There is a backwards S shape line and a couple of blobs/posterization on the collar that, as far as I can tell, shouldn't be there. MER-C13:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on Commons, there's a blurry blob left of the waistcoat button (not in the original) that bothers me; otherwise this is excellent work. There's also a fairly extreme crop at the bottom. Jebulon is usually excellent, but this has a couple bad mistakes. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs16:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Halo around beak from excessive use of shadow highlight tool. All seems out of focus, especially top of head - heat haze? Background noisy. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Mattximus, and we've had this debate. The community seems happy with noms that aren't in the top right box. There's nowhere else to show an endemic 'subspecies' like this, or a mating image or headshot for instance. Let's see what others say... Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that "Panther chameleons from the areas of Nosy Be, Ankify, and Ambanja are typically a vibrant blue" - is this greenish-cyan the "blue" implied? This is a highly varied species, so there's certainly space for several images, though it's a little confusing as laid out now. It might be better to move the discussion of variation to the section with the gallery. I can kind of see the "buried" claim, as the explanation that helps the gallery make sense isn't actually near the gallery, while if it was explained with pictures right there, the explanation would have more weight. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs00:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support We should probably have substantially more "male" variation pictures, though. This is one of those cases where I'd like to suggest these for a set, but there's not enough for a set. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs01:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little more depth-of-field would be nice, but I suspect we're looking at focus stacking for that, and with living beings... Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs06:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 May 2019 at 00:35:32 (UTC)
Reason
The last one failed along with a few others in a temporary slowup in voting. It had four votes of support. After a commons run of the image that was extremely positive, it's clear the first vote here was wrong. Also consider a Google image search for him which makes it fairly clear this is far better than any other available image for the purposes most people want it for.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 May 2019 at 22:16:46 (UTC)
Scene 1
Scene 2
Reason
They're two of very few - possibly the only - free images for this work, and are rather good ones. Focus more on the sets than the scenes, but hint at most of the objects that come to life, save the animals in the garden.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 May 2019 at 20:14:19 (UTC)
Reason
Amongst the best shots of the Eagle, one of the relatively rare colour images, and the infelicities of the image can be forgiven when they're hand-held shots on a different lump of space rock than ours.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 May 2019 at 06:32:31 (UTC)
Reason
Arthur Streeton is one of Australia's most famous artists and Golden Summer is considered by many to be his first masterpiece. It was the first painting by an Australian-born artist to go on display at London's Royal Academy, and also the first Australian work to win an award at the Paris Salon. In 1995, it was acquired by the National Gallery of Australia for $3.5 million, then a record price for an Australian painting.[source]
Support Computer screens can't really do justice to this large and impressive painting (which captures the colours and landscape of an Australian summer day remarkably well), but this is a good scan with strong EV. 05:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment, and abstain for the time being; is one antenna broken? It has fewer segments than the other, and appears to miss the yellow rings. The background is slightly blotchy, not so much that it bothers me, though. --Janke | Talk19:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2019 at 17:19:39 (UTC)
Reason
High resolution and quality of a famous painting. The painting is considered one of the masterpieces of modern art, and also Cézanne's finest work, according the Wikipedia.
Support - while the colors differ from the museum web site, it's a fairly safe assumption that this professional reproduction is faithful to the original. MER-C15:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - powerlines everywhere. Generally a bit short of today's standards for new FPs re: architecture, particularly resolution and sharpness. MER-C17:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 May 2019 at 12:24:26 (UTC)
Reason
This is the painting of all fantasm and superlatives. Salvator Mundi is attributed to Leonardo da Vinci by most experts, but this is still contested by others. This is the only painting of the famous master in a private collection. Badly damaged and attributed to Leonardo's pupil Giovanni Antonio, it was sold in 1958 for £45. It is now the most expensive painting in the world. It was sold US$ 450.3 million on 15 November 2017 by Christie's in New York. It was planned to be on exhibit in the Louvre Abu Dhabi, but its current location is unknown. And it is appropriate for the 500th anniversary of his death. See [1] for the complete story of the painting discovery and restoration.
