Support. Upon viewing the image at its image page, itself, I agree with SSTflyer that this Featured Picture on Commons iis both High Quality and High Encyclopedic Value. — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. First, this image is of great quality. Regarding EV - while it is only used on one page (I think it may be underused), this photo does an excellent job of capturing so many detailed aspects of this aircraft that can be difficult to capture - the lights, landing gear preparing to retract, window shades, external markings, etc. While there are a lot of photos on the Commons of aircraft taking off (great thanks to those dedicated to taking such photos), this is perhaps the best photo of a commercial aircraft in takeoff we have. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2015 at 15:52:59 (UTC)
Reason
Good scan, fascinating portrait. Portrait of Diego de Guevara, ambassador; art collector (according to our article: "Diego de Guevara owned the famous Arnolfini Portrait by Jan van Eyck") and Spanish courtier who served the Dukes of Burgundy, painted by Michel Sittow (c. 1469 – 1525), also known as Master Michiel - who was a rather famous portraitist of his time.
Support & Comment - Not to be difficult, but the image linked to the FPC was not actually used in either article (a different version was used). I just changed the lower file size versions existing in the articles with this image... Crisco 1492, Sca, Cirt, Hafspajen, please make sure I have not made a mistake...--Godot13 (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some trouble navigating to this FPC subpage from the main FPC page. You only get the first part of the parentheses in the link, and it leads to a broken page. Just FYI, — Cirt (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The image was nominated a few minutes after being put in a very actively watched Andrew Jackson article. This is a bit shy of the suggested 7 days...--Godot13 (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I don't think it serves our readers to run as a Main Page graphic a typographical image that can't be read except at full res. Sca (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nos. 3 and 5. My point is, the content isn't readily accessible to readers. Also, this specific handbill isn't mentioned in the target article's campaign section, though there is a general reference to coffin handbills. – Sca (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While it is an interesting historical item, the broadside itself does not really add much EV to either article (compared with a written description of the information it contains). At 250px in the nomination it is already larger than the standard thumbnail, and one can only make out the first two lines. None of the intermediate sizes achieved by clicking on the image makes it any better, until you reach full size. Then you can only see one column vertically at a time (until you have to switch to reading horizontally). If there was an article written about the broadside itself, maybe the EV would be there to mitigate not being able to really see anything in the thumbnail (but there is no way to make it large enough within an article to read the text). As is, interesting, but not (in my opinion) FP.--Godot13 (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOppose - It is a great head-shot of an iguana, and artistic (i.e., Commons), but the EV is questionable as the rest of the body is not shown...-Godot13 (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amending comment into oppose above. The entire genus of animal can't be represented by a head-shot. It is a great image, but lacks the necessary EV. Sorry.--Godot13 (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Being the photographer, I clearly do not mind it being used as a feature picture. The photo information page contains all the relevant information it should; the animal was not photographed in the wild, but in a reptile park in Oslo, Norway. It is well cared for, but usually refuses to pose for photos. uspn (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492:That's because I moved the file itself to a more clear name. Check the article. It's been in that article as that image for over seven (7) years. Sorry for the confusion about the file move. But it is in use there for seven (7) years, stable. Thank you for your understanding and reconsideration, — Cirt (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2015 at 03:13:45 (UTC)
Reason
While not perfect, this is a landmine-ridden abandoned city in one of the most inaccessible sort-of-countries on earth. Highly valuable, and great photojournalism, well worth featuring
Oppose - Sorry, it is not sharp at full resolution, it seems to have dirt specks, and there is a lot of CA around the text. Not sure about its EV (as a printed tangible document).--Godot13 (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the above. I am still qualifying my support, as there have been (minor) problems in the past. I believe the full skeleton image was one the MED people took issue with. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (I commented on this previously on my Talk page) I have some professional familiarity with the topic, and have compared this diagram to some reference sources and have not noticed any errors. I note the concern raised by Chris Woodrich, but I think this diagram avoids the errors of distorted proportion that plagued the skeleton diagram. — soupvector (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't see any technical problems with this image, although thickness of the suture lines feels a bit off. (It's hard to visualise the orbit, given that the grey shading is much subtler than the edges of the lacrimal bone.) Also, all the labels are in adjective forms (omitting the word bone), except for Maxilla and Mandible, which are nouns. Maxillary [bone] would be more consistent, but the mandible isn't referred to as the "mandibular bone", so the disparity can't be completely avoided. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These images are from the same angle and better in pretty much every way.
