains the first note printed of each denomination. (Note: The $5 bill was nominated and featured before I was aware that FP sets were permitted. If the set is featured I am not suggesting the $5 be counted again).

• 
  $1 United States Note (1928), depicting George Washington
• 
  $2 United States Note (1928), depicting Thomas Jefferson
• 
  $5 United States Note (1928), depicting Abraham Lincoln

Original – Series 1928 United States Notes were the first small-size (i.e., modern-era) banknotes printed in the United States in $1, $2, and $5 denominations only. This set contains the first note printed of each denomination.

Articles in which these images appear

United States Notes, United States one-dollar bill, United States two-dollar bill, United States five-dollar bill

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle

Creator

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (Image by Godot13)
From the National Numismatic Collection, NMAH, Smithsonian Institution.

• Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As always, excellent work! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Abso-freaking-lutely. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — raekyt 06:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:US-$1-LT-1928-Fr.1500.jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 May 2013 at 09:12:26 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, widely used, free, high resolution

Articles in which this image appears

Fantine (painting), Fantine, +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Margaret Bernadine Hall

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good quality and great EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful. Per Wingtipvortex. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support simply great. Mediran (t • c) 07:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good usage of lighting. Brandmeister^talk 17:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Margaret Bernardine Hall - Fantine - Google Art Project.jpg --Pine^✉ 06:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 May 2013 at 12:18:48 (UTC)

Reason

Full EV and High Quality

Articles in which this image appears

Cucumber

FP category for this image

link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)

Creator

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is the image soft? The slight diffusion makes the image seem really bright. btw you're misisng an FP category in your nomination above. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Licensing looks off for FP? Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Commons. Did we reach an agreement here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • License is fine as the discussion was closed without a consensus but the file res in this case isnt --Muhammad(talk) 16:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The license is quite uselss for any purposes; but I bet it (the combined CC BY-NC, especially) attracts many friendly supports. :) JKadavoor Jee 05:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose License, and size. — raekyt 06:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose GFDL only images are best avoided and certainly shouldn't be promoted to featured picture status.©Geni 22:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the license is good enough for the Commons, then we should accept that. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accept yes. Promote no.©Geni 09:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is a categorically incorrect statement: [1]. As it stands 2/3 of the oppose !votes would be struck by the closer for invalid rationale --Fir0002 08:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try and rule lawyer me. If we want to go down that route I'll start looking into deleting this nomination page as a copyvio.©Geni 20:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2013 at 20:45:05 (UTC)

Reason

Spectacular photo

Articles in which this image appears

Yachting-Newport to Ensenada International Yacht Race-Waterworld

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose does not meet size criteria, nor does it have much EV. The lead image in the article illustrates the race better. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn by nominator on 22:15, 1 May 2013. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 May 2013 at 09:19:24 (UTC)

Reason

Very high EV, nice quality

Articles in which this image appears

Broad-billed Parrot

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Henrik Grönvold, 1907

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Do we know for a fact that the bird was blue? If yes, then this image should be lead and I'd support FP. If not, then I'd oppose on the basis that the picture may be inaccurate. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 16:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the lead section: "The exact colouration is unknown, but a contemporary description indicates that it had a blue head, a greyish or blackish body, and perhaps a red beak". Tomer T (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I'll Oppose, as this image doesn't depict even the contemporary description. I'd much rather the current lead image be an FP, its EV being very high. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The sketch, according to the article, is the chief source of information on this bird and obviously has much higher EV than the 1907 tracing. Unfortunately our version is halftoned and must have been scanned from a book, but I'm sure a better version of it would be promoted easily. Chick Bowen 00:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 May 2013 at 06:24:40 (UTC)

Reason

High Ev as lead image, very good quality especially for age

Articles in which this image appears

Chinese Rite controversy, etc.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others

Creator

Athanasius Kircher

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 16:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could you explain the EV a bit better. What is the importance of Xu Guangqi in particular? JJ Harrison (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mediran (t • c) 09:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment / Conditional Support Do you think that the lower right hand corner is a result of the paper not lying flat (or paper shrinkage from drying out, or the like), or is that just how it is in the original? If the consensus is this is original, consider this a support. Also, should we remove the large stain, or adjust the somewhat odd colouration, or?

I'm honestly not sure how best to treat this one. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 May 2013 at 20:32:12 (UTC)

Reason

Very high quality image. Notice that it has been featured on 2 Wikipedias (Turkish and Azeri) in the past.

Articles in which this image appears

Khor Virap

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

MrAndrew47

• Support as nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 20:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose this was previously nominated by me for FP. As the previous nomination was, the EV is concerned because FPCs must have good EV. Quality is not at its best. Also, the leaves at the right side distracts me but I love the clouds and the view. Mediran (t • c) 10:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per previous nom. While a nice view, the image lacks in quality. Nothing appears to have changed in regards to EV; the image still has very little if none. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 16:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 May 2013 at 18:42:39 (UTC)

Reason

Detailed, highly informative map, previous nom

Articles in which this image appears

Chechnya, Languages of Europe, Ossetia, Languages of the Caucasus, Dagestan, List of Azerbaijanis, Kalmykia, Russia–Georgia war, Ossetic language

FP category for this image

Maps

Creator

Pmx, CIA

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Can I at least get opposes (with reasonings)? Nergaal (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks well done. Had been skipping over this one for the last few days, it looked too complicated :P --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 May 2013 at 00:37:02 (UTC)

Reason

Has EV, good image, already achieved Featured picture status in Commons and in the German and Turkish Wikipedia.

Articles in which this image appears

Manhattan, New York City, (George Schlegel for the new image)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Geo. Schlegel lithographers, N.Y.

• Support as nominator --Mediran (t • c) 00:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there is a weird short black line a little to the left of the "central park". Can it be removed/corrected? Renata (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really know what that is but I think it's part of the original work of this image. I'll try to fix it somehow. Mediran (t • c) 06:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely an artifact of some sort, there are several of them on the same horizontal line and they aren't in the scan on the wardmaps.com site given as the source. Kmusser (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. I'd like to see that black line removed (highly unlikely it was part of the original image). Also, the white space around the image can be cropped. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 16:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure we should crop the image since there are some wordmarks below the image saying Entered according to act of Congress in the year 1873 by Geo. Degen, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D.C. Mediran (t • c) 01:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I had missed the text at the bottom. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose original/edits of original http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/pga.04129/ shows that context has been lost. Engravings and lithographs of this period had a border and text; we shouldn't mangle them when we have a choice. A cropped version may be suitable in some uses, but shouldn't be the FP choice, or the default choice. Also, that scan has better colours, and, I think, a lot more resolution. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a restoration of the LoC image. It should be up by tonight, as it's about 4/5ths done. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh.. thank you Adam Cuerden! :) Mediran (t • c) 10:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I really hope you don't mind. It's just when I see a really featureable image, but one that could be a little better... I feel compelled to make sure it's featured =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alternative 1 (LoC) There we go! I'll also support any reasonable crop, but I do think the "NEW YORK" should be included; generous borders help reusability, though. (And sticking close to the original presentation is rather good for the George Schlegel article.)Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative 1 (LoC) per Adam. JKadavoor Jee 13:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative 1 (LoC) per Adam. Nice work! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 15:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative 1 (LoC) per Adam. Very nice. Kmusser (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative 1 (LoC) per Adam. Nice! Renata (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative 1 (LoC) per Adam. Beautiful! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:George Schlegel - George Degen - New York 1873.jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 May 2013 at 09:27:45 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Saint-Augustin, Paris, Victor Baltard

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Drawings

Creator

Victor Baltard

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's already one FP of this, File:Saint Augustin Church Paris .jpg. Since the building still exists a photo may be better than drawing unless the facade wasn't radically changed. Brandmeister^talk 20:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know, I nominated also the other photo. The drawing is valuable because it is historic: it is the design of the building by the architect, not just some painting. Tomer T (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good image Mediran (t • c) 10:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 16:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Unfortunately this front elevation of the church doesn't give me a clear idea about the shape of the building as I get from Saffron's picture. It doesn't mean that this image is not valuable. It may be the old style of drawing at that time. Nowadays most architects prefer a third angle 3D view as in Saffron's photo. JKadavoor Jee 05:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is very typical of the drawings I've seen at the time. As it's the original architecht's drawing, I'm inclined to Support, though I do wish the cutting off of the edges could be fixed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It looks cut off at the sides. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's cut. If we look at this (which seems like a later stage of the drawing, with more colors) it seems OK. Tomer T (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes; the courtyard of this church seems very small and ended with the iron grilled fence (clearly visible in the photos). So Support per Adam. JKadavoor Jee 05:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Victor Baltard - Church of Saint Augustin, Paris, elevation of the main facade - Google Art Project.jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2013 at 00:37:57 (UTC)

Reason

The map is well sourced and provides a very accurate description of one of the first documented genocides in world history. The map has provided a detailed view of the entire Ottoman Empire with a legend that makes it easily verifiable and understandable. The map is also very informative. I believe just by looking at the map, the viewer will learn something right off the bat.

Articles in which this image appears

Armenian Genocide; Western Armenia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps

Creator

Sémhur

• Support as nominator --Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support assuming that the referencing is reliable. Nergaal (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Nergaal. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support size is good, the sources (primarily Robert H. Hewsen) seem to be reliable too. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The symbols and colouring for 'relative numbers of Armenians massacred' and 'Deportation control centre' are identical (eg, is a little red dot a deportation control centre or a relatively small massacre? - and what do the the differently-sized dots in the Black Sea depict?). The difference between the red and black swords, and the size of these swords, marking areas of Armenian resistance is also unclear. I also suspect that marking the map with dates of the key events would make things much clearer and help illustrate the chronology of these events. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert in the field, but a little red dot is a relatively small control centre, a small pink dot is a relatively small deportation center, and a small black dot is a relatively small massacre. same for small and big swords. about the black sea dots, here is an excerpt from the article Trabzon was the main city in Trabzon province; Oscar S. Heizer, the American consul at Trabzon, reports: "This plan did not suit Nail Bey ... Many of the children were loaded into boats and taken out to sea and thrown overboard".[48] The Italian consul of Trabzon in 1915, Giacomo Gorrini, writes: "I saw thousands of innocent women and children placed on boats which were capsized in the Black Sea".[49] The Trabzon trials reported Armenians having been drowned in the Black Sea.. Nergaal (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this map is attempting to present way too much information, and is doing so in a pretty confusing fashion. Do you know what the differently coloured swords are meant to represent? Nick-D (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The different colored swords are suppose to represent big (red) and small (black) armed resistances. The reason why some are smaller than others is to save space and not make the map confusing. Also, I can always write a brief description of some of the features of the map and make note of some of the events and etc. in the Commons description page for additional verifiability. After all, I firmly believe that adding more information on the map itself would clutter it. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The size of the circles represent the number of those who got massacred regardless of whether they be at the Deportation Control Centers or at an Annihilation center. During the Armenian Genocide, many (in fact most) were murdered even before they reached the annihilation center. What Nergaal said regarding the red circles in the sea is 100% correct. Next to Smyrna you can also see another red dot in the sea which pertains to the Great Fire of Smyrna. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Jackal 03:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Armenian_Genocide_Map-en.svg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 May 2013 at 07:07:42 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, Very High Quality. Featured on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Makhtesh Ramon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Godot13

• Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful picture and fascinating formations. Arctic Kangaroo 03:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice image. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a technically excellent photo of the world's largest Makhtesh. dllu (t,c) 23:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice... Nothing I can say other than that... gazhiley 07:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Israel-2013-Aerial 00-Negev-Makhtesh Ramon.jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 May 2013 at 04:43:38 (UTC)

Reason

A great panoramic view of this Venezuelan town that evolved in the coasts of the Caribbean Sea. In my opinion, it fulfills the requirements of a featured picture.

Articles in which this image appears

Higuerote, Miranda (state)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Paolo Costa Baldi

• Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Now I understand why the place is called the Enchanted Dock. Brandmeister^talk 09:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Somehow it has a definite appearance of being tilted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.4.238 (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that called "perspective"? Land isn't always horizontal every which way one looks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally one interprets perspective automatically. Otherwise the whole world would look crazy. However, in this picture there is to my eye an illusion that the scene is tilted downwards at the right. 81.159.109.130 (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Not sure. On one hand I like the photo on the other I'm not sure about FP status. Framing at both ends is a little questionable and while the overall colour of the image is apathetically pleasing the colour of individual areas of the image is more questionable at full res. That said it doesn't really detract from the overall impact of the image so err not sure.©Geni 20:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose while nice at thumbnail size, rather soft at full res. I agree with Geni's concern as far as color. EV is not too great. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose per Wingtipvorte^X. gazhiley 08:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 May 2013 at 09:48:01 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Salix caprea, Pussy, Pussy willow

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others

Creator

Bernie Kohl

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks pretty good to me. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good to me too. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible candidate for renomination  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 May 2013 at 09:53:10 (UTC)

Reason

Another good high EV and quality photo, like the one below. Hard choise.

