Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/May-2017

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 5 May 2017 at 17:33:37 (UTC)

Reason

This is a sharp and clear photo

Articles in which this image appears

2017 McDonald's All-American Boys Game

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

TonyTheTiger

• Support as nominator – TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have tried for some time to get images promoted using my APS-C cameras (Canon EOS 600D, Canon EOS 650D and Canon EOS 7D Mark II). I finally had access to a Full-frame digital SLR Canon EOS 1D X Mark II camera. I would like to test a few of my images for support here. This submission is cropped (see the edit history for the original), but unedited. It seems to be sharp enough for consideration. I have the raw file and will try to follow processing suggestions. The primary image editing software that I use is Canon Digital Photo Professional 4.6.10.0.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that I take this shot every year as the main image for the articles. E.g.

2016 McDonald's All-American Boys Game see File:20160330 MCDAAG co-MVPs Frank Jackson and Josh Jackson cropped square.jpg

2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game see File:20150401 MCDAAG Cheick Diallo MVP award presentation alone.JPG

2014 McDonald's All-American Boys Game see File:20140402 MCDAAG MVPs (2).JPG

2013 McDonald's All-American Boys Game see File:20130403 Aaron Gordon MCDAAG MVP (3) cropped.jpg

The image quality is far superior this year from prior years with lesser equipment.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Tony, it's not the camera that makes a picture FP worthy. Even photos taken with smartphones can be (and probably have been) promoted. It's the EV, the composition, sufficient quality and the "wow" factor that make a picture featured! --Janke | Talk 10:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well the EV should be clear. For this game, he was the star of the game. Thus, a picture of him is probably the best picture we could have to depict the game. One of him with the award in hand makes the point clear.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. I have nomminated a lot of sports photos that have wow factor for sports fans, but don't seem to have enough wow factor for photography buffs. Furthermore, very little of what I see in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport (e.g. none of the first 8 pictures there right now) has a wow factor to me. They are mostly boring photos of high quality, so I don't know what to think of that element.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This photo is a good photo because it is focused and accurately portrays the subject. Bmbaker88 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.--Jobas (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ok for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A better picture would have been taken at the subject's eye level. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. It may well be the best photo possible under the circumstances, and it's plenty useful I'm sure, but overhead "from the stands" shots of players always have an amateurish snapshot feel to me. It's also underexposed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have noted that the image is unedited, so I can compensate for exposure, but I don't know how to adjust for perspective.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Julian's comments above. This is certainly a useful photo, but the composition is not of FP standard. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per Julian. – Sca (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 May 2017 at 03:41:26 (UTC)

Reason

Meets the technical standards and resolution standard and is a well composed pic of a notable bridge on a sunny day in scotland

Articles in which this image appears

Kylesku Bridge

FP category for this image

Architecture

Creator

Geni

• Support as nominator – ©Geni (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's a fine photo, but I haven't decided how I feel about the harsh sunlight and relatively straightforward composition. In the meantime... there's a dust spot in the sky about one-third of the way inward from the left. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This is a nice picture, but I feel like the foreground is too blurry, especially above the bridge itself. Maybe blurry is the wrong word, but it just doesn't seem feature worthy to me. Goveganplease (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no foreground above the bridge.©Geni (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote as user isn't eligible (5-days old account with 20 edits instead of the required 25 days and 100 edits). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Well, there's a gradual curve or arch to the bridge deck, but I don't know how unusual that might be. For a modern box girder bridge it seems reasonably nice-looking, but the overall composition is rather plain and static. I'm skeptical about EV and visual interest for Main Page readers. Sca (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is a good photo because it is clear and demonstrates the uniqueness of the architecture. Bmbaker88 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While it's well above size requirements, the sharpness of the image doesn't seem to be exceptional; and I don't think it depicts one of the most notable things about this bridge - its horizontal curve, which is shown much better from above, as in File:Kylesku_Bridge_-_geograph.org.uk_-_53877.jpg, or either of the photos on this external page. It's a perfectly fine photo, but our standards for landscapes are justifiably very high, as they are the most reproducible type of photo. TSP (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Goveganplease.-Jobas (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TSP. There's nothing at all wrong with this photo, which is well executed and useful, but I agree that the geograph.org photo indicates that it wasn't taken from a position which best shows its features - which are mentioned in the article which notes that it was designed to blend in with the landscape. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 May 2017 at 20:14:05 (UTC)

Reason

The picture has an excellent view of the city and just taken recently in September 2016.

Articles in which this image appears

Tibilisi

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Poco² from Wikimedia Commons

• Support as nominator – cyrfaw (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The photo was actually created by Poco, fixed it for you. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – This is such a wide panorama that detail is lost in the magnitude of the view. Sca (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This panoramic photo is clear and very detailed. It demonstrates the vastness of the city. Bmbaker88 (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The picture is vast and detailed, but it should have been more perfect. --Marvellous Spider-Man 06:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.--Jobas (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose -- The left part of the image looks overexposed and subsequently adjusted to look less so - details lost in highlights. --Janke | Talk 06:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2017 at 20:40:46 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV, and adds significantly to its article.