We must be satisfied with this, since it is privately owned, there won't be any new version any time soon. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to overlook minor color differences but grey vs. blue on the sleeves is very substantial. There are also the JPEG artifacts on the top, as pointed out on Commons. This painting clearly deserves an accurate reproduction and it is important that we get it right. MER-C15:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the details about the restoration are important for the commercial value of the painting, but for us, I don't think it matters that much. This is the best available image of the painting after restoration on the whole Internet, and it will remain so for the foreseeable future. That's the whole and only important point for us. I added a description. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 May 2019 at 16:42:34 (UTC)
Reason
Was seen on Commons FPC last week, where it succeeded unanimously. While the photo does have shortcomings, particularly around the background and the blown highlights on the head, they are relatively insubstantial considering the species is critically endangered.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 May 2019 at 04:10:24 (UTC)
Reason
Interesting work by an interesting woman. Eunice Pinney was one of the first American artists to work in the medium of watercolor. This is fairly typical of her work - a shade more elaborate, perhaps than some of her others, but not by much. It'd be nice to get some American folk art on the front page, also.
Since I encouraged you to nominate this, I don't think you'll be surprised I Support. Notable artist, in an under-represented genre. Being a bit more elabourate is arguably a plus, insofar as it gives more of the artist's techniques. Think there's room for it in The Sorrows of Young Werther? [3] identifies it as a scene from that. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs04:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That article I linked mentions her source: "Lolotte et Werther depicts a scenefrom Goethe's popular novel The Sorrows of Young Werther, for which Pinney apparently relied on an engraving (or some derivation thereof) by French artist F. Bonnefoy." That kind of thing was pretty common at the time, and probably more so in folk art. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs04:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves (and it may not, it's been a while since I've read about him), he did, but he also traced images from advertising and used them as the basis for some of his figures. I think he may have developed an enlarger tool to aid himself in the process as well. Another example (I'd have cited him earlier, but I didn't believe there was an article): Justin McCarthy. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.07:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High-quality reproduction of work by a notable artist, used as the lead image for her article. Among the works we have by the artist, this is a good choice to feature, both because of the execution of the work itself (the falling skater in the picture-in-picture!) and because of the quality of the image as a reproduction (high resolution, very sharp, with no unnecessary matting). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She has been referred to as a notable artist, but her page receives an average of 1 view per day. We may wish her to be notable, but apparently in the grand scheme, she isn't. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, page views are a bad way to judge notability. It gets way too much recentism into the mix. Especially as POTD is as much educational as celebratory. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs01:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your points, but this artist is really beyond the margins in art historical terms, and still a virtual unknown in an age of intense revisionism in favour of women artists. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the point to have 2 FPs taken seconds apart? Saturation is much increased compared to the other image, and may be a bit tilted, but it is quite cleaner. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. I think you misunderstood. The one a second before is not FP at this time. I just included it in case people prefer it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs08:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk: It's worth noting that, given the incredible brightness of the rocket exhaust, as well as speed, this would have been a very fast exposure. The sky is severely under-exposed, which (combined with what I believe is filmstock's natural bias towards blue) ups its apparent saturation quite a bit. It's somewhat to be expected. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs05:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, with hesitations A lot of JPEG artefacting, mitigated by the size of the image. The leaves, in particular, have enough that it almost imitates a film grain. Still, it's very high resolution, and the problems are only visible near 100% zoom, so I'm happy to support. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs02:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 May 2019 at 04:08:39 (UTC)
Reason
This satellite image shows the structure of the weakening Carlotta and its location better than any text could describe (without going into unnecessary detail). In my opinion, the image is of high enough quality to meet the criteria. The coastline may be removed upon request if that is necessary.