Articles in which this image appears

Catkin

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others

Creator

Archaeodontosaurus

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If I think of a catkin, I think of something like File:Ostrya carpinifolia in Italy male catkins.jpg, although Salix does produce catkins, it's not as typical as the other types of catkins produced for the definition of a catkin, imho. — raekyt 03:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I did not understand what was said by the previous one. I do not know if I can vote. But I am willing to answer questions, if any. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I disagree with (what I believe to be) Raeky's argument above that because this is not a representation of the most typical catkin form that it means this image has low EV. To the contrary, I would argue that being able to show a more unusual catkin form gives this image high EV. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible candidate for renomination  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 May 2013 at 12:10:10 (UTC)

Reason

Good image quality, has EV

Articles in which this image appears

Abraham Lincoln, etc.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Lithographer: Grozelier, Leopold (1830-1865)
Painter: Hicks, Thomas, 1823-1890

• Support as nominator --Mediran (t • c) 12:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm afraid there's a second, slightly better version on the LoC again. I'll restore it ASAP. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Eagerly waiting for your restoration :) --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto eagerly waiting. — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of brown spots, so it's a little slow. I could upload an in-progress, if it's wanted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with waiting for the final version. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Should this be suspended until the restoration is uploaded, for fairness? 129.234.252.65 (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd agree with that.--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 May 2013 at 16:00:47 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, Very high quality, featured on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Masada; Siege of Masada

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Godot13

• Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with Commons FPC comments about the off kilter crop, but honestly, this is probably not an easily repeatable shot, and Wikipedia is downright lucky to have something like this. Good job. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per User:Keraunoscopia. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice detail... Good find, and interesting article... gazhiley 08:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Israel-2013-Aerial 21-Masada.jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2013 at 21:10:24 (UTC)

Reason

Good example of Draper's works, EV for corresponding article

Articles in which this image appears

The Lament for Icarus, Greek mythology

FP category for this image

Paintings

Creator

Herbert James Draper

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 21:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EV is great. Why does the image darken itself in the articles? Am I the only one seeing that? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the thumbnail is not updated from the previous version; a "Commons" problem. JKadavoor Jee 05:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks ok now, at least in my browser. Brandmeister^talk 16:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I still see the dark one. Does this fixe itself after some time? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible a caching issue somewhere between you and Wikipedia. I have the same issue too, but if I preview the image at any other size rather than 250px - I get the bright version. - hahnchen 00:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -Great reproduction, notable painting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Do we usually alter the levels in a Google Art Project image? I'm more interested in having something as close the original as possible, rather than something that pops out. Out of the three revisions, I prefer the 2013-04-30 version. But both are better than the latest 2013-05-01 "bright" version. - hahnchen 00:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tate Gallery's version is actually quite dull, perhaps due to age-related fading. I also see a slight bluish hue there and don't think this was the original state of the painting. Brandmeister^talk 11:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do see what you mean regarding the bluish hue, but I think the current version makes the light background look overexposed. - hahnchen 13:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2013 at 04:40:25 (UTC)

Reason

Perfect resolution and contrast, of high technical standards. Free work on Wikimedia Commons. This picture is of high encyclopedic value and serves the project well, illustrating elephant excretion in wildlife. File description is descriptive and the file is verifiable. No digital manipulation can be seen. Great photo of shit elephant feces.

Articles in which this image appears

Faeces, Elephant

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there a scale? Are elephant feces remarkable in the animal kingdom for any reason that would forgive the blown foreground and lack of details? -68.107.137.178 (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Scale? Minimal or no EV... — raekyt 03:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It illustrates feces in detail. Now that's EV for you. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is rather a quality image, not FP. I'd support it if it were Black Ivory piece of shit. Brandmeister^talk 12:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I am really not seeing any EV in this picture. It's just a picture of shit. If I took a dump and then took a well lit, high resolution photo of it as "human feces" would that really be featured picture worthy? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Rreagan007. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• of course Support as author one of the best images of "feces" that we have! :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2013 at 14:48:19 (UTC)

Reason

This is the first page ("Atto Primo, Scena Prima") of an autograph manuscript copy of Scarlatti's final opera; it's in his own handwriting, and has some unusual features including a correction on the fourth stave. It's a good example of a "working copy" of a piece of music by a reasonably important Baroque composer. The manuscript itself is a little dirty and worn (especially in the lower right corner), but cleanup would not seem appropriate - this is, after all, how it looks!

The only other two music MS featured images have been cropped to give a white background rather than a grey one, but personally I feel the neutral background feels better - it makes the edges of the manuscript more visible.

Currently used to illustrate the Scarlatti article as well as the article on Griselda itself.

(Recently featured on Commons.)

Articles in which this image appears

Alessandro Scarlatti; Griselda (A. Scarlatti)

FP category for this image

Entertainment

Creator

Uploaded by commons:User:LibraryBot; digitised and released by the British Library.

• Support as nominator --Andrew Gray (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, leaning support: This is an obvious FP in some form, and we don't want to crop it too closely, but there seems to be a lot more black background than actually necessary. What do you think of cropping it to the page edge? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how well it would work, but feel free to give it a shot :-) The paper's not completely straight-edged - and there's a bit of warping due to age - so we're either going to have to crop bits of the paper off, or still leave some background visible. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking just crop a little tighter, if it still looks good. I'll fiddle with it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original or Support white background (if made available). I won't support a straight crop that removes the entire book portion because that to me was a fascinating little extra bit to look at, the sheaf of papers and the cover. It's not much, but it's EV (for me, at least). If the dark background is removed though, and the book is kept whole, that's fine by me. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm good with either. I'll say support alt 1 because it will look much nicer and cleaner on an article. Would removing the background entirely be a bad idea? There'd be no faux border, this way, and the book cover would probably be a little more apparent than it is in Alt 1. Just a thought. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That tends to be rather obvious, though. Cut-outs are rarely entirely clean. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, agree with User:Keraunoscopia. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt 1 Think that just that extra bit of tightness makes it look better and more... well, thoughtfully-prepared, I guess. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with either version (in fact, I'd be happy just to upload the tighter crop over the original, if the Commons FP people won't mind switching...) Andrew Gray (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I too Support alt 1, but am happy with the original as well. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either, prefer original. Original is currently used in the articles and is a Commons FP, and I like the small additional border for better contrast. --Pine^✉ 06:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an alt is passed, everything gets switched over. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Commons FP will remain as it is, and I prefer the original version anyway. --Pine^✉ 21:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As above, Support either, prefer original--Godot13 (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Alessandro Scarlatti - Griselda. (BL Add MS 14168 f. 5r) crop.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit 1 has 6 supports, while the original only 5. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2013 at 23:30:37 (UTC)

Reason

Good illustration for two articles. The photo is already featured on Commons and Persian Wikipedia.

Articles in which this image appears

Sella group, Sella Ronda

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

dmottl

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 23:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolute Support This is a breathtaking photograph. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Makes a fine addition to the Sella group article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support quality is great, EV lacks a bit as articles are small, but they have the potential to grow. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice image. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great image. Godot13 (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gruppo del Sella.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 May 2013 at 01:25:22 (UTC)

Reason

Clear image, free license, lead image. A landscape version of this image is also available. I previously nominated this image here but it didn't get five votes so I'm renominating it. A landscape version is also available.

Articles in which this image appears

Grey Heron, Arrocampo Reservoir

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator either square or landscape version. --Pine^✉ 01:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Neutral, nearing Support It's a beautiful capture of this beautiful bird, but I'm afraid I have to say that the background was sort of distracting me when I viewed the picture. Arctic Kangaroo 15:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've found backgrounds distracting before, but certainly not here. This is gorgeous. To be slightly honest, I prefer the wider image, but I think this makes nice use of the square frame. I kind of wonder if the wider image shouldn't be used on the reservoir article and the square image remain as the lead for the heron article, but that's just a minor preference that doesn't affect my vote at all. Clear eyes, gorgeous color. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I do not find the background to be distracting. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great quality and good EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As the totally unbiased creator. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per JJ Harrison?! Also, it has good EV and it's quality is great. Mediran (t • c) 03:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ardea cinerea - Pak Thale.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 May 2013 at 19:43:43 (UTC)

Reason

The quality is great. It is directly from the archives of the Juskalian family. I believe it is a great fit for a man that is not very known but has achieved so much. For the record, the article along with its picture also appeared on DYK on 6 May 2013 and the picture has been enlarged and the quality is still retained.

Articles in which this image appears

George Juskalian

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Military

Creator

Proudbolsahye

• Support as nominator --Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good EV, reasonable quality given the age. --Pine^✉ 06:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment P. S. Burton cropped the white frame, but in doing so, the values changed. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 May 2013 at 23:24:31 (UTC)

Reason

High quality depiction of an unusual instrument adding to the articles

Articles in which this image appears

Stereoscope, Stereoscopy, Carl Zeiss AG

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Image is good quality and appears to have decent EV. Being completely clueless as to what the device does, I may change my vote if others don't feel the way the device is portrayed in the image does not hold much EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so its a pair of 3D glasses... Guess its ok. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support image is of good quality and its function is obvious to me -- the right eye looks through the right lens at the right circle; the left eye looks through the left lens at the left circle. The pictures in the two circles are slightly different so as to produce the illusion of depth. However, my support is weak because of some dust spots around the photo; soft focus on the cardboard with the circles (which can be fixed with appropriate use of focus stacking), and overall rather mediocre resolution (height does not meet the 1500px minimum for FPC). dllu (t,c) 23:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good EV. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 08:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Half a !vote short.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 May 2013 at 18:17:28 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of an Australian artistic gymnast performing a layout step-out on the balance beam during the 41st World Artistic Gymnastics Championships in 2009. The image captures the maneuver mid-rotation. Legs are whipping around extremely quickly that at 1/1000 shutter speed, they still blur somewhat, but it helps define the motion.

Articles in which this image appears

Lauren Mitchell, Glossary of gymnastics terms#L (for layout)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Steven Rasmussen

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support either Alt versions, though I admit I'm partial to Alt 2. I uploaded a newer version where I went through more carefully and corrected background blur lines, at least to the best of my knowledge. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice, valuable shot (hard to catch, I suppose). Brandmeister^talk 19:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt 1, uncut balance beam is better. Brandmeister^talk 08:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support EV more than makes up for some minor technical imperfections. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt 1 much more EV. While blurred background on Alt 2 is nice, there are some areas around the legs where the blur doesn't quite make it to the edge of the legs, leaving some 'sharp' background present, making it clear the photo was not shot that way. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The motion blur on the legs is unfortunate but understandable. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt 2 Both alternates are better than the original, as they show the full beam. Alt 1 is a very nice image, but I prefer Alt 2 as it does make the background significantly less distracting. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Rreagan007 comment.-- Godot13 (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt 2 version--Godot13 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV '''SAMƏK''' (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt 2 Also, This picture have Good EV '''SAMƏK''' (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mediran (t • c) 03:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt 2 Mediran (t • c) 01:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally I think that the unattractive and distracting background detracts greatly from this picture. 86.160.210.4 (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for your support. I apologize for throwing in two alternative options so late in the game, but I'm thrilled that the photographer was willing to release the full frame of this photograph. I'd been hoping that a version existed where the balance beam could be seen in whole—this makes the composition less awkward and throws EV sky-high, in my opinion, since it adds both a bit of scale and height to the mix. I will notify each of the voters above on their talk pages so they may take a look at this. The photographer was extremely helpful and worked from his RAW file so what you see is basically his version of the events, which is fantastic. I adjusted the tone on the legs only (Lauren is much more visible, but the legs seemed a bit too bright, hiding some midtone detail). Finally, the IP above mentioned the "unattractive and distracting background"—I don't think much could be done without some expensive "football game" telephoto lens set-up and the fact remains that the arena (O2 arena in London, in fact) is "there". But I took the liberty of melting the background as an option. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lauren Mitchell, 41st AG World Championship, 2009 (full tone blur).jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT2 takes it, barely (5/3)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 May 2013 at 14:16:56 (UTC)

Reason

Racing Yacht RETRO sails with Newort Beach and Hoag Medical Center building's in the background on a windy day, May 4th 2012. - High EV, classic photo that has a Kodachrome look to it, perhaps due to the strong weather. This yacht is sailing at full speed, close hauled on the wind.