A simple retouch and these could be sent to FI as a full set.
Oppose While accurate, it is ugly. We have better images, and even some from the same angle, such as the set:
I disagree. The Sobotta figures you link are quite cluttered and include archaic spellings (e.g. "lachrymal"). Moreover, the spellings cannot be corrected readily since they are not SVG (whereas the image under discussion is). Overall, I'd say that they serve different audiences, but the image above is clearer, more current, and probably more useful to WP's broader audience. If the Sobotta figures could be updated and re-rendered as SVG to facilitate maintenance, they might become more valuable for some purposes (e.e. if interest in the sutures etc outweighs the problem of clutter). — soupvector (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2015 at 02:21:28 (UTC)
Reason
High-resolution image of a historic storm at its peak intensity. The stars aligned perfectly for NASA's Terra satellite to capture Hurricane Patricia in all its glory simultaneous with a Hurricane Hunter mission that observed the record values (further details here: Hurricane Patricia#Meteorological history). Beautiful structure, as expected, and frankly one of the finest images of a hurricane I've ever seen. The unique timing from a Sun-synchronous orbiting satellite and the ground-truth data from recon sets this image apart from others in terms of historic value; the image was taken at 17:30 UTC and the dropsonde that confirmed the record low pressure was launched at 17:33 UTC.
Image was created by NASA via their Terra Satellite (original, raw images here: [2][3]). Data was extracted from their EOSDIS Worldview webpage and slightly modified by Meow to reduce over-exposure and center the image on the storm. A non-storm centered, "gallery" version provided by NASA has also been uploaded here: File:Patricia 2015-10-23 1730Z (gallery).jpg.
Support This seems to be the best that the United States Federal Government has to offer. It seems thoughtfully made and it ought to be good enough for Wikipedia too. Blue Rasberry (talk)13:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, again with the caveat that this is accurate (yes, I read the introduction; I'm just being cautious). If someone else can show that it's inaccurate, my vote is an oppose. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well thought through and very explanatory–all it needs is sufficient space in articles so that it can be read. CFCF 💌📧08:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Josh Milburn I made background to extract sculpture in better way. I don't agree with Crisco, if you compare with original museum background this one is much better. Otherwise I would left it of course, and spare few hours of work.--PetarM (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Regretfully, in part for the background issues mentioned above. But also, at full size, the edges of the bust are sharp and jagged (as if it has been cropped from its original background). In some areas it seems like the background color appears to slightly bleed onto the bust.--Godot13 (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to highlight the area with a notes box because it is much of the space where the marble edge of the bust meets the background. It is more pronounced around the curvature of the head. I've highlighted three example areas.--Godot13 (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the background issue. I think it's a bit weird that people are so obsessed with fake backgrounds at the Commons FPC process. It should be resisted here. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – FP criteria 8 says "correcting". Removing and replacing a large portion of an image is more like "transforming" rather than correcting – unless the original had a similar (blank) background. Side Note: there is an unnatural line on the base pedestal, right side toward the back, it shows at 200%. Bammesk (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PetarM, it shows at 100% too, but it is easier to see at 200%. It is Ok to enlarge images for inspection. To be clear, this is not why I opposed, this is a side note. Bammesk (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC) (It is a bright line 1px wide 100px long on top surface of the top pedestal close to the right-back corner)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2015 at 11:36:04 (UTC)
Reason
It has a high educational value, as it shows the parts of a Prokaryote cell. Also, even though it is small, it can be resized without reducing the image quality since it is a SVG. It also passed under the W3C validator without any warnings nor errors.