Articles in which this image appears

Hook echo, Doppler on Wheels

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences

Creator

Josh Wurman/Center for Severe Weather Research

• Support as nominator – Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – high-quality and high-resolution animation of what is sometimes called the most thoroughly documented tornado in history. I'll always be amazed by the "eye" of the tornado on display here. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - High quality image with excellent encyclopedic value. Mifter (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't seem to be the most valuable on the hook echo article nor the Doppler on Wheels article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The only other image in the DoW article is a 0.17mp photo of a vehicle carrying the instrument. Do you genuinely believe that's a better illustration of the technology in question? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't question my integrity. Question my votes by all means, but do try to be polite. Doppler on Wheels is a truck-based system. The article is about the mobile system. The picture I refer to illustrates the truck-based system well. The size is of image is irrelevant, that image is not up for FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd argue the article is as much about the project's findings and research as its infrastructure and logistics. It certainly should be, even if not now. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a system photograph and an output image would fall under two different scopes (compare Commons' VI). Both would be acceptable to me.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is this supposed to be animated? If yes, why not just have a video and thus provide a better approximation of the output? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Jobas (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose shouldn't this be a video, and not an image you have to click twice to see the animation? Mattximus (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crisco 1492 and Mattximus: A video form already exists: File:05june-dow7-wide2.ogv. I just find it to be rather unfulfilling in comparison to the image, especially with the reduced quality of the video compared to the image (click to play the video thumbnail and you'll see what I mean). With either form you have to click twice to animate at full resolution/quality, and given that the image provides better quality in a thumbnail I find the image form to be more practical. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - GIFs of this size just don't work for me. At least with a video you just need to click once to see the clouds move.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2017 at 09:51:23 (UTC)

Reason

High EV. We observed the adults in a family of proboscis monkeys jumping between these two trees. They went round and round, repeating the jump. Over a period of 15 minutes, the adults encouraged the youngsters to make the jump. This young male was one of the last to commit. Very positive voting for Commons FP. Image voted into second round of Commons Picture of the Year.

Articles in which this image appears

Proboscis monkey

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Charles

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very well put together! Margalob (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Jobas (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose – Nicely done, but I think most readers would think it showed three monkeys, not the same one. Sca (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Caption says "learns to jump" - how do we know that, looks like he already can... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation as explained above. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs to be in caption, too... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2017 at 01:41:38 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image. If passed, this would be one of the oldest man-made objects featured.

Articles in which this image appears

William the Faience Hippopotamus +3

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

Unknown; photography by the Metropolitan Museum of Art

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; absolutely. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a bit like a plump Eyeore. – Sca (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Easy, per nom. Mattximus (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, technically excellent. --Janke | Talk 08:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: one of the oldest man-made objects featured... We obviously need to feature older objects, such as spear points, neolithic tools, etc. Any good candidates??? --Janke | Talk 05:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that there are some hand prints featured that date back to 40,000 BC. I forget, however.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Brandmeister^talk 08:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Standing Hippopotamus MET DP248993.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 May 2017 at 12:38:16 (UTC)

Reason

Illustrates article well. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Campo flicker

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charles (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —  --Marvellous Spider-Man 15:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – more of the tree trunk [1] improves the composition, IMO. Bammesk (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Cropping is always a subjective matter which is why I try to upload the full image before cropping. If I made a wider crop, there would be many objecting: "too much tree trunk". It shouldn't really be an issue for FP. Also, the way that Wikipedia places images in the infobox means that a 'thin' portrait style displays very well and enhances the article - the whole idea behind the FP criteria. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see from the commons nomination that my opinion is in the minority. And agree with the subjectivity of it all. It is a very nice image and good EV, and good lighting. Bammesk (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support —Bruce1ee^talk 13:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Don't wanna see this go down without concensus..-The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 14:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck !vote cast after the voting period expired. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion during the voting period. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 May 2017 at 14:08:31 (UTC)

Reason

Illustrates detail of nest very clearly. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Black-headed weaver Ploceidae

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charles (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Very nice, but do I see some haloing or chromatic aberrations around the bird's back?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see anything. The back feathers have motion blur of course. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the opposite of blur. It's almost overly sharp, except for some haloing.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – --Marvellous Spider-Man 15:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I like the image a lot, but I note that it currently appears only in a gallery in village weaver (and not at all in black-headed weaver). Josh Milburn (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd not seen the article you mention @J Milburn:. The article for the Yellow-backed weaver (a different species) was incorrect named black-headed weaver and my link went to it. I've now renamed the article. Do you think it should be the main picture? I've added the image to the page Ploceidae. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2017 at 14:51:54 (UTC)

Reason

SVG is freely licensed, is W3C valid, contains no rasters, and is a highly accurate representation of the actual egg (of which there are currently no freely licensed images anywhere on the Internet— at the moment this is the only freely licensed image of this egg in existence). This image is based on a series of different photographs of the egg, all from the Royal Collection. Egg itself is out of copyright.