Articles in which this image appears

Sloop - Santa Cruz Yachts - Newport Beach - Yacht racing

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 14:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 May 2013 at 23:15:30 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, featured on Wikimedia Commons and Spanish language Wikipedia

Articles in which this image appears

Eagle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Vtornet

• Support as nominator --'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to low EV. Allow me to explain: image does not show entire eagle, nor is it used in a way to add to a description of the head and its features. If there were an article/section about bald eagles and this was there, I may support it, but then again, I think a full body shot would be preferable. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note existing FP, and delist nom in which the current image was suggested as a replacement for the existing FP but got few votes. There's also an FP of a head and upper body. I agree with Wingtip that a head-only shot is unlikely to pass given how many such images we have of this species; an exceptional full-body shot would be better. Chick Bowen 00:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 May 2013 at 23:39:19 (UTC)

Reason

Quality image, featured picture on Wikimedia Commons and Spanish language Wikipedia

Articles in which this image appears

Field (agriculture); Sunflower

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Poco a poco

• Support as nominator --'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This file is not used in the English WP, therefore has no EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added this image to the article Field (agriculture). Rreagan007 (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to Sunflower#Cultivation_and_uses. JKadavoor Jee 06:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Change my vote to Support, image now being used in WP. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice Godhulii 1985 (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's a good quality image. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It seems the uses are stable. JKadavoor Jee 08:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Doesn't get better than that. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de La Blanca, Cardejón, España, 2012-09-01, DD 02.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 May 2013 at 11:09:01 (UTC)

Reason

This is a very important image taken on 30 January 1887 in Calcutta, India. At least 6 people in this image became famous later. The main person in this image Swami Vivekananda (standing third from the left in this photo)– a social reformer — his birthday is celebrated in India as National Youth Day.
Moreover 2013 is being celebrated as Swami Vivekananda's 150th birth anniversary.
More details on the people in the image may be found in the file description page.

Articles in which this image appears

Swami Vivekananda
Swami Shivananda
Mahendranath Gupta
Swami Ramakrishnananda
Swami Abhedananda
Swami Niranjanananda (Niranjan Maharaj)
Swami Saradananda
Swami Trigunatitananda

FP category for this image

History

Creator

Creator unknown (1887 image)

Date request

If passed, can it be featured on 31 May. On 31 May (1893) Vivekananda started his journey for Chicago from Bombay (currently Mumbai)^Citation

• Support as nominator --Tito Dutta (contact) 11:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose - While I would love to see a good copy of this image at FP, this is extremely JPEG artefacted, and lowish resolution even before that. If a better copy can be found, I'd love to support it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can increase resolution (current resolution 1,999 × 1,208 pixels). I can work on image quality too, but I am very much reluctant to do it. This is an 1887 image, so I am interested to keep the "original" version! --Tito Dutta (contact) 12:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, JPEG artefacting is not original. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant oppose. Despite the important historical value of the photograph, the presently nominated digitized version diminishes the quality of the original picture. A close inspection reveals this to be a very JPEG compressed scan of a halftone print of the picture, likely from a book or newspaper, and not a scan of the original photo. I may reconsider the oppose if it is shown that a better quality version is impossible to obtain. dllu (t,c) 23:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Adam Cuerden. The encyclopedic value of this photograph is indisputably high, but this particular copy of the photograph is not up to FP standards. Spikebrennan (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Adding an alternative version! --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative. The alternative version is greatly superior. However, please copy the meaningful information in the file description and licensing information to the new picture. dllu (t,c) 18:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking to delete the second image after finishing this discussion and reupload it as a newer version on the first image.. redundant to each other, at least one should be deleted! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The ALT seems much, much blurrier at thumbnail size. Why'd you save it as a png? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative, per dlu Tech Addict, Fan-Ficion Writer, and Aspiring Filmaker 19:41, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose both There is a clearly visible raster covering both scans. Are these scans of a original picture, or something that have been printed in for example a book? P. S. Burton (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 May 2013 at 19:11:39 (UTC)

Reason

Sir Alex Ferguson is the longest serving manager of Manchester United and one of the best managers of all time in the history of Football. As he declared his retirement today so we will not see him anymore in Theatre of Dreams, there might not be any more pic of him in Old_Trafford. Hence I nominate the leading picture from his name's article as a featured picture candidate.

Articles in which this image appears

Alex_Ferguson, Manchester United F.C.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport, Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People

Creator

Austin Osuide

• Support as nominator --Godhulii 1985 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Strange framing, lot of headroom, he seems kind of underexposed, and the image doesn't fare much better when cropped (at least when I tried it)—it's his position and angle in the frame, with his head is to the right of his body; unfortunately, the image isn't all that large to start messing around with cropping. I would also maybe remove the distracting out-of-focus foreground object (someone's head?). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. I agree- the foreground object is a little distracting. Sir Alex's face also seems very underexposed. Maybe some Photoshop magic can resolve these issues. But until then...Razum2010 (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As he will become Director, as well as Ambasador for the club, he will continue to be involved in the day to day life of OT and Man Utd, just not first team affairs, ergo there will be plenty of pictures of him at OT for many years to come, just maybe not walking on the pitch... Just saying... gazhiley 07:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree he will continue with Manutd but personally I will always prefer a pic collected from a live match over any other picture. When I nominated the pic, I noticed about the left side of his face but I thought the EV of this pic supersede this. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Same concerns as above, underexposed. Too bad. Arctic Kangaroo 16:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Mediran (t • c) 03:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. He's not dead, plenty of time still for another photo. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not in live match. Just another photo can not be as precious as a pic from live match. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 May 2013 at 01:29:09 (UTC)

Reason

Decent macro image of an interesting bug

Articles in which this image appears

Curculio, Curculio occidentis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Kaldari

• Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Wow factor, but I've seen other similar images have comments regarding short depth of field. Regarding EV, I would think the entire creature should be in focus. But my question is actually this: does the image have to be so orange? Is that the actual color of the weevil or is this just happenstance and existing/unavoidable mise-en-scène? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly in many instances those comments are from people with little experience in Macro photography. Occasionally you can get away with focus stacking, but generally not. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, and I remember someone saying something about the difficulty in trying to focus stack with a living creature (the image was of a bee, now that I think about it). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, this is actually a focus stack of two images. Otherwise I probably wouldn't have been able to get both the mouthparts and head in focus with this level of detail. Kaldari (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for mentioning this. I was just thinking how fortunate it is the proboscis (?) and eyes are in focus, probably the two most important elements here. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better DOF is not impossible; but we can't expect too much for free. BTW, I'm among people with little experience in macro photography. JKadavoor Jee 06:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nice, but the white balance is very yellow... JJ Harrison (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reduced the yellow cast from the flash, but still left it a bit on the warm side. You can see the difference in the eyes especially. Kaldari (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It's a bit better. I'm not sure what one looks for in an FP macro image, but I find the image very interesting with a great composition. I can't help but think of Gonzo either, but he's a Whatever. I think another issue may be the image size, but the EV makes up for it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as in Commons. JKadavoor Jee 08:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Is the colour balance right? It looks very warm tinted. Other than that, I don't think we could reasonably expect a better macro photo of this critter. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice quality and good EV. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I also made that featured in Persian Wikipedia.Alborzagros (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kaldari Curculio occidentis 01.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 May 2013 at 05:41:18 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution portrait of English actress Dakota Blue Richards, photographed during a private portrait shoot. I am including a wider crop as an alt; it has more breathing room and the background has some pleasant colors. Please note that a photo of Ms. Richards in character is already an FP image: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/April Johnson. This image was nominated and passed as a character photograph.

Articles in which this image appears

Dakota Blue Richards

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Jack Alexander, photographer; Keraunoscopia, derivative

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I would support this one but the focus is off, it seems that the top of her head and her breastbone is in focus but her eyes are OOF. Shame. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dliff --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 May 2013 at 09:06:36 (UTC)

Reason

It's quite an all-encompassing view of the Grose Valley in the Blue Mountains of New South Wales, Australia. It's high resolution and taken on a clear and bright day.

Articles in which this image appears

Grose Valley

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support technically excellent depiction of subject. Viewed at full scale there is some noise in the shadows, but overall the signal-to-noise ratio of the image is satisfactory. The rainbow in the Bridal Veil Falls is nice. dllu (t,c) 00:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support beautiful image. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Simply breathtaking. Arctic Kangaroo 07:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support  Done '''SAMƏK''' (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Grose Valley, NSW, Australia - April 2013.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 May 2013 at 09:17:39 (UTC)

Reason

A simple portrait of the spectacular male Mandarin Duck, with all the necessary detail in focus and in high resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

Mandarin Duck and Richmond Park

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Good work although the bright background is a bit distracting and a bit noisy. Is such a high ISO (1,250) is really required for a non-flying bird? (Just some doubts prior to a review.) JKadavoor Jee 12:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISO 1250 was necessary for this particular photo. It was a little overcast and also the duck was under some overhanging trees which further reduced the light. The shutter speed was 1/200th of a second at 300mm focal length. I don't feel that a slower shutter speed would have captured the bird sharply as it was constantly moving. I don't think it's particularly noisy though. There is some noise but consider that (for example) JJ Harrison usually often shoots at a similar ISO, but he often downsamples his images significantly so noise is diminished. This image is not downsampled and is quite high res (5,211 × 3,512). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Enough reasons. Further, I prefer a generous contribution than a too downsampled. JKadavoor Jee 05:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The noise is somewhat disappointing at full size, don't know why a 2012 camera still produces it despite calm shooting conditions. Very nice otherwise. Brandmeister^talk 20:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a little noise because the ISO was high. It wasn't as calm as the scene suggests, the duck was moving around a lot. The ISO was high as per my reasoning above. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got it now. Brandmeister^talk 17:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm not bothered by the noise, I've seen worse. I agree the bright background is a bit glaring; could I impose on you trying to upload a version where just the bright background is a wee bit toned down? Also curious about how the photograph was taken, did you use a flash or similar? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striked out comment, I keep looking at the picture and the glare's not bugging me much. Picture looks like a painting, really well done. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Oversharpened. Arctic Kangaroo 07:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oversharpened? Really? Could you be more specific? I don't think it's particularly sharpened at all, and certainly not when viewed at a reasonable size. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me, oversharpened results in crystalline pixels or hard blocky edges; I'm not seeing that here. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lovely colours; the background doesn't bother me. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I see no problem with the noise. ISO is completely justified, and in all honesty, on a 5D3 is a complete non-issue. EV and quality are great. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Aix galericulata (Male), Richmond Park, UK - May 2013.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2013 at 01:37:16 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and resolution, shows relevant features

Articles in which this image appears

Cathedral Basilica of St. Joseph (San Jose, California)

FP category for this image

places

Creator

DavidLeighEllis

• Support as nominator --DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - Good lighting; the space is well-illuminated and the stained glass is not totally blown (like some others I have seen). Focus looks decent at all depths. The two lanterns at the top in the foreground are at a weird angle due to their closeness, but it is the only perspective issue I see. However, could we have more description of what exactly the picture shows for EV, ie what elements of the church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris857 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 11 May 2013‎
• Support I see no major flaws with this image, though its current placement in the article causes some serious MoS issues. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Has this image already gone through lens correction to reduce the distortion from such short focal length? If not, I'd like to see that done before supporting, as the candlesticks in the foreground are really distorted. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the distortion in the foreground is too great, e.g. the candlesticks. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The candlesticks actually are leaning IRL, though taking the picture at 14mm FX may exaggerate the effect. Physical considerations prevent imaging the same area with a longer focal length lens. Unfortunately, my photo editing skills are not such as to allow me to correct the candlesticks without altering the perspective of the entire photo. Perhaps someone else would like to try their hand at it? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could work on it. Do you have the original RAW file? And if so, would you be ok emailing it to me? If not, can you let me know exactly what lens you were using? Doing perspective correction if you know the lens is a quick job in Lightroom. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 04:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no RAW file; the image was taken as a bracketed series of HDR JPEGs, then composited with further HDR processing. The lens is an AF-S Nikkor 14-24 mm 1:2.8G ED, at the 14mm setting. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it would be helpful, I can upload the original JPEGs. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so that is what an image with the 'auto-HDR' looks like. Very nice result. I'll work off the existing image for now. Will just do lens correction (thanks for the lens info!). --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've uploaded a the file with the lens correction to WP. If it ends up being used, we can move it to commons. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The HDR effect is way too strong. A whole bunch of white walls have been rendered as muddy grey, for example. Here is a reference pic with poorer composition. You can probably reprocess from the originals properly to get my support. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2013 at 01:45:31 (UTC)

Reason

Striking image, high resolution

Articles in which this image appears

USS Macon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

Uncredited (US military)

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent quality photo (no dust marks or scratches I could see when viewed at full resolution), with strong EV. Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agreed, great image. I'm curious if the uploader scanned it him/herself or if someone paid for this image (at least, according to source link). Cool stuff. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support dllu (t,c) 00:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportBNK (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:NH43901-enhanced.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2013 at 05:17:30 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution photograph of American actress Jaimie Alexander, taken during a film premiere in London in 2013. Note that she has glitter on her face and back, this is not camera noise. A second photograph was used to differentiate and locate (seek & destroy) any potential hot pixels that were then removed.

