Comment – According to EXIF, this was taken with flash. Looks like it's been edited for a spotlight effect, which looks unnatural. --Janke | Talk06:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 May 2024 at 15:49:02 (UTC)
Reason
Good visualization of a neutrophil (a type of white blood cell) neutralizing (phagocytosis, or eating) a bacteria in human blood, invitro. Good addition to two articles.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 May 2024 at 19:54:32 (UTC)
Reason
High quality reproduction of a document. Provides a lot of EV in the only article which it appears in, in that it is a direct relic of the Dawes Plan itself. Good POTD for October 15 2024 (100th anniversary of this document).
Conditional support- A good nomination with adequate EV, but (per Adam's query) I came across File:Dawes Anleihe 1924 1000$.jpg and saw the colors are way off in the nom. I am not sure which is closer to the original because a Google search also returned at least half a dozen color reproductions of the bill. If we could get a very good source or a scan (maybe the nomination itself) to prove the current nom is the original/closer to the original color, I'd support. Good luck. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, after searching across various sources, I have discovered many variant scans of this document, even by auction houses. Here is a list of the variants I have discovered:
Every one of these scans have slightly different colors, contrast, brightness, whatever. And I am not sure which is the true correct version as I am no scripophile myself. Is it possible that during the printing of the loans that different colors were used? Is it possible that most of these scans are of forgeries? I was unable to find any definitive source for any questions, but a good place to look might be German Dollar Bonds issued between 1924 and 1937 by F. Paul Seabrook. However, I am not able to access the book as it appears the book is not available online or print in any way, shape, or form. This blog post on Tumblr attests to its existence and describes it, but I can't find an entry on Google Books, or WorldCat, or even an ISBN. ―Howard • 🌽3317:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of these notes were issues over many years. It makes sense that not all had identical color tones, fine details, etc. The uploader seems legit. They have 2000+ uploads of similar (historic) documents. Translating some of their talk page posts Here shows the uploader is part of a group or informal organization (also see their file 'source' descriptions). I doubt the uploads are manipulated in any significant way. But I don't know much about old prints though. Perhaps Adam can judge the integrity of the uploader's work by looking at some of their other uploads. Bammesk (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As someone who has scanned aging documents extensively, the colours look reasonable to me. The marks along the top edge are in the same range, indicating that whatever has caused the lightening of the paper happened before the damage that resulted in the brown spots. The greens at the top are slightly lighter, while the blacks seem to have held their tone better; if this were artificial, I'd expect the blacks to likewise be lighter. I do feel that the cutout could have been a bit better, however - the bottom still has some unnatural straight lines. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely feels more like some sort of uneven fading due to sub-optimal storage than a technical flaw with the scanner. I no longer have the documents, due to changes in my situation, but this certificate and this poster (also on the other side) both had uneven fading. Admittedly, those were on a much browner paper (and indeed the fading is skewed yellow, rather than the green tone of the nomination). I personally don't think the image is FP quality, due to the blemish, but I don't feel like it's beyond the realm of possibility for this scan to be reflective of the document. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the available images of these documents online, it does seem to be a common issue. This one is clearly not a reproduction of our digital copy (has the full emblem, as well as the tickets) and has similar fading issues. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for "Dawes Anleihe 1924" on Goggle images returns many similar examples. This being a banknote, could the background paper gradient been in part intentional (a security feature)? Bammesk (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially? I'm also seeing images like this, which notably has a black instead of a red emblem, and this, which was overstamped. There could have been different printings, with some variants to show series, but I'm not sure. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The note itself says $110 million was issued, and the denomination is $1000, with 1924 technology. It's plausible that several batched were printed over time, and that the color tone and other fine details weren't exactly identical. For instance among the examples linked to above I see at least two similar, but different, hand written signatures on the lower left corner. Bammesk (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summing up, the exact legitimacy of the bill is still disputed and none of us are sure how close this is to the original. I'm okay with the fine details and prints, but it's the legitimacy of the color that is bothering. Is there any way, like some noticeboard in German Wikipedia or Teahouse or helpdesk who can dig up more about this? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – A good nomination, but there's a decent amount of loss of focus on the petal borders (maybe some stacking can help) and the lighting is a bit off. Also, another angle with less leaves would increase the EV significantly. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Wouldn't it be more appropriate for de Champaigne's portrait to be cropped so that it is the first image? ―Howard • 🌽3309:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really educate people if there are two people in a portrait and the subject can't be immediately noticed without a caption. ―Howard • 🌽3320:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 May 2024 at 00:33:09 (UTC)
Reason
Close up view of the Litli-Hrútur eruption in Iceland in 2023. The wow factor does it for me. It’s a good addition to three articles listed below. It can also be added to the Fagradalsfjall article if there is consensus for it.
Oppose – Govt. promotional photo that tells nothing about highly perilous Apollo 13 mission. Faces of subjects constitute relatively small proportion of image. – Sca (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sca. These men weren't known for wearing suits, so the EV is modest here. Commons has several photos of the Apollo 13 crew wearing spacesuits (including one posing while doing so with their rocket) that have stronger EV, though the resolution looks lowish - presumably higher res versions are available. Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darker hues look better for a nocturnal composition. (Recently I posted this image on my talk page.) – Sca (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2024 at 14:27:27 (UTC)
Reason
Close up view of Comatricha nigra, a species of Slime mold in class Myxogastria. This class is slimy to the touch during part of its life, therefore giving the larger group its name 'slime' mold. The species article is weak (it describes the size, millimeter range, and appearance), but the image is also used in the group article. On a sidenote: in the photo I think there is some visible slime at the base of the stalks (visible at full size).