Withdraw@Hurricanehink: I guess TD and TS images aren't really deserving of featured status as they aren't doing much to begin with. Although I nominated this on the line of it being more informative of its location and structure than it being visually impressive. NoahTalk13:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple of white spots on the wall - far right, near the center. Also, is it just me, the shoddy construction or is the image tilted? MER-C14:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is tilt but I think there is also a lot of lens distortion (not a high quality lens). This being a historic image or documentary, I am Ok with it as is, rather than modifying it for technical reasons (which would mean cropping the boundary). Support. Bammesk (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the lamp, which presumably hangs mostly straight from the ceiling, I'm inclined to think there isn't as much tilt as you'd think. Certainly some lens distortion, though possibly exacerbated by a small room requiring a wide angle lens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)
I am somewhat concerned that the tilt and lens distortion detracts from the EV - it can be confused with the floor not being level in reality. MER-C16:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not much that can be done, though, and the light fixture kind of hints to me that the image is less tilted than you'd think, as the wood beam next to it is tilted relative to it. The buildings were demolished after WWII. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs16:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support rectified version that I just uploaded. Revert if you don't like it - but note that very little of the edges were lost in the fix. --Janke | Talk23:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also ok with me. If it were my own photo I would have done that as a matter of course, and I don't think the sloppiness of the original framing has much EV in itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I save at 99/100 on the JPEG quality scale - above Photoshop's highest setting. I would prefer to have it done from the PNG version and uploaded as PNG as well, but my JPEGs are at the "ridiculous" level. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs02:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 01:14:57 (UTC)
Reason
Stumbled across this while checking out a new archive. I think it's a particularly nice bit of ephemera, good enough for Queen Victoria to get a personal negative of the image. This was briefly nominated before, but the discussion was kind of going way, way off topic, so I asked for it to be closed. It's since passed Commons (by rule of the 5th day, no less) albeit after a bit of a levels tweak which probably dealt with some issues that were derailing the last one.
Support this time around as a high-EV illustration of outlandish 19th C. militaria. (Wish we could say with certainty that the tunics were red, though.) – Sca (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They pretty much certainly were, but I don't think 19th century camera technology is perfect at that sort of fidelity. Chemical reactions are not the eye. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs16:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, all photographic plates at that time were only blue-sensitive, i.e. "color blind", rendering red as black, likewise other colors at the longer wavelength end of the spectrum. (For instance, the Swedish flag became a "negative" in old photos; the yellow cross rendered dark, the blue background light! That made it look like Finland's flag... ;-) Support, BTW. --Janke | Talk19:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, it's an arresting pictorial artifact. Can you imagine engaging in combat wearing one of those crazy bearskin 'hats' – ?? Well, the whole Crimean War was pretty crazy anyway. Sca (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Hughes & Mullins after Cundall & Howlett - Heroes of the Crimean War - Joseph Numa, John Potter, and James Deal of the Coldstream Guards.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus03:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support like this one but the whole disc here shows better the process. Historically important, 186 year-old work. Stone towards the invention of the cinematography -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing it. The file description page is not showing the use and I don't get anything if I search for the filename in the article. MER-C17:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 May 2019 at 14:13:35 (UTC)
Reason
A very good quality and high resolution depiction of an iconic monument. Probably the best available image of the front facade of the building (see here)
Support. Although there are many other images of this subject, I agree with the nominator that this is the best view of this facade on commons, and as the lead image for the Basilica it has high EV. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right JJ Harrison, thank you. I concentrated in the near white building on the right, as a reference, and slightly adjusted the colour temperature. What do you suggest: to replace the picture or to propose a new version? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 06:50:05 (UTC)
Reason
Notable suffragette, and first woman to attend a university in the Netherlands, and at least amongst the first female physicians. Image is high-quality, and, while round may not be ideal, it's not bad at all. She's likely more notable in the Netherlands than the main Anglosphere, but diversity is a good thing.
Support – file description puts birth control first, not sure putting it first is a good idea, her article lists many other contributions. Bammesk (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Since I asked Adam to work on a photo of her in the first place and it took me almost a year to find an image that would make a good candidate for restoration. In addition to her activism and medical practice in the Netherlands, Jacobs was an extremely important and influential international women's rights activist. Active in the leadership of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, as well as influential in the US contraception movement. Besides the archive of her records in the Netherlands, her library of personal books resides in the US. I am no expert of photography, but it appears to meet the FA criteria and is verifiable as being in the public domain. SusunW (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 May 2019 at 00:29:54 (UTC)
Reason
A fine image of one of those people who can be quite hard to get good images of. British archives tend to be locked down a bit, so we're lucky to have such a fine picture of Strachey. She's a prominent British suffragette and, while she didn't win a parliamentary election (though she came somewhat close), she headed two or three major organisations, was the British representative to the Inter-Allied Women's Conference, and, plus, parliamentary secretary to Nancy Astor (first woman to take a seat in parliament) isn't bad.
Support. You can still see a lot of the texture of the paper on which this was printed (I think), above the normal film grain, but it's not an unpleasant effect and it would likely do too much damage to try to hide that. I wonder whether the negative is still accessible somewhere? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Very nice period pic (pre-WWI) – strong character shows in her expression (though her article is perhaps a bit thin). – Sca (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]