Articles in which this image appears

Jaimie Alexander

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Richard Goldschmidt

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good, very good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not what I would say the most flattering of poses but kudos to the photog for nailing focus on the eye. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I actually like the pose here. It's much more interesting and dynamic than your standard head shot portrait. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good Image '''SAMƏK''' (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good imageBNK (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support seems good enough. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jaimie Alexander, London, 2013 (tone).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• After closure comment: While I understand the connection, promotion to FP should not be construed as carte blanche to replace better images, as was done to the lead image in the article. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2013 at 13:18:18 (UTC)

Reason

Illustrative and impressive photo, quality is satisfying

Articles in which this image appears

Askja

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Boaworm

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there is some chromatic aberration. Otherwise, it is a fine depiction of an interesting geological feature. dllu (t,c) 00:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose It seems a little blur towards the left (or is it my eyes?) Arctic Kangaroo 07:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose due to those chromatic aberrations. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2013 at 13:25:28 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Pico do Fogo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Cayambe

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Simply beautiful. Arctic Kangaroo 07:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The peak is somewhat soft, the foreground too prominent in the frame, and the people in the foreground somewhat distracting. Is this one of those impossible-to-retake shots? The image does have good EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't mind the foreground so much, but the people just seem random. A posed person for scale isn't a bad thing, but they seem to serve no purpose. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why it's relevant if he's posed or not? Scale is scale. Tomer T (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • They seem random in a desolate landscape, as opposed to, say, the photograph at the top of the Schilthorn, where there would naturally be people (there are even park benches in the frame). Here, they look like they almost strolled into the shot. Also, I should've mentioned that the image seems a bit hazy, which can be cut through somewhat. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2013 at 13:32:00 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and detail, high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Leaning Tower of Pisa, List of cultural icons of Italy

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

NotFromUtrecht

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sharp, with good handling of the potential perspective issues. Verticals don't look very vertical though, consider rotating 3.99 degrees to the left? - Zephyris _Talk 17:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High EV '''SAMƏK''' (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice quality and the EV is through the roof. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support Arctic Kangaroo 07:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I feel that the tower should have been photographed more towards the left of the picture, it looks weird the way it currently is. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 13:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Fantastic EV, I agree, but I also agree with Zephyris that the image isn't, ironically, straight, so the tower probably appears more tilted than it really is. A bit contrasty, and it's a shame the lower right corner is a billboard for Li-ning sportswear. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My opinion is swayed by the comments below. Great picture, but not the best it could be. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Swayed? ;-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at least for now. While I respect the views of the editors who've posted above, I have to say that I'm a bit surprised that this has attracted so much support. This is an easily reproducible photo (it must be taken hundreds, if not thousands, of times per day) and is obviously tilted. This would be a problem for most photos of cityscapes, and is particularly problematic given that the leaning tower of Pisa is best known for the angle at which it leans. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice image and good clarity. While I agree with Nick-D that this is an easily reproducible photo, but this pic is freely available and has a very good clarity. Also, I feel the barricade in the foreground, though not perfectly vertical, demonstrates the angle at which the tower leans.BNK (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How come the barricade in the foreground is relatively vertical, but the buildings in the background are less so? Is this due to the wide angle lens? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Nick-D. This can easily be retaken. And the angle at which it leans is on of the tower's main features, ergo we should display that correctly. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above. This is such a heavily photographed building that we should want to get it absolutely right. J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Only 50% support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2013 at 21:15:14 (UTC)

Reason

High quality SVG diagram, meets or exceeds all requirements for nomination

Articles in which this image appears

Mollusca

FP category for this image

Animals

Creator

KDS444 (Note that the "creator" username is my username on Wikimedia)

• Support as nominator -- KDS4444^Talk 21:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: a detailed and clear illustration of anatomy. I wonder if the extremely complex shading and textures can be reduced and replaced with gradients, so as to make the file size smaller and easier for browsers to render. Also, the font size is different in various browsers (it's too big in Chrome, for example)... but that's not your fault; and as long as it displays properly in the Wikimedia generated PNG, it should be fine. Otherwise, it is quite good. dllu (t,c) 03:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have gone over the image and removed certain elements altogether to see what effect they have on the total file size. Here is a breakdown:

* Nephridia and atria: approx. 1,000K

* Digestive gland: <400K

* Nerve cords (all): 1,300K

* Gonad: 3,227K

* Ctenidia: 199K

* Pericardium: 370K

* Head (entire): approx. 3,000K

The head and the gonad therefore account for nearly half of the entire file size (13,000K) as they are. I hate to lose the details in the head (all those pores!) but let me see if I can get the gonad to drop below 1,000. It will still be a large file, but it will be close to 10,000K.

I am not sure what to do about the font size— can you recommend some code that will help keep it reigned in? Let me know. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 05:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not a very efficiently made svg, it looks like it was generated by rendering from 3D to svg... Certainly a high quality result though. - Zephyris _Talk 10:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The file is now below 9,500KB down from over 13,000KB. I generated the image in Adobe Illustrator CS6 and then prepared the SVG file from there. I am unsure how efficient Illustrator is at producing SVG files, and I grant that it may be very inefficient. But the criteria for becoming a featured picture do not include efficiency, so I did not take this into any real consideration when constructing the image (though I have reduced its size by roughly a quarter since nomination in a retrospective effort to accommodate this). Being eyecatching, however, IS a criterion, as is a minimum size/ dimensions. Those requirements I worked dilligently to achieve... Would that not make it good enough for a Support vote?? I am trying really hard here. KDS444 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A featured picture also requires a high technical standard. Two major advantages of an .svg format are the ability to scale it losslessly and edit it easily; the sheer complexity of the image and the lack of gradient shading arguably mean neither of these advantages are met, making it not of high technical standard. Having said that it is of excellent visual quality, and I am happy to give you a Weak Support. - Zephyris _Talk 22:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Complexity reduced, gradient shading increased, file size now below 8 megs. I think this is the best I can do with it. KDS444 (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A screenshot of how it looks in IE10 is at http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/1061/mollusc.png. As you can see, the text layout is messy, with text impinging on other text and on the lines, and very noticeably different spacings between the lines and the labels. 86.128.5.222 (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I give up. KDS4444^Talk 23:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 May 2013 at 00:20:38 (UTC)

Reason

featured picture on Wikimedia Commons, High EV

Articles in which this image appears

Lake District, A591 road and User:Neezes/draft

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator --'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Arctic Kangaroo 07:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Needs to be sharpened? Also, is it a touch oversaturated in the yellows? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems that way to me too. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Colours don't look quite real to me, but I still like it. 86.160.210.4 (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice image and great EV.BNK (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EV is most significant for the A591 road article. Quality is good. --Pine^✉ 06:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think it is too saturated. The grass surely shouldn't be so yellow. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm going to have to agree; oversaturation sells, but it's not realistic for an encyclopedia. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 01:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 May 2013 at 01:09:21 (UTC)

Reason

High quality scan of a notable painting, perfect for Easter

Articles in which this image appears

Young Hare, Watercolor

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Albrecht Dürer

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Clearly meets the criteria and a beautiful picture. Definitely the sort of thing we should be featuring. J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High EV '''SAMƏK''' (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 02:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Albrecht Dürer - Hare, 1502 - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 May 2013 at 07:39:07 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and resolution, lead image in a featured article, FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Flame Robin

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support surprise surprise, another superb bird shot by JJ :) . --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose now that image is no longer in article. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A lovely photograph, and the sole photo in a featured article on the species. Unless JJ has a reason this one shouldn't be featured (concerns about ID, say) I'm happy with it. J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Not my favorite framing, I feel like a crop was forced due to some (now unseen) reason. And extremely nitpicky, but the bit of shadow at the bottom left actually draws my eye out of the frame—wonder if this could be removed, it seems like a blemish. The bird itself is beautifully photographed, it's only the crop or framing I have an issue with. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't like the crop here either. I assume it was done to try to comply with the so-called "rule of thirds". But, in my opinion, the rule of thirds is only appropriate when there is something interesting in the rest of the picture than just the main subject. In this image, the only thing in the rest of the image is an uninteresting branch and a nondescript background. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Somebody has moved it around in the article without changing the captions. It isn't an adult flame robin, so EV is a bit low. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Figures. Changed the caption. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to the comments, I actually love the framing. However, the fact this is a juvenile is exactly what I meant by "unless JJ has any reason...". J Milburn (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the framing too, but since this is not in the article anymore (juveniles may still have EV) this nom is sunk. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I probably can't blame JJ, but perhaps due to the dark colour of the head, it is out of focus because it is hard to focus. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 13:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 May 2013 at 12:54:33 (UTC)

Reason

I recently purchased a proper camera, partially with the aim to have a go at some featured pictures. However, I'm going to hold my hand up - I'm utterly inexperienced in this. This is the best image to come out of the first trip aboard with the camera, which while it isn't as bright as one taken in say, the Carribean, this image does show the ship in a lovely posture. It also captures it with two tender boats alongside it and a third tender departing the ship. I'll take no offence at any opposes, as this is really a learning experience for me.

Articles in which this image appears

MS Ryndam

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Vehicles/Water

Creator

Miyagawa

• Support as nominator --Miyagawa (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. I'm not liking the blown highlights. Some areas are quite soft (out of focus). How hard would it be to take another image if it? EV is good otherwise. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately it's unlikely for me personally as it was taken whilst on an overseas trip. I've had a look at some other shots I took at the same time and they all seem to be similar. The day wasn't simply as bright as I'd hoped for. Miyagawa (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What file format did you take the picture in? If it was RAW, there is a chance some of the detail can be brought back...--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks milky. Something needs to be sharper, harder, more vivid, whatever that translates to in technical terms... 86.160.210.4 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not sure what you mean by not being bright; this image is extremely bright. You don't need a crystal clear Caribbean day for a great picture, obviously. Your comments, plus the clouds in the background, made me think of this image here: File:Lake Bondhus Norway 2862.jpg. I believe that's HDR. Google that term if you want to learn more. Your image definitely looks like it was never sharpened; if you shot RAW, you need to do that yourself. If you shot in JPG, cameras will do the sharpening for you. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shot it in JPG unfortunatly. But thank you to everyone, I'll take your comments onboard. I'll see if I can set up a macro to switch quickly from JPG to RAW formats on the camera so that I have some more options to play with. I understand what you mean about milky, the contrast isn't as good as that other Norway image you showed. I might ask some of the kind FP regulars for some hints/tips and feedback on specific images throughout the summer rather than post them on FPC for each one and hope for the best. :) I think not completely awful is a good start! Miyagawa (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it varies by camera, but on my 7D, I have a JPEG/RAW button. Whichever format I'm taking a picture in at the moment, if I press that button, it will save the picture in both formats. Your camera may have something similar. You can also configure the camera to always shoot in both formats, but that takes up lots of memory. YMMV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Overexposed and lacking sharpness. You don´t even have to take my word for the overexposed part, just look at the histogram of the image. There you see an spike on the right side of the histogram, which indicates overexposure.--Snaevar (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 May 2013 at 06:47:04 (UTC)

Reason

Peter Thomsen won gold medals in both the 2008 Olympics as well as in 2012 Olympics. The picture depicts him in action in 2012 Olympics with good clarity and has high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Peter Thomsen, Equestrian at the 2012 Summer Olympics

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

User:Sffubs on Commons

• Support as nominator --BNK (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's just really dark. Also the shot should've been more of a three-quarters angle and it's a shame there's a silly looking hedge wall. But you can't see the rider's face at all, sorry. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Kerαunoςcopia's concerns are mine as well, but they are not as critical to me. That said, it is really hard to see the face unless at full size.--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 02:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good handling of motion, good detail, balanced exposure and the shadow from the jockey´s helmet to his face is just normal.--Snaevar (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 May 2013 at 17:36:04 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV. Previous nomination had 4 support and was unopposed.

Articles in which this image appears

The Spanish Wedding, Marià Fortuny

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Marià Fortuny

• Support as nominator --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As before. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, good resolution, corresponding article. Brandmeister^talk 15:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 02:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Fortuny - La Vicaría (Museo Nacional de Arte de Cataluña, 1870. Óleo sobre tabla, 60 x 93,5 cm).jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2013 at 09:12:42 (UTC)

Reason

High-quality, restored image of a much-maligned class in Brazil: as stated in South American dreadnought race#Revolt of the Lash, "... the racial makeup of the navy's crews [was] heavily black or mulatto, as opposed to the mostly white officers. The Baron of Rio Branco commented: 'For the recruitment of marines and enlisted men, we bring aboard the dregs of our urban centers, the most worthless lumpen, without preparation of any sort.' ... This kind of impressment, combined with the heavy use of corporal punishment for even minor offenses, meant that relations between the black crews and white officers was tepid at best."

