Support - Palace could be better maintained (I'm seeing quite a bit of water damage to the paint), but this is an excellent view of the building as it appeared at the time. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 May 2023 at 09:58:36 (UTC)
Reason
While a little snapshotty, given the government really didn't want this getting documented, it's as good as we're going to get. I think it's a decent documentary photo, even if its composition could be better.
Promoted File:Artistas protestam contra a Ditadura Militar - Tônia Carreiro, Eva Wilma, Odete Lara, Norma Bengell e Cacilda Becker - Restoration.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus10:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, because we would end up with less detail and sharpness. The best way to do this would be to find another copy of the image and scan it physically. Unfortunately, the only one on ebay right now has been marked for cropping and would not scan properly. (As an aside... I thought I recognized this image - I uploaded the original crop years ago). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any resolution issue getting resolved within a reasonable time frame. I will keep an eye on eBay, though... they have some great images. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: Feel free to disagree - It's a matter of how you feel featured pictures should highlight subjects - but I'd say, given the other is the lead, and given this shows something different and specific, we can justify two. The alternative can lead to a situation where we don't get the extra work put in for any image other than the lead, and that's a situation I'd rather avoid. As such, I support. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!10:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is probably the best of this little set of three, though lizards are much more still, which probably helps the focus. It's not that the birds are bad or anything; it's this one is especially good. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!18:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Should this photo be added to the article on Velasquez's woodpecker as well? It shows more diagnostic features than the the current photo there (although I do like the fact that the bird is shown feeding in that one). Choliamb (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp: As it happens, I saw my lifer Velasquez's woodpecker at Copan, within a few hundred yards of the spot where you photographed this one. From the coordinates of the photo, I assume you were staying at the Hacienda San Lucas, which is where my wife and I stayed as well. Choliamb (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we were. I climbed inside the tiny children's play hut half way down the lawn and crouched in there waiting for the woodpecker to land on the stump. Very uncomfortable and the day visitors were pointing and laughing (and disturbing the birds). The things we have to do to get close! Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 May 2023 at 08:59:47 (UTC)
Reason
Rather nice, free photo of the tennis player who broke the colour barrier. Since this was a photograph by a newspaper photographer, not high art, and hence we can presume it would have been intended to be cropped, I took the liberty of cleaning up the left edge a little more than I usually would to crop out that weird fringe-y pillar and deal with the distracting shadow.
Articles in which this image appears
Althea Gibson and like 10 others (currently under a file redirect until Commons Delinker runs)
Support – I believe the "fringe-y pillar" is actually a native Italian fusilli tree, a rare Campanian endemic restricted to moist north-facing slopes with rich volcanic soils. I seem to remember reading that Gibson was a big pasta fan and liked to bring a couple of potted trees on tour with her so that she could enjoy fresh-picked fusilli whenever she wanted, although I can't find a source for that right now. Choliamb (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive photo at thumbnail, but I'm not sure if the great composition and interesting event justifies what I presume is a terrible 2007 digital camera, though Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!00:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this weren't a test, I don't think they would have gotten a shot like this. Regardless, I don't think that it being a test takes away from its encyclopedic value in the articles it is used in. Cat-fivetc ---- 12:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492, MER-C, David Eppstein, Bammesk, and Choliamb: Just to note, I noticed there was a dark edge to the top of the image, so I spent a little time adjusting it. I don't think it's the archway I believe he was shooting through (the dark corners) as it doesn't follow the line of it, I think it was just standard guttering at the edges of an image. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!21:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This shows most (almost all) of the site (based on satellite imagery, and unlike the infobox image). Good encyclopedic depiction of the site. Bammesk (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure what a set means in this case, though: They're not going on the main page on the same day most likely, so... Still, probably makes sense to link them together. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!14:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2023 at 06:07:01 (UTC)
Reason
While it will not hold up to pixel peeping - the original is about 4 inches (10.5 cm) wide, and I'd say it looks pretty good up to about 4x original size. You can get it up to 8x or so; it won't look great at that point.
There's something in the top right corner: like part of a letter. And is there a repair to the image you have restored - in her dress just above the corner of the chaise longue? By the way, have you thought of using Topaz Gigapixel to enlarge your restorations? I use it when I restore my old family photos. You can get a free trial. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the letter, I believe that's part of the mount that was covered by the large picture. As for the bit above the chaise lounge - fixing it now. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!22:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised I didn't answer: As for Topaz Gigapixel... trying to avoid AI on old images. I suspect they're trained on modern photography, and I don't want to introduce oddities. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!15:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 May 2023 at 20:51:39 (UTC)
Reason
The angle is slightly off but the image adequately demonstrates the subject. There is very slight grain but virtually unnoticeable. Lighting has not been altered. Resolution and composition are fair. I can retake the picture from a different angle if necessary.