Questions I have some concerns with the biology. First, the capsule is not found in every prokaryote, so what you are drawing is more bacteria than general prokaryote. You also write "nucleoid (DNA)" which makes it seem like the nucleoid is DNA, or made up of DNA. It's actually just some cytoplasm that contains the DNA. Mattximus (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prokaryotic cells are divided into the domains Bacteria and Archaea. The reason that I diagramed the prokayotic bactrial cell is they are the most familiar ones. In my opinion, this image can indicate the general prokaryotic cell but I changed the description of that. Since this image supposed to show a general prokaryotic bacterial cell, the nucleoid has been truely shown. Thank you for the notice. Ali Zifan02:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Renata3: If you just open the image, the texts will be OBVIOUS. Your thought is honorable but it is totally irrelevant and meaningless for the image, at least in my opinion. Ali Zifan00:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of space around the diagram - there is no reason why the text should not be legible in a thumbnail version. (Remember that articles are often printed - this text will not be visible in that medium and there is no way to "open" the image on paper. There is also an increasing number of mobile views that have limited screen resolutions). Renata (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2015 at 15:40:23 (UTC)
Reason
Good scan, interesting painting with a historic background, showing Napoleon sitting on a mule, led by the French mountain guide called Pierre Nicholas Dorsaz in 1800; when crossing the Alps towars his victory in the Battle of Marengo. Otherwise Napoleon was rather fond of cultivating his own image sometimes; and was happy to use art as a political propaganda.
Support - At first I was concerned about the image quality (at full size), but then I realized it is pastel... Nice quality image.--Godot13 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment High Resolution and Quality! Agreed but EV ???? Single line article does not contain any information related to the nomination. I should think once again for supporting I feel. DreamSparrowChat17:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Striking photo but unclear EV. The enwp FP process does (and, while POTY is as it is, should) want something very different from the Commons POTY competition. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very good answer. The featured picture process here on Wikipedia is about recognising highly valuable images, not just striking images (which seems to be most of what is going on at POTY). The two images you're comparing are used in very different ways. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above, and my reasoning in other noms. This is not Commons. Just because an image is FP at Commons, or even a finalist in POTY, does not by default mean that it has EV. This image (as lead in the article) is representing an entire genus, and it is only the eyes...--Godot13 (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2015 at 16:52:45 (UTC)
Reason
Good scan, 30,000 × 20,857 pixels. Also a Canaletto painting. This painting shows one of the typical motifs of Canaletto. He is famous for his paintings of Venice (he really is). He is considered as one of the Venetian old master painters.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2015 at 17:02:15 (UTC)
Reason
Painting by Canaletto, Italian painter of Venice, painted around the 1720s. The painting is considered one of Canaletto's finest works. His works are known for their accuracy: details of the painting show the everyday life in Venice.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2015 at 10:18:50 (UTC)
Reason
This is the official picture of the Swiss Federal Council and Federal Chancellor for 2015. Wikimedia Switzerland has secured that these official portraits be released every year: we won't ever get better than that.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2015 at 14:39:24 (UTC)
Reason
High quality and EV. Highlights the shape and features of the aircraft well. This aircraft has been retired from the fleets of most airlines of the world, so it is unlikely we will get an image with much better quality in the future.
Nominator comment – from WP:WIAFP: "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed." The Tupolev Tu-154 has been retired from scheduled airline service worldwide, so I think lower quality should be allowed. sst✈discuss01:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Quite striking and High quality and EV. Agree with nominator SSTflyer. Features of aircraft highlighted quite well with this high quality image contribution to Wikimedia. Thank you, SSTflyer, for selecting this most encyclopedic image for nomination. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the massive blur of city skyline very distracting. (I realize it is not the object of the photo, but it is way too distracting). Renata (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this may be the only image of the aircraft that fits FPC criteria with regards to resolution, there are several other images of the Tu-154 that are otherwise of a higher standard. In my opinion this lessens it's EV somewhat, along with it's case to be an example of Wikiipedia's best work. It is a nice image and has significant EV, but not enough to excuse it's technical failings and make it a featured picture in my opinion. Wolftick (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite good for me. Just one small thing: the line showing "liquid hydrogen" is white on white, not optimal. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2015 at 14:57:12 (UTC)
Reason
Good scan, from the Google Art Project. A study in oil, or by Rubens, a preparation sketch for a tapestry - that was not intended as a finished work, but a preliminary exploration of a theme, and not as a finished piece ; created for an allegory or a symbol of "Abundance", by Peter Paul Rubens. The bruswork is very interesting and typical for the artist. Also it is a sketch, we don't have many of those.