Articles in which this image appears

Basket of Flowers (Fabergé egg)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

KDS4444 who is gladly taking suggestions for improvements, if any

• Support as nominator – KDS4444 (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well I initially thought this is a stunning image, but it isn't anything like the real thing is it? Not from the photos on Google anyway. Colours seem to be wrong and details are incorrect too, such as the basket handle. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Charles. SVG strikes me as inappropriate for this kind of thing. I love your diagrams, but for only representing a physical object it's lacking.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Of a real object, I want to see a real photo... --Janke | Talk 07:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. No need of a drawn image for something that is real and photographed. Mattximus (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  I withdraw my nomination I wondered if the image might not get this response. I tried to emphasize that there are no freely licensed images of this object available, and that my drawing is the only such image now out there. Yes, a photo would be better... But we don't have a photo, and no freely licensed photos exist. So I made this image, which is quite close (how is the handle wrong? I said I was taking suggestions). It isn't that I am suggesting we make this a featured picture instead of a photograph of the real thing. I am suggesting that there isn't anything for it to be compared to that is freely licensed. If we are going to have a criterion that "SVG images should only depict non-specific objects," shouldn't we say that somewhere? It's fine (though disappointing) if it's true. If we ever got a freely licensed image of the real thing I'd be glad to abdicate this one. But based on the stated existing criteria, I thought this might be a genuine candidate. I guess SVGs just can't cut it sometimes. KDS4444 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that, but there is a long history of rejecting images that have glaring flaws (this is a great illustration, but it's still an illustration) if a better one could conceivably be created. At Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/20170329 MCDAAG Michael Porter Jr. MVP, for example, we had a technically competent picture: crisp, in focus, reasonably good contrast and lighting. However, reviewers agreed that the image fell short of FP quality, and that a much better image was possible.

Similar objections were raised at one of your other nominations, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Male Maratus volans. This rejection of illustrations in place of photographs (for non-diagrams) is not new. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, my understanding for why the M. volans illustration was rejected was because we (finally) had an actual photograph of it which, as a photograph, necessarily took precedence. We have no photograph of the Basket of Flowers egg. Someday we might, who knows? But we do not now and there is no reason to expect one to be offered up anytime soon (the Royal Collection does not freely license its images, and access to the egg for quality/ professional photographic purposes is otherwise rather limited). I created a pretty good SVG version of it, one I thought worthy of consideration as a featured picture on its own grounds. But there you have it: it is not a diagram, it is only a very complex imitation of one (that took me nearly three weeks to put together! Amen!). But all I can do now is let it go, which I have done. In the mean time I have created a much less complex and much less time-consuming diagram of a chicken egg which I have just now nominated for FP consideration (see above). The good news is that it is a diagram! KDS4444 (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It goes without saying, that despite not succeeding in FP, the images are very useful in the articles, if no real photos are available with a free license. Thus, thanks, KDS444! --Janke | Talk 08:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --feminist 06:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. feminist 06:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2017 at 21:58:46 (UTC)

Reason

It's a nice fountain during the rest of the year, but in the winter, when frozen over like this, I think it's particularly striking. Here, taken on one of the coldest nights of the year, to me it almost looks like something out of a fantasy film. It's a Quality Image on Commons and there's encyclopedic value in that it's a good image of a notable fountain (Josephine Shaw Lowell Memorial Fountain) at, in my opinion, its most visually interesting.

Articles in which this image appears

Josephine Shaw Lowell Memorial Fountain, Bryant Park

FP category for this image

Places/Others

Creator

Rhododendrites

• Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Daytime image more encyclopaedic. This image does not improve value of article Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I thought about the nighttime lighting issue, but those lights shining on the ice make for an interesting composition – and the darkness reduces the distraction of a cluttered background. Sca (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose structure of the fountain cluttered by icicles.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – perspective distortion on the right side is heavy, and I find the busy background distracting. Bammesk (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Cool picture for sure, but the icicles obstruct the view of the fountain, so it would have low EV. Mattximus (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 May 2017 at 12:50:14 (UTC)

Reason

Freely licensed image, scalable vector format

Articles in which this image appears

Egg, Chorion, Allantois, Amnion

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

KDS4444

• Support as nominator – (Okay then, how about this egg??) KDS4444 (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Should wait 7 days after replacing images. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – leaning to support (after 7 days), but I like to see the image file description list a reference or source link, one that can serve as a basis for the drawing. Also isn't category Sciences/Biology a better fit? Bammesk (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  I withdraw my nomination and will renominate after the 7-day period. File now has sources given in its description. KDS4444 (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2017 at 15:36:34 (UTC)

Reason

I was just browsing when I came across this image. It appears to be quite a well framed and high resolution image of a UNESCO World Heritage site. What do you think? Featured picture on wiki commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Amphitheatre of El Jem, Amphitheatre, El Djem

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Diego Delso

• Support as nominator – Mattximus (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – small thumbnails but textual description is Ok. Bammesk (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good. Should be the main image in the Wikipedia article though. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good general view and EV. Brandmeister^talk 17:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Marvellous Spider-Man 02:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Works for me. -- KDS4444 (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Anfiteatro, El Jem, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 55-66 HDR PAN.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Added to Places/Panorama instead. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]