Articles in which this image appears

South American dreadnought race#Revolt of the Lash, Afro-Brazilian, Black people, Minas Geraes-class battleship, Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes

FP category for this image

People/Military

Creator

George Grantham Bain collection at the Library of Congress, restored by Penyulap

• Support as nominator --Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per FPC 8. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation. This image was heavily restored using CGI. (See original.) nagualdesign (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Cleverly done, but no, we can't go there. Not only does this violate criterion 8 as above, it's also a significant enough change to run afoul of criterion 6. Chick Bowen 00:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Removing dust etc is fine. But adding elements that were not there, however skilfully done, is to far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ Harrison (talk • contribs) 04:11, 24 May 2013‎
• Comment - ah, I wasn't aware that was not allowed. I was okay with it because the image was restored using photographs of the ship (meaning it should be relatively close to accurate), and we're not talking about adding a main focus of the picture, just background. The FP criteria are understandably more strict. If someone could withdraw this, I'd be much obliged! Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2013 at 05:46:44 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, gorgeous black and white image of the French actress and model, Delphine Chanéac. I hope I can be forgiven, but I am shamelessly lifting this idea from Peregrine Fisher who proposed a nomination on the FP talk page in June 2010; it was suggested the image could be cleaned up a bit, and I went ahead and did that. I thought this was a "film" photograph, but it was originally a digital, color shot (unfree and private), and the noise was extreme, so my work consisted of denoising, along with a few other adjustments listed in the description. My crop is the exact same width as Peregrine Fisher's, but taller for breathing room and to keep rule-of-thirds / mise-en-scène a bit more balanced. I replaced the otherwise-stable image in the article. Hope I increased the estimated 40% chance of this image passing!

Articles in which this image appears

Delphine Chanéac

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Benoît Derrier, photographer; Peregrine Fisher, original finder/uploader; Keraunoscopia, derivative

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Unfortunately it's black-and-white. A good photo of Subcomandante Marcos did not pass for the same reason some time ago. There's a nice film noir feel here though. Brandmeister^talk 08:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • B&W is frowned upon here? If that's true, that's a shame. I was curious, so I went through Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment and found B&W images of people alive during color photograph days, like Armstrong and Heston. This image pops as B&W, the color version is, in my very humble opinion, boring. Well, here's hoping... – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Postscript — I just checked out the Marcos image. No one mentioned its <1500 pixels side, but the b&w and shallow focus seemed to be why it failed, though not many people participated, which is a shame. I have an image that's <1500 that I may risk here someday. One never knows. But I really hope Crisco 1492's comment "Low EV from being black and white" isn't a truth. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's FP File:Mark Harmon 1 edit1.jpg, b&w, photographed in 2005, the most recent I can find that had one oppose because it was B&W, one supporting "black and white is ideal, and I prefer it over colour photography for portraits", and one supporting "I agree btw that black and white is definitely better than color for this type of shot". By "type of shot", I assume Cat-five meant a professional head shot, but why wouldn't the same image in color not be better? I think what I'm proving to myself here is it boils down to opinion, and I think the B&W gives this image an almost-Truffaut/Godard feeling. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Modern B&W style generally reduces EV by not showing eye color, hair color and skin shade in particular (and also gives a false impression that the photo is from 1940s or so), but in this case I don't oppose due to aforementioned Bogart-like film noir effect... and Delphine herself, of course :) Brandmeister^talk 19:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, the color version is unattainable and unfree, so this is the best we have at any rate. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't love this picture, and I don't love digital B&W, but I feel obliged to say that the notion that B&W undercuts EV is ridiculous. All images show some stuff and not others, due in part to aesthetic criteria. Obviously a photo of a bird in black and white would be less valuable because color is used for identification, just as a photo of a bird that cut off its feet would be less valuable; neither applies to a portrait of a person. I'm frankly kind of insulted, as a current B&W film photographer, at Brandmeister's assertion that B&W "gives a false impression that the photo is from the 1940s"; it does nothing of the sort. The votes that objected to the Marcos picture being black and white were not definitive; the real issue with that picture, as I said on the nomination at the time, was that the depth of field was too shallow. Chick Bowen 22:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, that's weak support if we're keeping score. Chick Bowen 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Chick Bowen! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support per Chick Bowen. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 02:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've through long and hard about this image. While the B&W does enhance the image's artistic appeal, I do agree with the argument that it does somewhat reduce the EV of a portrait, as the eye color, hair color, and skin tone are technically inaccurate. I'm also a little put off by the cigarette hanging out of her mouth. It's not so much the fact the cigarette is there (though I do find it somewhat distracting) but the way it makes her mouth contort into an unnatural looking shape. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think she's "modeling" for the camera; that's what she does. :) Still, I appreciate the honest feedback! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Rreagan007. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite alright. I contacted the original photographer last week (during the above conversations) and haven't heard back from him. I won't be able to obtain the color version, unfortunately. Ah well. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2013 at 11:49:10 (UTC)

Reason

This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2012. This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images

Articles in which this image appears

Obertilliach

FP category for this image

Creator

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I like this photograph and I would change to support except that the image serves almost no purpose on a stub article, which is a shame. Also—and this is my Photoshop-trigger-happy fingers talking here—I'm not a big fan of someone's ass sticking up at me on the far right side and I'd want him removed. Unrelated to my vote, Santa Claus seemed to have visited the rooftop at the very top left. Low EV, sorry. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose EV is just too low. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 02:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above. I can see why the Commons featured it, though. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2013 at 15:08:27 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and quality

Articles in which this image appears

Schilthorn

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Ximonic

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Great shot, the people show scale and don't bother me, but I'm not a fan of the photograph itself for some reason—too contrasty or too soft, not sure if it's a result of high-altitude photography. I'll think on it further. Addendum; oh, it could be that the building is almost eyeline with the mountains, which is poor composition. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I think this image portrays the top of the mountain rather well, but there is not a whole lot of EV in terms of representing the whole mountain. Perhaps if the picture was in a section about the top of the mountain? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 01:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support a bit contrasty but that may be inevitable with high-altitude photography. I agree that the EV isn't ideal in its current placement which is my main reason for giving it weak rather than full support. I suggest that you consider nominating this at Commons FPC. --Pine^✉ 06:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The EV seems okay to me. After all, the top of a mountain is the most important part to show, and there is actually something built on top of this mountain to see. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral EV is okay, but as pointed out by Keraunoscopia the building's level and the peaks should not be at the same level. TechFilmer - Feel free to drop a message. 17:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2013 at 15:39:57 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and quality

Articles in which this image appears

Mafra National Palace

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Alvesgaspar

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Thank you for the nomination, Tomer! This is an incredible building, one of the largest palaces in Europe and in the world. It has 1200 rooms and 4700 doors. The church has six piple organs, to which I have listen playing together two weeks ago! Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support a fine picture of an impressive building. However, I'd have preferred a shot from further away like File:Palácio Nacional de Mafra (1853).jpg, unless that is impossible now (in which case, I'll full support). Also, the shadow of a lamp at the bottom left corner is mildly irksome. dllu (t,c) 22:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The shadow was removed, thanks for noticing. It is possible to move a little further away from the building but there are some small objects in between (traffic signs and alike) and it doesn't make much difference due to its huge size. Please check geolocation on file. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, after looking around on Google Street View, it's true that various lamps, parking lots full of cars, tour buses, etc would distract from the building. I've struck out the "weak" part of my support. dllu (t,c) 05:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is a very nice image, but I do share the concern about the right side of the building being cut off. If it's impossible or difficult to actually take a single image of the whole building due to obstructions, then I would definitely be in full support. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Excellent work; but it seems the "missing" part is very important, reducing the EV. So I prefer File:Palácio Nacional de Mafra (1).jpg as the lead image for now (as in the Mafra (Portugal)). JKadavoor Jee 06:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2013 at 16:43:16 (UTC)

Reason

This excellent animated illustration was created by Lucas V. Barbosa, and was uploaded to Commons back in March. It clearly and simply describes the definition of a radian and its relation to the circle in an easy to understand manner, and has been the lead image in the Radian article for over two months. I feel that it meets the FPC criteria.

Articles in which this image appears

Radian

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Mathematics

Creator

Lucas V. Barbosa

• Support as nominator --V_oBEDD 16:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Very cool, but why do designers always choose the most difficult-to-see colors? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support The EV in this image is tremendous! It explains radians much better than any calculus professor I've ever had. How I wish I had seen this earlier. Colors are fine to me. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 01:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - yet another cool animation by LucasVB. It is straightforward, visually clear, decent resolution, and loads quickly. But I agree with Keraunoscopia that yellow against white is a poor colour choice and would prefer it if it was changed to something else. Interestingly there is a tau version. dllu (t,c) 02:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If the colors are really an issue, they can be changed, though that would have to wait until saturday. I used yellow since it contrasts and stands out strongly with the red and blue. The yellow looks fine to me, so maybe it's a monitor calibration issue? Either way, here's a few alternative colors to the yellow. See if you guys like any of them. — LucasVB | Talk 02:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My personal monitor is calibrated correctly so I can see the yellow stuff with no problem; but bearing in mind that probably the majority of Wikipedia browsers use poorly calibrated TN monitors, it is best to have more contrast. I like the dark green version most, but am concerned that it may be hard for colour blind people to discern red and green. Orange and cyan are not bad either. dllu (t,c) 03:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) <-- sort of, I never know when to use this I shouldn't have said oppose, I should've asked a question or made a comment. These kinds of graphics are awesome and like Wingtipvortex said, I never saw anything explain 3.1415 so simply (radian too; I'm not the smartest when it comes to this stuff). I can't thank you enough for the color options, that in itself is awesome. I like all options except yellow or orange. And I'm grateful for Dllu's comment; it's not a calibration issue, it's not a color-blindness issue, it's just the contrast of yellow against a white background on bright LED screens that simply blind me anyway (when editing my own photographs I often take "looking" breaks). I also wonder, since yellow doesn't "exist" on computer screens if using another color wouldn't have more impact anyway, for whatever reasons I can't even begin to fathom. My favorites are Cyan and Violet followed by Dark Green. Absolute support otherwise. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll say if the original is not acceptable, I'd prefer the orange one, followed by dark green, then bright green. Cyan and violet are not different enough from the other colors to provide adequate contrast. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 04:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like Dark green has been mentioned the most. I'm all for that one too. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I'm rather fond of it as well. I'll change it as soon as I can. Thank you all for the feedback! :) — LucasVB | Talk 06:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated, as promised. — LucasVB | Talk 22:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – this vote extends not only to the original, but also to any alternative color choice made by LucasVB in response to our comments here. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is a very nice illustration. BNK(talk) 04:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support non-conditional, but a darker color as discussed above would increase the visual reception of the graphic. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Simple, elegant, and gorgeous. Jujutacular (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Excellent illustration: simple and elegant. I would also go for a darker color. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the new, dark green version. I also added some tiny pauses in some places that were bothering me, and smoothed the bending animation. I hope this version pleases everyone. :) — LucasVB | Talk 22:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rewatched it and it's perfect. Awesome job! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Given the simarities between this animation and the tau version that dllu mentioned (which is currently used in Turn (geometry)), would there be any merit in promoting both, say, as part of a set? V_oBEDD 10:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. We've had thousands of years of pi, and only a few years of tau-advocacy. The supposed merits of tau are nowhere near as clear-cut as, say, the case for h-bar versus h in physics. SOME formulas are marginally simpler when expressed using tau, while OTHER formulas are simpler using pi. Textbooks universally use pi. Tau is never used in serious scientific or mathematical publications. Tau is recognized by only a tiny fraction of our target audience. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the pi-tau debate isn't really the issue, is it? Both animations are of the same high standard, and both add EV to Wikipedia articles; why couldn't they both be featured in a set? The Flat Earth model is never used in serious scientific publications either, but that doesn't mean we can't feature a picture about it. V_oBEDD 17:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say that making references to tau would subtract EV from an article... — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, of course, the said article is actually the article on tau. That said, I don't think it is necessary to promote the tau version of this image. dllu (t,c) 19:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent illustration of a mathematical concept. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Very nice. Kaldari (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Circle radians.gif --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2013 at 02:15:55 (UTC)

Reason

It has a good quality, resolution and holds a high EV. Main image of a recently promoted featured article.

Articles in which this image appears

Boletus luridus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Fungi

Creator

Ak ccm

• Support as nominator --LlamaAl (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Beautiful but the image seems soft. Sharpen? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support a little soft, and I'm not sure what that thing is coming out of the top of the mushroom, but the EV and dimensions are good. It's an interesting and good photo but I'm not sure it's quite good enough to be featured. --Pine^✉ 06:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose EV is good. I too think it needs a little sharpening. That said, it seems to lack the 'wow' factor. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2013 at 06:13:08 (UTC)

Reason

EV, High quality and right framing

Articles in which this image appears

yellow mongoose

FP category for this image

Creator

Yathin S Krishnappa

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is an excellent image. It should be in the lead IMO. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I switched them now. The other image had an out of focus eye. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Anyone know what that is in the foreground? Part of a natural habitat or part of a man-made obstruction? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is part of the dirt road in the park. The mongoose only stood up to have a look over the road as it was below the road and only seeing a part of me (I was on the far side of the road) . -- ~y (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the reply! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support EV and quality are good. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, stable and awesome. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice image. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Would be nice to have more of his feet, but nonetheless, this easily passes any reasonable bar. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cynictis penicillata (Etosha, 2011).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2013 at 07:43:41 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, visually interesting self portrait of Gilbert Stuart, an American portrait artist, painted circa 1778 (he was 23 years old). He became the first US president portrait artist (George Washington's).