Comment – Very nice (leaning to support). Lighthouse tower is vertical, but the far shoreline is not straight (slightly clockwise) and it makes the tower appear tilted. Bammesk (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not display completely different images in a Featured Picture Nomination subpage, unless they are a slightly modified ALT version of exact same photograph. This appears to be a completely different photograph, which could instead be displayed on its own separate and unique Featured Picture Nomination subpage. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Crisco 1492: this image is also a Commons FP candidate where I was asked to "denoise" the bokeh effect and convert the .tif file to .jpg. I will admit, denoising was an improvement, but I tend to agree with you in that I probably could have left a little more noise, although bokeh is supposed to create a soft out-of-focus background. As far as article use, it is a definite improvement in that the subject is far more striking than it was pre-denoising. Also, consensus seems to prefer the lossier .jpg format over the lossless .tif but either way, I'm happy to oblige. What I hope reviewers will consider is the fact that the ocean doesn't take too kindly to still photography, particularly at 40+ ft. depths in a 1 to 2 knot current (anything higher and you're asking for miracles). Bracketing doesn't work because, for the most part, nothing is completely stationary underwater, so forget optimal HDR in the field. White balance is also a challenge and depth of field is nothing short of a miracle when shooting macro. You're underwater wearing fins for feet with a bulky air tank strapped to your back, and you're looking through the confines of an underwater mask. Underwater, everything appears to be 25%-33% closer than it actually is, and at 35 ft., you've lost most of the color spectrum so you can forget red and green alert indicators. At that point, it no longer matters how many hours are left in a day or the position of the sun when it sets; what matters most is how much air you have left in your scuba tank and to what degree you trust your "grip" who is supposed to be watching your gauges while you work, provided you even have a grip. Did I mention the trials and tribulations of backscatter, critters that are frightened of your exhaust bubbles, curious (possibly hungry) sharks, fire coral, evasive scorpion fish, and irate damselfish? Oh, and don't dare touch the coral, which means if you can't maintain neutral buoyancy and morph into a hovering tripod capable of steadying that bulky underwater housing and attached strobes, leave the macro gear at home. 😊 Atsme📞📧01:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note on the format: JPGs are better supported by Wikimedia software than PNGs, and thus why this form tends to prefer them (compare thumbnails of JPGs and PNGs). If the WMF were to ever fix the issue, there'd probably be less support for JPGs. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support JPEG - I think it is a great shot and hard to do. My only reservation (not enough of one to effect support) is the halo that appears at full size when the image is scrolled across the screen. Assuming that this is not just my screen, I don't think anyone is going to trying to make a still image move. Given the difficulty in accomplishing a shot like this, well done.--Godot13 (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above. Much as the "regulars" know how much I admire their photography, it's nice to see such a great photograph from a Wikipedian who I don't think I have encountered before! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2015 at 03:50:05 (UTC)
Reason
High Resolution and Quality. Commons determined as Quality Image. 5,460 × 2,556 pixels, file size: 10.44 MB. Best resolution and quality image for English Wikipedia article, Bracket (architecture). Free-use licensed photograph by Daniel Case.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2015 at 09:27:34 (UTC)
Reason
Prostitutes on display in Yoshiwara during the Edo Period, Japan. This particlar kind of photo was sometimes captioned "The Sisters on Exhibit". The image itself is a silver print, and given what I know about Japan at this particular period in time I would venture a guess that this was probably an establishment in a designated red light district, although I could be mistaken about that. This is a little under the current the current size requirements, but I'd ask for a degree of leniency here as this image comes from a red light district in the Edo Period, well before our time.