Oppose – Various out of focus regions, especially on the face and hair. Very bad edge detection by whatever camera that was used and unequal crop. Lighting and composition is good, but focus and asymmetry is a dealbreaker, IMO. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Herald. Lighting is quite flat, too. Feels like a slightly closer crop would help somewhat, but I don't know if it would push it into FP territory. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't think it should lead Cartesian materialism, given that the theater concept is a critique, but this does an excellent job of illustrating a Cartesian theatre. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't generally like crops here, though I will say there's a printed version of this or a very similar image that was. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.01:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – It's a large painting 5.5 x 11.3 feet. At 37 pixels per inch, the scan resolution is low. Can be sharper at full size. Bammesk (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2024 at 18:30:55 (UTC)
Reason
Meets all FP criteria and is a very clear map showing the Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024, which has received over 100,000 page views (including page views from previous article names such as “…April 25–27, 2024”). In short, high EV value for that specific page, which currently is for 135+ tornadoes affecting a large portion of the United States.
This was added to the articles 2 days ago. Per FP criterion #5 we typically wait 7+ days before nominating. Otherwise, Support. Bammesk (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really, the criterion says "preferable", not "should" or "must". That makes it more a guidance, rather than a requirement. But if anyone thinks the image won't be stable, they can vote oppose and give a rationale. Bammesk (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I'm seeing that QGIS is licensed under the Version 2 of the GNU General Public License. What about its output? I'm seeing that the QGIS website is shared under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, so the current CC-BY-SA 4.0 isn't beyond the realm of possibility, but I'd like to be sure before !voting. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 May 2024 at 20:50:57 (UTC)
Reason
Video of a singing male Conocephalus fuscus shows the cricket, the fluttering wings and singing sound. Many crickets sing in the ultrasonic spectrum inaudible to humans. This video has been slowed down by a factor of four, in order to make the singing sound audible.
Good point. It's right-sided when I use a headphone (there is nothing on the left side). But it's balanced (equal right and left) when I use my computer's internal speakers. I think it was recorded mono on the right channel. Bammesk (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The picture is to show the bottom view of the iwan of the mosque and to show the muqarnas in full view instead of a partial view from a front view. While a front view could be better to show the iwan, it is a common type of photographs that I have seen to fully show the composition of the muqarnas. (Most of which is at an angle or at a bottom view) Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥23:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I respectfully disagree with The Herald; I think the details are quite clear at full resolution, and I think the angle is justifiable in showing recessed aspects of the work not visible from the front. Moonreach (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support but mostly for its value illustrating Persian blue. In the article on the mosque, it is used in a gallery; the muqarnas is not discussed beyond "here, look at the muqarnas". That being said, a crop of this (uploaded separately) could be used to replace File:Sally Port of Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque.JPG in articles where it is used. It's the same muqarnas, and Diego's capture is more evenly lit and comprehensive. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Article states, "Only twenty-three I-1430 series engines were delivered," and it never powered an airplane. Little or no EV. – Sca (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a mixture of varnish, pigment discolouration, and intentional palette choice. But it's hard to tell for sure without a trip to the Louvre. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.16:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This would be a support for me if it was sharper on the right side (perhaps a higher f-stop or a sharper lens, or focus stacking). Bammesk (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure this image has sufficient EV in either article listed above. There is no textual reference to this image (i.e. this version, or medieval Islamic era) in the Ursa Minor article. In the Polaris article, there is a brief referring paragraph next to this image. I am not sure that's enough though. Bammesk (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 May 2024 at 01:44:52 (UTC)
Reason
Quality lead image in the T-7 Red Hawk article. This is a recently developed aircraft. It will serve as the U.S. Air Force's primary training jet. FP on Commons.
Oppose – Stock govt. photo of a relatively obscure subsonic plane with no apparent explanatory context. Scant EV. – Sca (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It has EV, it’s a quality photograph to show the plane on the article about the plane. I do agree that the plane is obscure but we are here to talk about the photograph and not the obscureness of the contents of the photograph. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥06:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I find it slightly wacky to say that the subject in a photo doesn't matter. Pics are all about visual information. -- Sca (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality photo that illustrates the features of this new aircraft type. The comments above claiming that the aircraft is 'obscure' seem wrong-headed: the US Air Force intends to purchase 351 of the type and they will likely serve for decades as the force's main jet training aircraft. It is very likely that lots of other countries will also end up ordering them. This has been major news for years in the Defence industry and aviation sector. As such, a high quality photo of one of the prototypes of this aircraft has very high EV. Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Major news for years in the Defence industry and aviation sector." -- But not in the general news sector. Technologically, there doesn't seem to be anything significant about this 2016 prototype. -- Sca (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Illustrates the topic in an interesting and useful way, so EV is strong. This is a good example of where a night photo is superior to a day photo: this clock looks pretty unimpressive in the day. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The shadows on the right side (bright side) of the front face have a taper to them (a brightness taper). I find that distracting. For example, the shadow at the base of the window. Excessive image processing? Bammesk (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]