Articles in which this image appears

Gilbert Stuart, lead image in Presidential portrait (United States), Gilbert Stuart Birthplace, North Kingstown, Rhode Island, and Self portrait

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Gilbert Stuart

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High EV as said, although there is an interesting texture on his cheeks that I'm curious about. Know what that is? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Painterliness? I can't find a better term though I'm sure there is one. I was searching for the opposite of sfumato. Instead of blending, he seems to have left his brushstrokes visible, and you can sort of see the paths going around the eyes. That's an uneducated guess, though. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It looked regular and repeating, so it was my worry that this had been scanned from a book. However, as it is localised I doubt my explanation would have been correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I misunderstood you. Scewing added the source as it was taken from the NGA. I went there just now and it seems like the original source would have to be pieced together tile by tile (unless some other black magic was used to obtain the full-size image), and I doubt the NGA would scan from a book. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds about right — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Pine^✉ 21:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gilbert Stuart Selfportrait.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2013 at 15:35:16 (UTC)

Reason

A high resolution reproduction of a precious and gorgeous map

Articles in which this image appears

Cantino planisphere, Age of Discovery, Pedro Álvares Cabral, Inter caetera

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EV is excellent. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Brandmeister^talk 21:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The caption for this nomination tells me more about the image than the image's description page, which basically tells me nothing. Can you add some info to the description page? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support High level of detail and very high EV. --ELEKHH^T 23:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very high educational value. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cantino planisphere (1502).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2013 at 15:54:12 (UTC)

Reason

Articles in which this image appears

Balboa Yacht Club

FP category for this image

Places/Architecture

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 15:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Image has decent EV, but is very blurry. Sorry :( --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As Wingtipvortex said, unfortunately it's a bit too blurry. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2013 at 19:47:08 (UTC)

Reason

High quality depiction of a typical and beautiful place adding to the artcicle

Articles in which this image appears

Porto Covo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the intro: "Known for its beaches and ties to the ocean". The image does now show this, thus, its EV is limited. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of argument is that? Did you care to read the article to the end or just the first paragraph? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• First, please, WP:NPA. Second, rereading my reasons, it may appear to come off as too harsh, my apologies. My reasons made sense to me, allow me to explain so you understand where I'm coming from. As I quoted, the article's lead talks about beaches and ocean. In my opinion, for the image in the infobox to have good EV, it must portray what is in the intro. If this image was in a section of the article that talked about the buildings it portrays, then it would have significant EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 03:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2013 at 21:45:31 (UTC)

Reason

The quality is great. It is directly from the archives of the Juskalian family. I believe it is a great fit for a man that is not very known but has achieved so much. For the record, the article along with its picture also appeared on DYK on 6 May 2013 and the picture has been enlarged and the quality is still retained.

Articles in which this image appears

George Juskalian

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Military

Creator

proudbolsahye

• Support as nominator --Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I disagree that an enlarged image retains "quality"; I'm assuming by enlarged you mean the original 900x1300 image was resized to 1500x2167? (Also note that the enlarged image has a smaller file size than the original.) Are you able to request a larger, original scan of the image? I will only support if a larger, non-enlarged version can be obtained. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well I can always ask the family to rescan. However, I still believe the quality of this photograph is this FP worthy. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest concern is the grain. If you can get a rescan, I don't see why this image wouldn't be FP worthy. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Grain" is not an issue of the enlargement. It would be there regardless due to the scan. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I may be in the minority, but I'm still curious if the family would allow a larger scan. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grain doesn't seem like an issue for me. The quality is still good.--Chauahuasachca (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The image looks good to me, the quality is acceptable too.--Երևանցի ^talk 22:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite a good photo placed in an interesting article. Grain doesn't seem much of a issue. The quality is great and appealing.--Chauahuasachca (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as before. --Pine^✉ 00:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Jackal 13:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lets pass this one already, its getting old :p --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:George Juskalian 1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2013 at 22:56:28 (UTC)

Reason

Nice picture, high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Yellow Tang

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish

Creator

Lviatour

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support '''SAMƏK''' (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very nice picture. BNK(talk) 06:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 13:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose it's not exactly sharp. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove my Oppose vote per the discussion below. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per Wingtipvortex. Initially, I thought it was my eyes. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 09:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it too, but I thought that was a common thing with underwater photography? I should probably study up on more underwater FPs then. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Tomer T (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is just a product of underwater photography, then shouldn't that be overlooked here? I mean, it's a picture of a fish, you kind of have to image it in water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreagan007 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 21 May 2013‎

Fishes are probably always in water; but photographers may not. Sometimes one can take photograph through the glass standing outside; if it is in an aquarium. In that case, we can demand good quality. But if it is a pure underwater photography like this, we've to compromise more. JKadavoor Jee 17:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Zebrasoma flavescens Luc Viatour.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 May 2013 at 01:57:00 (UTC)

Reason

Extremely high resolution painting of a very different style for Sargent, primarily known as an American (and arguably London) portrait artist. Google Art Project scan.

Articles in which this image appears

Gassed (painting)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

John Singer Sargent

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good choice by Google Art, showing the inherent evil of war. Brandmeister^talk 17:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very striking, agree with Brand's analysis as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support dllu (t,c) 22:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Reminds me of the poem Dulce et Decorum est. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sargent, John Singer (RA) - Gassed - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 May 2013 at 02:18:41 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution Google Art Project scan of an extremely notable painting in John Singer Sargent's career, completed in 1884. The lady in question is Virginie Amélie Avegno Gautreau. According to the articles of this saucy lady, she wore powder of lavender, which I ascertain from third-party sites would make her smell as such, but I feel her skin tone has been given a slight lavender appearance as well (the entire painting uses light rose colors). The painting would become scandalous for Sargent; aside from its sexiness, the original version had one of her straps fallen to the side. Our article doesn't have an image of this, unfortunately, though I have seen it in a book. (Image.) The scandal and failure of this image forced Sargent to move to London and for Ms. Gautreau to retire from society for a short while. And my mom says, according to her readings, the two of them boinked. Unlike my Frederic Edwin Church Rainy Season in the Tropics crop where I removed all of the frame, parts of the frame here remain because I cropped to the edges of the actual painting. Feel free to compare original/crop and approve or disapprove.

Articles in which this image appears

Portrait of Madame X, Virginie Amélie Avegno Gautreau, List_of_works_by_John_Singer_Sargent#Parisian_Period

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

John Singer Sargent

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great EV. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One of my wife's favorite paintings by one of her favorite painters. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Madame X (Madame Pierre Gautreau), John Singer Sargent, 1884 (unfree frame crop).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 May 2013 at 02:33:12 (UTC)

Reason

Large resolution image (not a Google Art Project scan, unfortunately) of a square John Singer Sargent painting that is both notable and important due to its influences on other artists and the studies and analyses made on it, including psychosexual interpretations about loss of innocence. I've seen this painting myself and it absolutely draws you in with its secrets and darkness. I am offering this as a nomination due to its importance in Sargent's career, and I am keeping my fingers crossed that Google Art Project will obtain a high-resolution scan that can supersede this image in the future (as of this writing, the actual Google Art Project website—not Commons—does not have this image in its inventory). Please note that I losslessly cropped this image to remove as much of the unfree frame as possible. Unlike my Frederic Edwin Church Rainy Season in the Tropics crop where I removed all of the frame, parts of the frame here remain because I cropped to the edges of the actual painting. Feel free to compare original/crop and approve or disapprove.

Articles in which this image appears

1. The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit
2. John_Singer_Sargent#Training
3. Las_Meninas#Influence.
The rest of these links are galleries or lists: 1880s_in_Western_fashion#Children.27s_fashion, Visual_art_of_the_United_States#Selection_of_notable_19th_century_works, Museum_of_Fine_Arts,_Boston#Highlights_from_the_American_collection, Las_Meninas_(Picasso)#Other_versions, List of works by John Singer Sargent

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

John Singer Sargent

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Original painting is huge (2 metres on each side) but the scan is only 2000px. Lots of detail lost. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. This is where my ignorance starts because I wasn't sure if this image was nominatable (I'm making up words now) or not. It certainly doesn't hold up to the larger Google Art Project scans, which are kind of setting the bar high, though it'd be prohibitively expensive to scan every single painting at such resolutions; I therefore nominated this solely for its EV, although like you said, perhaps this image is still too small, considering the size of the painting. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The EV is certainly high, but we're losing a heck of a lot of detail. This may meet the letter of the criteria, but I'm not quite sure on the spirit. We need to have some reasonable detail here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Crisco. J Milburn (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support We can't turn down a nom because other images like it come at much higher resolutions and this one didn't. It meets the FP size requirements, and that is good enough for me. The EV is there. Sure, I too would like to have the full size, hence the weak support. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2013 at 18:06:45 (UTC)

File:Soghomom Tehlirian monument Fresno, CA.jpg

Reason

The picture is perfect EV about a man that is not well known. I believe its a great fit for FP.

Articles in which this image appears

Soghomon Tehlirian, Ararat Massis Armenian Cemetery

Places/Architecture

Creator

Garik Mkrtchyan

• Support as nominator --Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The memorial isn't centred and the colours look a bit off. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It can always be cropped. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Shadows are hars, colours look off. Even if it was cropped that would be way too tight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Say, doesn't the US not have freedom of panorama for statues? What year was this statue made? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a tomb...not a statue. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a tomb, but it also has a statuette on it (the bird) and serves as a monument. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Scrap the nomination please. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 May 2013 at 10:11:06 (UTC)

Reason

I think it stacks up against all the quality criteria. This is the Australasian subspecies. It was put into the species article as a replacement for an existing FP, so I'm also suggesting delisting for that one. The second existing FP (in the taxobox) is of a different subspecies, and has a very different appearance.

Articles in which this image appears

Purple Swamphen Wollongong Botanic Gardens

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

99of9

• Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although the delist nom should be handled separately. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I understand it is hard to shoot animals when they are moving, but the head seems blur enough. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 13:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as one who inserted this picture, replacing that existing FP. I think I did enough homework before that. JKadavoor Jee 14:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)...and Delist the other mentioned above per Chick Bowen. JKadavoor Jee 06:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace. That is, I support this, and I'd ask someone to add my vote, with a link back here, to a delist nom when one is opened (which it should be). Chick Bowen 00:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC) (Or alternately we could just consider this a delist and replace nomination per the Obama one above. Chick Bowen 01:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Promoted File:Purple Swamp Hen Wollongong.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 May 2013 at 12:39:02 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Ensis ensis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Molluscs

Creator

Michael Gäbler

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EV and quality are good. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Wingtipvortex. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I am a founder member of Project Bivalves. This is a nice image photographically speaking, but it is not a good specimen to illustrate the species. The shell has been lying around for quite a while. It is green inside from algae; the outer surface of the shell has been damaged by exposure to the air post mortem; and the acorn barnacles are obscuring the hinge line area of the shell, which is important for identification. This is a very active burrowing species, and I think the acorn barnacles must have colonized the shell after the animal died, which means it had been dead for quite a while when it was photographed. The image could perhaps be used to help illustrate taphonomy I guess. I have changed the image in the taxobox of the Ensis ensis article to one that is much more useful, albeit not as attractive. Invertzoo (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 May 2013 at 22:01:25 (UTC)

Reason

Aside from playing a video game yourself, the best way to show a video game's mechanics and its style is in video format. There are some video game trailers which are full of theatrical trickery and outright fabrications, this isn't one of those. This depicts pure gameplay, the reader sees all the characters, a selection of the worlds they must navigate and the enemies which inhabit them. The typical 2D platformer style presentation of the game, and the techniques the characters exhibit, such as double jumping and wall jumping also serve the Platform game article well.

The original video was H264/AAC, you can see it on Youtube. I transcoded the video to WebM with VLC, keeping bitrates similar. But if you're a video guru, you might be able to do better.

Articles in which this image appears

Dustforce, Platform game, Humble Bundle, Trailer (promotion)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment

Creator

Hitbox Team, with music by Lifeformed. Uploaded by hahnchen.

• Support as nominator --hahnchen 22:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indeed a video is a much better way of showcasing gameplay mechanics than static pictures. dllu (t,c) 23:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but mainly for the EV in Trailer (promotion). Can't think of any more recent trailers which could be used, especially for video games. Mind you, for the gameplay mechanics this is also pretty good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 May 2013 at 00:26:01 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality lead image for the article Common Pierrot. The picture is featured on Commons and on Malayalam Wikipedia. The previous nomination here on English Wikipedia was half a vote short of passing.