Support, on quality and EV. But could we get a date? Or at least a circa date, with some research, perhaps, to add to the image page? — Cirt (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:User:Wolftick's comments regarding image size in the above Tesla discussion would also apply here. To quote, "It seems frequently FPCs below minimum size are asked to be accepted because they cannot be reproduced due to the subject of the photo being dead or no longer existing. In fact it is the digitisation of the original photo that is being put forward, not the photo itself. As long as the original still exists I see no reason low resolution should be accepted any more than it would be in a scan of a painting for example." --Paul_012 (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that when I put an image here its as an observer, not a critic. To me, a neat picture is a neat picture, to you and a handful of others here a picture is an impressive collection of pixels and digital coding designed to create all manner of colors and depths. The difference between us then with regards to the criteria for what should be a featured picture is rather like the difference between a life boat and star-ship - you go where I can for the most part only dream of going, while I am happy just to be be able to float with the best/rest of you. (P.S. :You're missing an "s" for your "upports" :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2015 at 09:37:55 (UTC)
Reason
Here's one of those famous portrait images that ends up being reproduced over the years; the person in question is one, Nikola Tesla, whom I have the utmost respect and admiration for. This particular photograph has been used in various mediums for quotes from the scientist or for images of Tesla and his inventions. While this is not at the minimum size for FPC I'd ask for a degree of leniency here as Tesla is dead and we can't reproduce the photo without him. I've searched and found larger images on Google, but none just of him like this. Having said that, if someone finds a larger image like this one as an alt then I'd be all for support that one.
@J Milburn: for the sake of clarification, may I assume that by sourcing you mean the person who actually took the photo and the date, or were you referring to something else? Sourcing I may be able to figure out, but if its technical in nature then it would be beyond my capability to address. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes- original photographer/publication would be valuable, but, in addition, as this is a scan from a book (correct me if I'm wrong) it'd be good to identify the book. I think my oppose would stand, though. I've certainly got no objection to featuring a version of this photo in principle, but this version is not FP-worthy. (There also seems to be a moderate amount of undocumented modification.) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems frequently FPCs below minimum size are asked to be accepted because they cannot be reproduced due to the subject of the photo being dead or no longer existing. In fact it is the digitisation of the original photo that is being put forward, not the photo itself. As long as the original still exists I see no reason low resolution should be accepted any more than it would be in a scan of a painting for example. Wolftick (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. I recently saw this item in Munich, and I suspect that the photo was taken of it in its rather under-whelming display case. The photo is certainly very useful, but I don't think it's an example of our best work. Nick-D (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2015 at 03:59:28 (UTC)
Reason
High Resolution and Quality. Assessed as Quality image on Commons. 3,964 × 2,652 pixels, file size: 6.03 MB. High quality photograph by Daniel Case. High Encyclopedic Value as main image in use for article -- Star Pisces.
See my comments above, but I'll spell it out: BFI = British Film Institute. Logo = their watermark at top right in the original, which is cut off in your upload. Get it? ;-) --Janke | Talk08:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Pleasant tableau, decent comp, but detail at full res isn't great, and to my mind a sunny pic of 'golden autumn' would be a better representation of what the Germans call Herbststimmung. Sca (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per APK, Sca. Good pictures need good light, and this is perfectly legitimate. Authenticity is not obtained by seeking drab light. Samsara19:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lighting is typical for autumn, so I think the lighting is a benefit rather than a detraction for the encyclopedic value of this photo. --Pine✉21:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious Armbrust, I thought it had to be a 2/3rd consensus to pass? This isn't 2/3... It would need another support to be passed surely? Not trying to nit-pick or be fussy, just checking my understanding of the guidelines... gazhiley12:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes - it's my maths that is the issue... I divided the figures against each other, rather than against the total nominations - slight blonde moment there... Thank you for that Armbrustgazhiley14:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2015 at 01:42:10 (UTC)
Reason
High Resolution and Quality. Assessed as Quality image at Commons. 2,388 × 1,552 pixel photograph by Daniel Case. This is an image of a place or building that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the United States of America. Main photograph at Dutch barn and 2nd photograph at Bull Stone House.