Oppose – Building image lacks visual interest, vertical perspective looks faulty, and target article seems to have been written primarily by nominator. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article being written by nominator is a problem, but the image is cut off on the right and has too much foreground. Perspective is fairly fixable, so I'd say it's about 80% of the way to what may be our first high school FP: There's a lot of good in the image. I'd suggest playing with angle to get the full building in, and then you may need to collaborate on a perspective adjustment and crop. It's a great image, just not quite at the top level, but I think you can do it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!13:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as such. Agree with Adam above. Architectural photography has many pitfalls - this illustrates a few of them, among others a too low camera position which causes much of the perspective distortion. This could be done a lot better, so why don't give it another try... --Janke | Talk15:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 May 2023 at 01:05:36 (UTC)
Reason
This is my first one, so let me go over each criterion: high resolution, displays contents fairly clearly (even with the glare, most text can still be made out), in public domain, used in field ration to illustrate typical ration contents far better than other images (most of which just show them spread out on a table or something at an angle), has an English description (just added one), and doesn't seem manipulated to a significant degree if at all.
@Charlesjsharp: For the era and this kind of print, I'd say it's in the normal range. Now, I have darkened it a bit from the faded original, and that did up the saturation slightly, which you could argue was fade correction, but could also argue for tweaking it back. To give a few examples of otfrom various museums, and using only originals, for comparison:
There's such a wide range that I don't think this is out of line. At the same time, there's such a wide range that tweaking the saturation down a bit (not to greyscale, but a little bit) wouldn't be out of line either. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!13:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there is an 'expert' view as to what to do (and you're probably in that category!). I just downloaded it and clicked 'autotone' in Photoshop and I much prefer the result but as for authenticity? I have no idea. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Since it's been mentioned, I'll add that I would probably prefer a slightly more desaturated version, but it's just a personal taste. Support either way. Choliamb (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I know it's a done thing, but comp with reflected, inverted water-image seems a mite gimmicky in this case. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Charles, but not that worried about it. That article has weird formatting, but this is FPC, not FAC. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!10:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 May 2023 at 19:04:01 (UTC)
Reason
Quality image of a mercury switch. Good depiction and complements the lead sentence of the article: "... an electrical switch that opens and closes a circuit when a small amount of the liquid metal mercury connects metal electrodes to close the circuit."
Oppose - Would be better without the background, size already mentioned in caption. There also are some droplets (not mercury) on/in the glass, looks like contamination. Here's a pristine example, as I'm used to see them: [[1]] --Janke | Talk19:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I deduced the size from the background. I am pretty sure the contamination is from the de-plating (wicking) of the electrodes. It shows the switch has been used. Bammesk (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It could be sharper, and is a bit grainy, but presuming that's normal for objects of this size, we're good. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!23:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke. At fuller resolution the background isn't as distracting, but at thumbnail size it makes it hard to concentrate on the subject of this photograph. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse, IMO, is that it is a damaged specimen - I didn't really state this clearly in my oppose above... --Janke | Talk07:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but that doesn't mean the nominated specimen is damaged. It is just used. Electricity, materials, operating conditions, etc .... lots of factors. Not all apples are red! so to speak! Bammesk (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Adam Cuerden: Adam, while looking at the article on George Barnard, I noticed that the lead image of Barnard himself could really use some attention from someone like you. It's a fine standing portrait by Mathew Brady, and high-resolution tiff is available from the Smithsonian, but the only versions currently in the Commons are two small and rather dismal crops. Any interest? Choliamb (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 May 2023 at 19:32:27 (UTC)
Reason
It's a nice Mathew Brady portrait, and vastly improves on what was there. A little zoomed-out for modern eyes, perhaps, but I am not screwing with a Mathew Brady image - I believe the arrangements were meant to imitate classic portrait painting.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 May 2023 at 12:50:44 (UTC)
Reason
While a bit undersized, I don't think any detail is lost, and it is the best image we're likely to get of her. Only government-produced works have any chance of being out of copyright given whe she lived. Do wish it was less high-contrast.