Articles in which this image appears

Common Pierrot

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Jkadavoor

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 00:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as before. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 01:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain from voting as earlier. I prefer to be silent about my own works. JKadavoor Jee 02:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it's an intriguing picture... I just noticed the spider on the underside of the leaf. The sharpness and resolution are not the best but satisfactory for macro photography. Overall the composition and subject are great. dllu (t,c) 06:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Fine quality.--Jacopo188 (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Is that an aphid underneath? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a spider (as other people in Commons); but now I am confused. JKadavoor Jee 15:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - As before: The background is distracting, especially the yellow flower and the picture also isn't really that nice. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 13:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as before and at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Common Pierrot Castalius rosimon by kadavoor.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 May 2013 at 13:29:58 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, Fine Lighting and resolution, Artistic and historical value.

Articles in which this image appears

Astrolabe article in en and fa wikis.

FP category for this image

Astrolabes

Creator

Masoud.Safarniya

• Support as nominator --Jacopo188 (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question this is a beautiful photo but I thought that astrolabes were obsolete. Is this new astrolabe used for anything? If it's just a work of art then I'm not sure it has enough EV here, but it could be a good candidate for a Commons FP. --Pine^✉ 21:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astrolabes are still used by hobbyists specifically interested in them and their history, similar to sundials and the like. You can buy cheap ones in museum giftshops, and expensive ones like these from specialty shops. I agree, though, that this has less EV than a photo of an original medieval or Renaissance astrolabe. Chick Bowen 03:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made this Astrolabe with new calculate and this is update for this date. Some people who are interested to ancient astronomy and astrology, use astrolabe for their purpose.--Jacopo188 (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't realized you'd made it yourself. It's beautiful work. Thanks for allowing the photograph to be uploaded with a free license. Chick Bowen 00:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If this is beautiful, where is your support?--Jacopo188 (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I had to think about its EV, as I said above. I'll support though, although I'm taking your word for it that this is an accurate reconstruction of a middle eastern astrolabe; it's different from Renaissance European ones I'm more familiar with. Chick Bowen 00:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this has EV, as it shows a modern Astrolabe. Quality is good. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support striking. Alborzagros (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom. --M.safarniya (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- I don't like the angle, which seems excessive. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support To the above comment, I think the angle is necessary to show the 3-dimensional aspects of the piece. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice lightness exhibits delicate structure of astrolabe and the portrait orientation shows it's solidness in harmony with it's function. high resolution of this photo magnifies sense of punctuality and beauty of this artwork.Muhammadhg (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammadhg (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Iranian Astrolabe 14.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 May 2013 at 13:34:04 (UTC)

Reason

Very nice picture with high EV. The mine worker really makes it stand out.

Articles in which this image appears

Cave of the Crystals, Naica Mine, Gypsum (added now)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors

Creator

Alexander Van Driessche

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is quite difficult to get sufficient lighting for any underground photography, and this is pretty good. As the article mentions, getting further images may be impossible, so this is probably the best available. Has good EV and wow factor. Chris857 (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It is a little dark, but as I've never seen any well lit images of this cave, the conditions are difficult, and the EV is quite high, I don't mind. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I supported at Commons but now I see hot pixels, blue in the darks and some whites. Should be cleaned up. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to do it. Tomer T (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose EV is good, despite being somewhat soft. I'd like to see those hot pixels gone before supporting though. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I don't know how to do it. Can somebody of you do it? Tomer T (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still see some in the dark areas in the lower left of the image. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Got three more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Great! I'll change my vote to Weak Support. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Very unbalanced lighting. Also, I get no sense of size here. I would like to see how large these crystals are in relation to any other object.-- mcshadypl ^TC 22:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there is a person in the picture... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.222.57 (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Did you read the nomination reason or the caption? Tomer T (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per Chris857. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Definitely an important photograph and probably not too easy to obtain. I'm wondering if the f/22 was a huge mistake and is causing the softness. Otherwise, with a person for scale, this is a fantastic shot. Thanks for taking care of the hot pixels. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think f/22 was way overkill here. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cristales cueva de Naica.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 May 2013 at 20:55:47 (UTC)

Reason

One of those hard to come by portraits of a celebrity, with a free licence and great resolution. Eurovision brought me here, ;)

Articles in which this image appears

Natalie Horler, Cascada

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Dirk Hilger

• Support as nominator --Julia\^talk 20:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose subject's head is cut-off in the image. Spencer^T♦C 23:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: Framing is an artistic choice, but it looks a little too white to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quality is good, framing is well used to create good composition. Sure it could have more EV, but the chances of another image this quality being free popping up are slim. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Way too overblown, cropped too tightly. -- mcshadypl ^TC 22:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2013 at 05:24:18 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution and quality, notable painting

Articles in which this image appears

Portrait of Maria Anna, Maria Anna of Spain, +7

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Diego Velázquez

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support interesting irises. btw, I'm going to probably copy your "+7" (or similar) in the future instead of listing out every article, what a pain that can be. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds very sensible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Brandmeister^talk 18:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Diego Velázquez - Maria Anna of Spain - Prado.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2013 at 05:28:37 (UTC)

Reason

High quality scan, notable subject, interesting pose

Articles in which this image appears

Terry-Thomas, Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Employee(s) of United Artists, scanned and cleaned up by User:SchroCat

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems to meet criteria. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2013 at 08:10:19 (UTC)

Reason

Full-length film in the public domain, highly notable. Resolution is on the low side, but that's in part because of limitations of Wikimedia software

Articles in which this image appears

Prelude to War, Why We Fight

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II

Creator

Frank Capra for US Army

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This upload is Ogg Theora at 400x300. The archive.org original is 720x480 in a non-free format. The original should be transcoded to WebM keeping it at the same resolution, Wikimedia Commons will automatically transcode it into lower quality versions and formats. Given that this file is 200Mb, I assume you can get around upload size limitations. - hahnchen 14:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense that their MPEG is of a higher resolution. (Actually, you could get around the 100 mb size limit too... just need to use batched uploads) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to have a go at transcoding it yourself, I suggested some directions on Commons:User_talk:Odder#Ogg_Theora_uploads. A 2.4GB file is too big for me to attempt. - hahnchen 22:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that I'm back home, it's too big for me too. (Was nice to have the hotel's connection while it lasted). Well, we can consider this nomination withdrawn. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2013 at 16:50:20 (UTC)

Reason

It illustrates the Bashohli style of painting and the iconography of goddess Bhadrakali. FP at Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Bhadrakali, Bashohli

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Google art project, retouched by me

• Support as nominator --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - Not really seeing much EV here, although the image is quite nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I see no EV... --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.As per the Hindu mythology The trinity of Gods represent the creation, maintenance and destruction of life. The God on left in the trinity, called Brahma, represents the creation, the God in the middle, called Vishnu, represents maintenance and the other one, called Shiva, represents destruction. They are considered to be supreme. They are worshiping her as the demon she killed, called Mahishasura, cannot be killed by them, the men and other Gods. Goddess Bhadrakali, also one of the forms of Goddess Durga, is known to be irate and once she is angry she unleashes a terror which can't be faced even by the trinity of Gods and she can only be pacified by worshiping her. I think it illustrates that very nicely. BNK(talk) 07:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Issue is, this is not shown by the use of the image in the articles. Hence why I'm neutral here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You are entitled to your opinion. I supported because I have some knowledge of Hindu mythology and using that I deduced the above statement from the picture. Anyway lets see what others think about it. --BNK(talk) 12:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have some (not much) knowledge of Hinduism, but that's not the point we're judging on. The criteria state "Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." In one article it's used in a gallery, which does not add any EV. In the other it's one of a line of images, none of which indicate a specific aspect of the goddess. If Redtigerxyz were to improve the usage of this file I'd be happy to vote support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This seems pretty typical of how one goes about illustrating articles on a goddess. The subject is notable, this provides a useful historic view of how she is traditionally depicted, and fits into a notable tradition. For these sorts of articles - and, in particular, for Hindu gods, which can have several different aspects with very different traditional depictions - there's plenty of EV for several historical images to be potentially featurable, and this is the first and most prominent image for this aspect of her. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wish the image was used a bit better in the article... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2013 at 21:05:33 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV diagram in SVG format

Articles in which this image appears

Just added to Magnetosphere, and was already present in Earth, Geophysics, Lagrange point colonization, and solar wind.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding

Creator

Dashpool and Akaase based on an original from NASA

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 21:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Several components such as bow shock, magnetotail or plasma sheet are in fact cut off so that their actual extent is beyond the image. Also the Earth's atmosphere label here doesn't give a sensible information to me, it may be better to place an ordinary scale bar instead. Brandmeister^talk 18:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think that if all components were not cut off then the earth would be too small. The diagram is thoughtfully put together and I learned something from it, not finding myself distracted by crops or labels or pixelation. Plus I'm a sucker for diagrams.--Efbrazil (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree that it would make the earth too small if the elements were not cut off the way they are. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2013 at 21:11:37 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Stratocumulus cloud, Earth

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking back

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 21:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2013 at 21:24:26 (UTC)

Reason

Impressive photo already featured on Commons, Spanish Wikipedia, and Persian Wikipedia

Articles in which this image appears

List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, Hurricane Isabel, Eye (cyclone)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking back

Creator

NASA astronaut Ed Lu

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 21:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm struggling to put into words what I learn from looking at the photograph in terms of EV. I get a much better sense of scale from File:Hurricane Isabel 18 sept 2003 1555Z.jpg for example, what other features does this photograph illustrate? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. It is a nice picture, but I see no significant EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The existing FP looks two-dimensional and shows the breadth of the hurricane. I think this new image complements the existing FP by giving the viewer an appreciation for the powerful atmospheric effects. --Pine^✉ 06:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems reasonable. I'll Support.--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I actually think this image has very good EV for showing the eye of a hurricane. I have therefore added it to the article Eye (cyclone). Rreagan007 (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2013 at 22:19:14 (UTC)

Reason

wonderful and illustrative image of Graham,s anole (Anolis grahami) already featured on commons.Best currently available photo of Graham's anole

Articles in which this image appears

Graham's anole,Norops

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Jannes Pockele

• Support as nominator --Jamaican college grad (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice. Brandmeister^talk 15:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Too tight crop. Please let the poor thing breathe :) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support don't mind the crop. Great photo. Tomer T (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose due to tight crop. The tail is cut off. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cropping superiorly and inferiorly is too tight, but not tight enough on the left. -- mcshadypl ^TC 22:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I contacted the original photographer in hopes of retrieving a less-tight version, if it existed. Haven't heard back. It's an eye-catching photo, but my vote is in agreement with above. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Which version is featured at commons? I can't see any --Muhammad(talk) 07:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The Commons photo is on this page,http://commons.wikimedia.orgview_image.php?q=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/May-2013&sq=Envato&lang=en&file=File:Graham%27s_anole_on_post.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.1.185 (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2013 at 22:26:13 (UTC)

Reason

High quality picture. Sharp and attractive.

Articles in which this image appears

Malayan Banded Pitta

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --ceranthor 22:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 07:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was going to nominate this soon anyway. Took a few days of disappointment to get it. :) JJ Harrison (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quality certainly reflects that. ;) ceranthor 19:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Took a few days of disappointment to get it." I appreciate it so much when you say things like this; I know someone who wishes they could photograph birds (not I, but a relative) and your occasional insights seem to iterate "patience" (almost inhuman patience). I will pass this information on, with emphasis. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quality image indeed. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if you look carefully in the eye of the bird, you will see the reflection of JJ Harrison. dllu (t,c) 22:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or at least my blind. ;) JJ Harrison (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a professional quality image with excellent EV. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice image. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thought I'd supported already. Obviously a space-time paradox. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly. JJ Harrison (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support as it's sharp where it needs to be, although I wish the end of the tail could be in focus as well. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hydrornis irena - Sri Phang Nga.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 May 2013 at 01:13:40 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution portrait photograph of Norwegian singer-songwriter Ane Brun, stable as lead image in her article. Photographed for a 2008 interview with lecargo.org.