Oppose – Detail isn't great at full res. A closer, clearer shot, with less framing foliage, would better show the weathered-wood texture. Sca (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know how other people interpret "more or less unaltered", but at Dutch barn it says "This barn has the oldest known barn timbers in its core dated to 1726 but the roof structure, side aisles and exterior are not original." This hardly sounds "unaltered" to me. 86.152.160.43 (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2015 at 16:46:01 (UTC)
Reason
A high-quality and high-resolution scan from the Google Art Project that is used in the lead of Pieter Aertsen. This historic painting from 1551 is a vivid depiction of a meat stall, exhibiting meats from this time period, and I feel that the image passes the Featured picture criteria.
Oppose - Sorry Pine, glad to see you're contributing your own images, but the lean of the building is an issue for me. Have you tried software to correct the vertical lines? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2015 at 16:52:00 (UTC)
Reason
Good scan, iconic painting, by Konstantin Makovsky (1839–1915) The Russian artist's most renowned painting. The painting shows a toast, during which the bride and the groom are expected to kiss each other. The bride and the groom are standing at the right. A roosted swan is brought in, on a large platter. The swan is the last dish served, before the couple retires into the bedroom. The bride looks sad and reluctant, while the matchmaker standing behind her encourages the bride to kiss the groom.
Comment. Lovely view. I don't understand what the previous poster means about the composition being "static". If some people have the view that it is over-saturated, can the saturation not be turned down a couple of notches to satisfy those objections and get the picture through? 86.152.160.43 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare bright sunny day in my home-from-home. Beautiful image, and well captured. Yes the brightness may be a tad high, but this only emphasises how sunny a day it is... Nice... gazhiley11:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2015 at 16:09:06 (UTC)
Reason
A Google Art Project file, high quality and real big: rhat file is 13,246 × 15,890 pixels... and the artist is a classic, and well known, it is Titian. The painting is from circa 1555. It has been copied, admired and loved. The painting is hosted by the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, and it is considered to be one of the collection's highlights.
Support - quality and EV good enough. The suggestion by Charlesjsharp shows the squirrel from a different direction, and both images have their own encyclopedic values. sst✈discuss17:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2015 at 05:00:18 (UTC)
Reason
Nice nighttime picture of a notable building. A daytime version is already featured. Note that this photo is 1,139 pixels high but I believe that the extra-large width of 3,072 makes the image be of adequate size in terms of megapixel area since 1500x1500 pixels = 2,250,000 pixels, while 1139x3702 pixels = 3,499,008 pixels.
Oppose While the maths is correct, I'm afraid this is below minimum spec. Plus the motion blur on the flags is distracting, as is the glare of the lights on the flag poles themselves. There is no detail in the cone-shaped trees lining the edges of the courtyard (again motion blur maybe?) that means they look almost like molded plastic. Also using the horizontal top of the building itself (the bottom of the roof) there seems to be a slight tilt with the left being lower than the right. gazhiley09:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gazhiley: longer exposures are common at night due to the necessity of gathering sufficient light. A side effect of that can be motion blur. In this case I think the tradeoff is reasonable. Regarding the glare, those are probably brightly lit areas that unfortunately are overexposed due to the necessity of getting sufficient exposure on less-exposed areas, and again I think the tradeoff is ok here; I'm not sure how possible it is to do better, although someone with more advanced knowledge of photographic techniques, more time to execute postprocessing effects, and/or perhaps a more expensive camera might be able to do better. --Pine✉20:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the technical difficulties, there are sufficient examples on here of night pictures that don't have these issues, and therefore while this is a good picture it isn't among wikipedia's finest sorry... gazhiley09:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Images are intended to have a minimum measurement in their shorter dimension, not a minimum number of pixels. So this one is still too small. It seems it would be easy for someone to take a better one. Samsara18:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this one passes, it's easy enough to replace it with a better one in the future. Regarding the 1500 minimum, I think the large horizontal size is adequate enough reason to IAR as far as the literal interpretation of the 1500 minimum is concerned; the overall impression and informative value of the photo are of higher importance in my view. --Pine✉20:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria is completely unambiguous: 1500*1500 is the bare minimum, with exceptions decided by consensus. Consensus is clearly against ignoring the minimum here. This is not a historical picture, not of a really small subject, and not at a ridiculous aspect ration (think 1:20). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: while you are welcome do disagree with the nomination, I would like to request that you reword your comments. Prior to your vote, there were 2 votes in favor and 2 opposed, which is far from an assessment that "clearly is consensus against" the nomination. "No consensus" and "not yet consensus" are different from "consensus against". So I would like to ask you to rephrase your assessment. Your vote can still stand as opposed. Thanks, --Pine✉00:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now there are three votes against, and one vote for (excluding yours as the nominator, as you are requesting the exception be made). If you want to count yourself, there are two votes for, three against. I fail to see how that is not "clear". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: The nomination may fail, and that's fine. At this point I am more concerned with your definition of the term "consensus", which we are using in different ways. I'll take this discussion to your talk page because it's a separate issue from the image nomination. --Pine✉00:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2015 at 00:57:23 (UTC)
Reason
A terrific scan of a celebrated painting. Despite its already high EV, I held off nominating it here until writing Louise de Broglie, Countess d'Haussonville, a biography long overdue.