I mean, I can't deny it, though it was, at least, in the original. It's a judgement as to whether the historic value overcomes that. I suspect this was taken for newspaper reproduction, in which case the high contrast might've been considered a benefit. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!13:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It does seem that by 1940 a good fotog could have done a better job of avoiding exaggerated B/W contrast. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I suspect that it was being photographed for newspaper reproduction, which, if you've seen newspaper reproductions of the time, explains a bit. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!14:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Er, 1940 is before my time -- but I know what you mean about newspaper letterpress repro from etched halftone plates. -- Sca (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Other than a tiny bit of one antenna that lifts out of the focal plane, this is incredibly sharp and detailed. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs.16:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good quality of image of Ancient sculpture from India. Could be used in number of categories/articles not just one, e.g. sculptures, Parashuram, Stepwells, etc -- DhavalTalk07:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as the highest contributor to Rani ki vav article. This 11th-century stepwell has more than 500 principal sculptures and the nominated image shows one excellent piece of it. It also invites readers to look into more sculptures in this monument. This World Heritage Site is one of the finest example of subterranean architecture of India. Regards, -Nizil (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wouldn't say this is perfectly sharp, but it's close. A quick fix to the gallery to new-style galleries mitigates - I wouldn't say overturns, but mitigates - Charles' objection. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs.16:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp, UnpetitproleX, and Sca: My thought is that they can make an otherwise kind of standard building look nicer, "edit out" ugly or distracting context, and draw eyes to the building. But the lead image of the article, while not perfect in any way, shows that there's a perfectly good background available during the day, indeed, a whole complex around it that appears to be a very intentional complex and thus encyclopedic. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs.16:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for two reasons: lots of dust specks on the transparency, needs a cleanup; photo taken through a window or door, the frames spoil the picture. --Janke | Talk19:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's normal for film of the time. Have to take some account for photos that can't be retaken. I'm somewhat inclined to say it's a rather artistic framing. I'm leaning towards adding this to my queue, if there's a decent chance of it passing if I do. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!18:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 May 2023 at 18:17:41 (UTC)
Reason
These were the originators of the roles, so no real issues with it being a revival, and it's only about three years after the multi-year original run closed. Crop has been rightfully criticised at Commons FPC, but we can't go back and recrop it, and it does a good job at getting the feel of the play (a satire on æstheticism, much in the line of Gilbert and Sullivan's Patience which opened shortly thereafter.
Articles in which this image appears
The Colonel, it's likely to appear in Cissy Grahame once that article exists, which it should soon, because she's fascinating.
It is passing on Commons despite that. I like enough about it, and think it's valuable enough as a historic document to forgive the feet, but - let's be clear now that I said my piece - it's a valid reason to oppose. I might say why I think it's good despite the flaws, I might try to explain them, but I do try to be open about known flaws in my summary, and leave it up to the voters how they weigh things. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP!14:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Chris. IMO this is an easier pass at WP than at the Commons, because of the greater emphasis here on historical and encyclopedic value – Choliamb (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2023 at 17:05:59 (UTC)
Reason
Originally nominated in 2013, failed due to faulty EV resulting from improper placing and captioning; I've made changes which I believe improve the EV. FP on commons.
It looks a bit blurry, and if I zoom to 200%, it's clear there's a ton of JPEG artifacting. It also has very different colours from the museum website, which also has this version which I honestly think is far better. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs.02:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinícius94: Oh, glad to! It's minor, but a little better. I should warn you that, since it took a while for the rebalance and copyright check, there's a chance this may need renominated. And I should probably put the research below on the file page. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs.06:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinícius94: I've detailed all the research on the file page; does look like it'll need a renom since it took a bit to sort; I'd suggest waiting a bit (I'm going to give The Colonel a month, but there weren't active issues with that, just a slow period at FPC that meant it doesn't look like it'll reach quorum. They happen. This one, however, had some issues which are now sorted, so can probably be renommed a lot quicker.). Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs.11:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Have we had a chance to see the front and back of the image to ascertain if a copyright notice was included? I'm not seeing it in the file history, and AFAIR Doctor Macro tends to only upload the image portion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: I also checked 1941 - nothing relevant for Havana, and for a Miranda search, nothing relevant again. The film itself, for comparison, does show up in the appropriate section of Dramatic works/Motion Pictures: 19411969
Agreed. Now that that's out of the way, this is a very definite Support on my end. Glad to see some early colour images come through. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2023 at 20:34:08 (UTC)
Reason
High resolution, clear, in public domain, used as the top image in police car to demonstrate a basic police sedan as is familiar to North Americans (not Americentrism, article has one police car from each continent in the lead), has an English description (just added one), seems slightly edited in terms of saturation and whatnot but doesn't overdo it.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 May 2023 at 14:30:14 (UTC)
Reason
Fascinating character from Australian history. I believe this will be our first picture of a bushranger, and, unless I'm missing something, "outlaw" in general.
Support – Interesting guy; arresting portrait. I enjoyed the article. I assume this is one of those names that Australians know from the time they are toddlers, but most of the rest of us (by which of course I mean me) have never heard of. Choliamb (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Given the resolution output by the 5D Mark II, this looks like a stitch. Is it worth marking the file page for the potential digital manipulation? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – there are visible stitch boundaries near the right border, but not bad enough to oppose. It can be improved. Bammesk (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... It's pretty low resolution. Artifact's fascinating, but the dull gradiant background and the image being just 1,181 pixels high (and that with a decent amount of empty foreground) is hard to get past. It's also a little JPEG-artifacty if you zoom in a bit. I did some tests, and (given the generated file size) it looks like the quality was set in the 75-80% range, which is a bit low. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs.20:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]