Articles in which this image appears

Ane Brun

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Benoît Derrier; Keraunoscopia (editor)

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A high quality and interesting portrait. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, interesting juxtaposition between angles created by reflection. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What's up with the weird little rectangle on the back of her arm, just below her shirt?--Efbrazil (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, that's part of the original watermark. I completely missed that, thanks for catching that. I kept staring at the hair on her shirt thinking you meant that (just to the left of the rectangle). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically it's removed, but Commons isn't updating the photo. I have little patience for that kind of stuff so I'm going to watch a movie :) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is a striking portrait with good EV. It's a good example of how a visually interesting portrait can still provide a clear depiction of its subject. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ane Brun, Le Cargo interview, 2008.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 May 2013 at 20:25:28 (UTC)

Reason

An overall sharp, high-resolution, and easy-to-understand photo

Articles in which this image appears

Canada Goose

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Michael Laser

• Support as nominator --Aplaster (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose very poor sharpness. dllu (t,c) 22:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose image is out of focus. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - Per above, as well as terrible background. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 09:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 May 2013 at 01:03:17 (UTC)

Reason

high quality,illustrative image of Allison's anole (Anolis Allisoni) featured on commons and three wikipedia pages,best current photo of Allison;s anole

Articles in which this image appears

Allison's anole,Anolis carolinensis anole series,list of Anolis lizards

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Colin and Sarah Northway

• Support as nominator --Jamaican college grad (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Tail is really cut off. Brandmeister^talk 09:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per Brandmeister. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 09:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Brandmeister and Arctic Kangaroo --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 May 2013 at 05:08:48 (UTC)

Reason

The map has great EV and quality. This image was selected as picture of the day on Wikimedia Commons for 4 March 2010 and was even a candidate for Picture of the Year in 2008. This map has also been improved by the Wikigraphists of the Graphic Lab.

Articles in which this image appears

Armenia, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, Cilicia, Hethum II, King of Armenia, History of Armenia, Leo I, King of Armenia, List of monarchs of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, Second Battle of Sarvandik'ar, Toros Roslin

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps

Creator

Sémhur

• Support as nominator --Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have some minor issues. The most significant is the choice of year range, 1199 to 1375. The boundaries shown are not either - does that mean that the 1375 boundary was the same as 1266 (seems unlikely?). What about 1199–1204? Secondly, there's no indication what replaced Rum in 1307. (Compounded by the fact it lies past 1266.) I also think a better colour could have been chosen for Cyprus. "Payas Portela" looks like a single place. The hyphen in the date range should be a dash. Also, it's not clear from whom the land taken between 1204 and 1266 was taken, which I think is an important part of the value of such a map. (And mutata mutandis for the area lost.) I think also "Permission has been received from the copyright holder to license this material under the GNU Free Documentation License.", judging by the licencing section, must also include CC-BY-SA. (The licencing could more clearly be separated into two parts - the underlying work and the alterations.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 May 2013 at 19:46:47 (UTC)

Reason

Renomination after the previous nomination got 4.5 supports.

Articles in which this image appears

Sveti Sedmochislenitsi Church, Yordan Milanov

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

MrPanyGoff

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support A fine composition of an encyclopaedic and interesting subject. Overall no severe defects, but some minor annoyances preclude a full support. The colour of the building seems to be bleeding into the sky slightly. The two people in the entrance appear to be levitating. JPEG artefacts in the shadow at the bottom right corner have been exaggerated during brightening. dllu (t,c) 22:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Comparing the original upload with the nominated (latest) version, it seems some of the old sky is what's appearing as a blur. Also, the details in the highlights are completely lost in the new version. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the top right border is missing sky. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the picture briefly and it seems that the highlights aren't completely blown (they seem to be at most 252 out of 255). Anyway they didn't have that much detail to begin with. Good eye regarding the top right edge though. dllu (t,c) 05:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2013 at 02:20:14 (UTC)

Reason

A high quality photo of a 13th century Armenian church from an interesting angle.

Articles in which this image appears

Noravank

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

RaffiKojian

• Support as nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 02:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Source field isn't filled in over at Commons. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm really not loving the composition of this image, I can't get over feeling like a chunk of church is missing in the bottom left corner. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom right looks tight to me... If there was more in the original image maybe it could be recropped 86.160.82.229 (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2013 at 09:15:42 (UTC)

Reason

Sharp, good lighting and composition, as well as angle from which shot of the bird was taken.

Articles in which this image appears

Noisy Miner

FP category for this image

Animals

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 09:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator in the first round. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What's wrong with the article's lead image? File:Manorina melanocephala AF.jpg – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see the image size is relatively smaller than usual. Hm. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing, the background of that pic is bad, and I would have expected that with the photo taken in that way, the tail should be in focus. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• JJ Harrison (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that an oppose, JJ Harrison? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't even know. Support :P JJ Harrison (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support They have a bunch of these at my mall, noisy minors. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Manorina melanocephala domain.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2013 at 10:31:19 (UTC)

Reason

Good resolution, good look at the species' shell,

Articles in which this image appears

Veined rapa whelk

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Molluscs

Creator

H. Zell

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This picture shows in fine detail every aspect of this shell. JoJan (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per JoJan. JKadavoor Jee 04:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- I agree with JoJan on this. Invertzoo (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rapana venosa 01.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2013 at 13:24:47 (UTC)

Reason

Quite an unusual historic event, where a Japanese WWII commander is being honorably buried by his American counterparts. During the Battle of Saipan, where Saitō was in command of the Japanese, 3,426 Americans and 24,000 Japanese were killed.

Articles in which this image appears

Yoshitsugu Saitō

FP category for this image

History/World War II

Creator

uncredited

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 13:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unless there's some technical problem that I'm not seeing. The size passes our criteria; it's highly significant for Saitō's article; it does a good job of showing what's going on; it obviously can't be retaken to overcome minor problems; and it would be quite useful as an illustration in the Battle of Saipan article as well. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is an interesting photo, but the unusually formal funeral isn't mentioned in the article at all, which greatly reduces the image's EV (the Battle of Saipan was an unusually hard-fought and bitter affair, even for the Pacific War, so it's surprising there was such a formal funeral for the man responsible for much futile fighting and the deaths of civilians). Also, the permission details at Commons are wrong - this image obviously wasn't created "under jurisdiction of the Government of Japan" given that the US Military had captured Saipan from Japan. This is likely PD as being a US government-created image, or being an old US image, but its creator isn't identified on the source website, and it could also be a still copyright-protected image created by a journalist. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed, although I don't know whether the US law applies to Saipan retroactively (formally the Northern Mariana Islands became a US unincorporated territory in 1975, according to our article). The original source of the photo is most likely Pacific War Museum. Brandmeister^talk 15:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you know that the image was published prior to 1977 without a copyright notice? The source website appears to provide no details at all on where this image came from, though I may be missing something. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Nick-D in regards to EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2013 at 17:32:54 (UTC)

Reason

Nice and interesting portrait, nice expression. High EV and quality. I noticed the shadow, but I don't think it detracts from the image, but adds to its dramatically.

Articles in which this image appears

Johan Theorin

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others (Where do writers go?)

Creator

ArildV

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yes, the composition is nice but the depth of field is poor. For a portrait like this, his clothes should be in focus. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with the nom. I just think there's way too much headroom. (edit conflict) I don't see why his clothes have to be in focus. The article isn't discussing his clothes. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added alternative. Tomer T (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative Like the cropped top better. DOF is fine. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I simply can't make up my mind on this one. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2013 at 17:40:08 (UTC)

Reason

A renomination. The picture's tilt was fixed since last discussion.

Articles in which this image appears

Landsort, List of lighthouses and lightvessels in Sweden

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

ArildV

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I took the liberty of straightening this image properly for you. For future reference, you can request this kind of edit at the Photography workshop. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Composition is good. No obvious flaws. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, unfortunately. Great encyclopedic value, and I love lighthouses, but the mixed lighting on the structure itself seems to do the shot a disjustice, and the composition imparts an uneasy feeling of both clutter and oversimplicity at the same time. Just seems to lack visual appeal to some extent. Juliancolton (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Excuse me for asking. What is that house and two-pillar like structures on the rock in front of the light house? Are not they a bit distracting from the main subject? Could not we have got a better shot from another angle? Just asking, no offence meant.--BNK(talk) 02:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2013 at 17:51:57 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV. Good detail.

Articles in which this image appears

Svartsjö Palace

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

ArildV

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looking good. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Subject is slightly off-center. It could be better if it was cropped to the left a little. But a very nice image.BNK(talk) 01:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2013 at 17:56:15 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, very thorough, very well put together.

Articles in which this image appears

Fork (software development) Linux distribution

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:FP#Engineering_and_technology

Creator

Bunch of people, see File:Linux Distribution Timeline.svg for the names.

• Support as nominator --TechFilmer - Feel free to drop a message. 17:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Indeed very thorough, very well put together, and indispensable EV for the history of computing. dllu (t,c) 18:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the support because I feel that I must think about this more. For example, since last year, Crunchbang is now no longer based on Ubuntu and is instead directly based on Debian. Plus, the other commenters below make some good points. dllu (t,c) 06:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why does redhat not get a logo? I wonder since the smaller distros don't get images, should we have any logos at all? --Chrismiceli (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Red Hat Linux logo is non-free. dllu (t,c) 03:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you can't copyright fonts (at least, not in most jurisdictions), so why not just use the text part of their logo? It looks rather horribly unbalanced as it is. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not really a fan of the in-image credit... J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Look, I really like the diagram, but the information portrayed is constantly changing. There is no way this can keep its EV for long. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is being regularly updated over the last 3 years though. dllu (t,c) 00:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right. I still don't like the idea of an image that will loose its EV over time if not updated. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Without commenting on the image itself, I don't think this is a valid reason to oppose. If the diagram becomes outdated in the future then it can be delisted. Cowtowner (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I just re-read my reasons, and I find I did comment on the image's EV and its ability to retain said EV. I consider that commenting on the most important aspect of an image as far as WP's FPC guidelines are concerned. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to add some more reasoning from my part: It is going to be very difficult for this diagram to ever be complete. There are thousands of linux distributions, not all of which are documented and/or easily findable. How do we determine which ones are notable enough to make it onto the diagram and which ones are not? Who does the determining?

If it is going to be a FP, it needs to be the editors in the FPC page that determine if it has enough EV for FP status. That we are ok with someone else editing the image to their liking and it retaining its FP status without any input from us whatsoever does not sit well with me. We currently do not have the ability to re-evaluate images periodically. If we could, I would support that this image be an FP for 3 months, at which point it would loose its FP status and have to be renominated based on its EV at that point.

This is a tough one. We are used to pictures here, where the only thing that can be changed in them over time are the adjustments, but the content remains the same. Even then, by the time a picture reaches FP status, it has had all the adjustments it needs. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I see those arguments, and agree that they are legitimate concerns. I'd say that we (or the project) have a responsibility to curate the images we promote, both to keep them in line with our standards and ensure that they continue to have EV. We have featured images of subjects which are subject to change, though probably not as rapidly as this one might. I think the best example of this would be subway maps. I guess it's just a question of degree. Cowtowner (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2013 at 21:14:57 (UTC)

Reason

The graphic helps cosmology, evolution, and written history in context. It has been widely referenced on the Web and is used as an introductory graphic in science and history classes. Unlike other Cosmic Calendar graphics on the Web, this one includes primary sources of evidence, key dates for human evolution, and the last 60 seconds of the year. As a featured picture it will be more likely to be noticed for its educational value. The current version of the graphic is graphically enhanced from a prior version, which had its content vetted through review.

Articles in which this image appears

Cosmic Calendar

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:FP#Sciences

Creator

User:efbrazil

• Support as nominator --Efbrazil (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Previous nomination here. 86.164.144.158 (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment And time before that, just for the record. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This image is really informative and compresses the timeline of existence into an easily digestible graphic laid out in an innovative way. This is the type of image that should be on posters in schools --Andrew 23:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! I hope we get some more positive feedback. I won't push this a fourth time.--Efbrazil (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While the concept has merit, this graphic is needlessly 'busy', and the different sized cells in the month calendar are confusing. The 'last 60 seconds of the year' section is American-centric (eg, why is the arrival of humans in North America more important than the earlier arrival of humans in Australia, or the later spread of humans through the South Pacific? And why is Columbus' arrival in North America highlighted?). Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In defense: First, thanks for the feedback. The cells at the bottom of the calendar are larger to allow for the expansion of human evolution, and I couldn't figure a different visual treatment would be better. A few reasons Columbus arriving in America was chosen: Columbus was almost exactly 1 second ago, Columbus arriving in America was very important for the current makeup of the Americas, for English speakers it's important to realize that the lone superpower was built from nothing in one second, and it's a single date versus a longer term process like the renaissance or humans spreading through the South Pacific. Whether Columbus arriving was a "discovery" or whether it was "good" or "bad", it was an important date- it marked the beginning of a process where modern times spread over the globe, overpowering indigenous peoples and natural environments the world over. See what great discussions will emerge from this awesome graphic?--Efbrazil (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a comment: The fact that this is American-centric is hardly surprising, nor a detriment to the value of the image. The Cosmic Calendar was, after all, laid out by an American. Cowtowner (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I like it, but I found the middle panel background hard to understand. At first I thought it was mere "artistic pattern", then I thought it might be rock strata, then I finally figured out it is a forest. I don't think it is particularly clear. 81.159.110.250 (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per the last nomination; I think it illustrates the concept more or less as well as we could reasonably expect it to. Cowtowner (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]