Support - Great painting (seen it many times). Please add the Countess' article at the beginning of the articles in which the image appears (most relevant for EV).--Godot13 (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and thank you for your support. FP issues aside, the painting in person is luminous and extraordinary, as you surely know. Newsweek pointedly compared the Countess to Vermeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring in an article this past February, expressing relief that the two "poster girls" of their respective museums would not have to fight it out in the same Mauritshuis exhibition room. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The angle shows the less distinctive flater side of the building and the base is not show (actually over 1/3 of the height of the building including most of the bottom tier is missing). It took the wireframe image in Mercury City Tower and other photos to actually get a feel for the shape and scale of the building. - Wolftick (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous photos of this building that include the base without distracting or obstructing elements (it helps that it's bright orange) and also give a better impression of the shape of the building - Wolftick (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting view, but oppose per Wolftick, APK, Sca. I'd be happy if the whole height were shown (should be stitchable from two 17mm shots), although obviously having the broadside angle would be best. Samsara19:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't favor "those" as Main Page FPs either, for the same reasons. Too much like advertising selected military formations, IMO. Sca (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I don't have an issue with military unit insignias being FPs (as military heraldry is a legitimate - though often incredibly nerdy - field of scholarship), the article provides only partial information on what this insignia depicts and nothing at all on its history or significance. Moreover, the copyright status of this image is dubious as the record on Commons says that it's "Own work and نشان تيپ 65 نوهد نيرو زميني ارتش wisgoon.com. Nick-D (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that line of the Commons page is the only copyright issue the image has, this would not right as it is just added recently, the reference doesn't have any similarity with the uploaded SVG work and the uploader is known to have ability to recreate insignina from groundup, you can see his other works that have multiple versions that roughly can show that he is the creator. −ebrahimtalk14:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everybody. I'm the creator of this image. One of my main goals for redesigning low quality military insignia of Iran Army is that there is no HQ image about them in Wiki or elsewhere. Please tell me why you candidate it for deletion? MrInfo2012 Talk 05:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Whose standard? This pair seems more modernistic in design, i.e. devoid of surface features, than those one usually encounters. Sca (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High quality. I can understand what Sca meant, but this pair of scissors is at least sufficiently simple and typical, compared to other more modern designs (such as asymmetric designs). Therefore, this image has good EV. sst✈discuss14:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Interesting slice of life at a time when the U.S. was transitioning from horses to cars. Very good res. for the period – much better than, for example, this 1909 footage of Mark Twain. Sca (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though I do think it's a bit of a shame that so much additional digital compression is added to archival digital transfers of analogue film stock. Treated as a series of stills this would not be acceptable. Much larger file sizes and higher resolutions would be preferable for any analogue to digital transfer, whatever the perceived quality or age of the original. Wolftick (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is DVD quality version (Quicktime, 2.3 GB) on IA. It would interesting to make a free codec version out of that. I have neither the processing power not the bandwidth necessary for that. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I downloaded the 2.3GB version and it is a lot better: File:Market street comparison.jpg. It seems to me to be a bit troubling promoting the current version when they is a substantially better free version easily available for want of transcoding. I think I can transcode and upload it myself but it would take some time. If anyone with more bandwidth, computing power and expertise wants to step into the breach feel free. Wolftick (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolftick: I think you could simply upload over this one. If it is the same film, I don't see an issue with this FP nomination, or the need to keep an old version if we have a better one. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a much nicer webm version of this based on the high quality version on archive.org. The compression on the current version is really horrible and damaging when viewed in direct comparison (File:Market street comparison.jpg). I was wondering what the policy/practice on uploading large (≈1GB) videos is? Wolftick (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Original looks like it could be a tweaked version of Alt. I don't think either are good reproductions or up to the standards of similar FPs. Wolftick (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, probably not good enough. Unless someone can come up with a better scan. Pity, it's a nice painting. It depends a bit on the screen you are on. It looked rather good on a small screen. Hafspajen (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to leave it open if someone comes upp with a solution, time is not out yet. If no one is suggesting anything else, THAN I withdraw the actuall scans - they are indeed not up to FP standard , but the painting is no doubt gorgeous. Not before. Hafspajen (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A VERY slight chance, of course, but miracles still happen.... sometimes ... here and there... But then it didn't helped that it was removed between 20 November 2015 to 23 November 2015, of course. Hafspajen (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2015 at 14:41:42 (UTC)
Reason
Bowman Creek is a 26-mile (42 km) long tributary of the Susquehanna River in Wyoming and Luzerne Counties, Pennsylvania. It is fortunate enough to have high water quality and to be a regionally famous trout stream. This particular picture shows the creek looking downstream from Keelersburg Road, the last road crossing before the creek joins the Susquehanna River, at river mile 0.7 (river kilometer 1.1). It's got the highest combination of technical value and prettiness of any of the 30 or so pictures of Bowman Creek on Commons.
Oppose as above, but it also looks like it's at a really odd angle - the river around the corner looks bizarrely going uphill despite the water running away from the camera... I would expect the water to be pooling at the left hand side of the bend based on this angle... gazhiley21:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sca. I'm confused by the lack of detail in this - it is what I'd expect from a picture of a much smaller size. Not sure if this is a processing issue, or focus, or whether it's a technical limitation of the camera used. However It is a lovely picture, so if this can somehow be fixed, or re-taken if not, I would gladly support. But this picture is unfortunately not up to standard. gazhiley12:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If Ikiwaner decides to retake it (nächstes Jahr?), I'd suggest a bit less watery foreground. That would yield a better view of the extremity of the bridge. Sca (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2015 at 21:43:43 (UTC)
Reason
This photo has great exposure, and lighting for a picture of fireworks, compared to others. The photo seems to be comparable to professional photos, in my opinion.
Comment - the picture is from one of the side of World Showcase Lagoon, which is basically a giant circle. This may affect your view of the horizon. Personally, the horizon looks pretty straight to me. Elisfkc (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even the buildings don't look as if built on even ground what, of course, should be assumed they are. What's wrong with the perspective here? --Tremonist (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The perspective is partly messed up thanks to the use of forced perspective for the buildings. The American Adventure, the building on the far right that's lit up, is actually five stories tall (not including the top part), but made to look like it's two and a half. Most of the other buildings are made to look larger than they are. I don't remember exact sizes for the rest of them, but if my memory serves me right, most of them are two to three stories. Elisfkc (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Great capture... Looks perfectly crisp to me, and is even demonstrating the retraction of the undercarriage for good measure... Beautiful piece of machinery to boot... gazhiley10:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2015 at 12:52:53 (UTC)
Reason
High resolution, good quality picture with high EV of an ostrich portrait showing its large eyes and long eyelashes, its flat, broad beak, and its nostrils.
Oppose - beak out of focus. Plus: I opened this photo on a full screen an my first thought was: "it's yet another one of these photos made in one of the European ZOOs, isn't it?" - I nailed it. Sorry, but I would forget about out of focus beak and poor lighting if it'd be done in a natural environment, but here - light, background, reflection in the eyes, everything screams "zoo". From a photographs in a zoo I expect perfection. SkywalkerPL (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]