Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2021 at 02:23:17 (UTC)
Reason
This image depicts the second thermonuclear weapon ever tested and the first "dry" thermonuclear weapon, with dry weapons being the basis of all modern nuclear weapons. It is of great historical significance and provides the viewer with an understanding of the small size of what was a very powerful device. From a scientific and engineering standpoint, the image makes clear the vacuum line of sight pipes attached to the device which where used for device diagnostics during the test, along with other hardware.
Articles in which this image appears
Castle Bravo, Operation Castle. In both cases the image is somewhat overtaken by two other highly iconic images.
It needs a bit of restoration, which I volunteer to do if there are a couple supports. I probably support later after I look into the article. Bammesk (talk)
Kylesenior, yes normally we remove such IDs, example [1][2]. When a text is an integral part of the image then we keep it, examples [3][4]. In this case I don't have a strong preference either way. If some of you want to keep the government's photo ID, I will upload another restored version with the ID. I added it to the file's description on Commons. Bammesk (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tyrone, a repeat vote isn't helpful. You need to indicate which version you are voting for: the original or the restored? Or which version you prefer? Bammesk (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If people have a better suggestion/better wording for the caption, I would like to hear it. Both the description used here and on Commons.Kylesenior (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Armbrust:, I restored the edits made by User:Tyrone Madera to their original form, diff 1diff 2. In counting the votes, I see 4.5 support votes for the Original image (by users Kylesenior, Tyrone Madera, Kavyansh.Singh, MER-C, Cwmhiraeth), and I see 5 support votes for the Restored image (by users Bammesk, Kavyansh.Singh, Janke, MER-C, Tyrone Madera). I see sufficient clarity to close this nom. If you have any concerns, please let me know. Thanks. Bammesk (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2021 at 09:39:33 (UTC)
Reason
Was seen on Commons FPC two months ago, where it was featured unanimously. Illustrates a different aspect of the subject than the main image, and does it well.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2021 at 03:44:11 (UTC)
Reason
Quality image of Uvs lake basin, a remote biosphere reserve at the border of Mongolia and Russia. The basin is one of the last ecosystems with vegetation remnant of the last glacial period. The photo was captured during the Golden hour, hence the warm colors. FP on Commons.
Comment – this other photo/version appearing lower in the primary article is more worthy of becoming FP. It shows more of the crowd and identifies Lincoln with a red arrow (it needs a bit of restoration in the foreground though). In the nom image, without the red arrow, Lincoln is too ambiguous. Bammesk (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree that this one is too blur, but it has very high encyclopedia value. But, as Bemmesk pointed out, it the another image is better, then than one is more worthy of being a FP. Frankly, its too difficult for me to figure out from this picture where Lincoln is... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It isn't sharp on the far right side. Nice capture just prior to the plant's shut down, and good addition to the article (EV). The smokestack (chimney) isn't quite vertical. The image needs a slight counter clockwise rotation. Bammesk (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support rotated version. I like the composition and EV, but the marginal sharpness of the periphery brings it down to weak support for me. Bammesk (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. The previous version has obviously wrong colors. I made adjustments trying to match the museum image: [8]. The image doesn't show here, as it is in the MediaWiki:Bad image list. To see the image, just click on the link. – Yann (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It doesn't meet the 1500 pixel requirement of FP criterion #2. Exceptions can be made for historical images, but Hollywood actors and actresses are well (often) photographed, so I doubt a convincing argument can be made for an exception. The image needs a bit of touchup to remove the ID in the lower right corner. Bammesk (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If 1500px is a hard limit, I guess this is an automatic fail. Should've read the criteria more closely. Suppose I could buy this from the Ebay page and scan it to a higher res … a bargain at US$18! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 1500px requirement is pretty firm, with occasional exceptions. I am not sure buying it and scanning it will guarantee the nom's success. There is no way to predict what the reviewers do at FP noms. And I have been around for a long time :-) Bammesk (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2021 at 09:20:23 (UTC)
Reason
The image is iconic.
The image depicts one of the few full-scale tests of a US nuclear weapon system (as opposed to the simple test of a device without delivery system), the other being the SLBM test, shot Dominic Frigate Bird in the same year.
The image conveys how a nuclear depth bomb might have been used in combat.
The image conveys the immense power of even a very small nuclear weapon.
Con: The image likely needs some restoration work. I am uncertain how appropriate it is to expect work needs to be performed while nominating said image.
Support – It needs a little more restoration which I will do if it gets a couple of supports. The arch isn't perfectly sharp, but at 7293 × 8965 pixels it's sharp enough for 1899 or 1900. Bammesk (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – At 260 words, target article is a stub. Little EV apparent in a temporary structure erected only for a parade. – Sca (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2021 at 15:41:51 (UTC)
Reason
Ernest Rutherford, highly notable physicist who discovered several atomic properties. Nobel prize recipient. For details see lead section of his article. Restored image.
Comment – It has stitch lines at bottom left and right corners (visible at full size). Oppose as is, but I will support if the stitch lines are removed. Bammesk (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2021 at 02:10:50 (UTC)
Reason
Quality lead image in Sea urchin shows two species: White sea urchin (top) and Reef urchin (bottom). Good quality for an underwater photo. FP on Commons.
Comment – In this case I disagree with removing the tone. This source shows scans of four different prints (earliest is a 1895 print, then 1911, ~1913, 1929/1932). In this case, the tone is a signature of (and inherent to) the individual print, therefore I think we should accept the scans as given by the sources and not modify the tones. For the nom image, the scan is of a ~1913 print at the Metropolitan Museum [9], [10]. I think we should keep the tone, and do minor restoration for spot removal as necessary. Bammesk (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk: IMO, the colors of the image are not the original colors, due to aging. I just tried to restore the original sepia tone. I propose an alternative, from another museum, with less changes, a higher resolution and a wider crop. What do you think? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann:, we have 4 versions here: [11][12][13][14] with known and early print dates, so I prefer one of them, or something similar in tone and contrast. The Alt 1 is a fifth and more contrasty (very different) version at the Cleveland museum [15]. Also the Cleveland museum gives a less contrasty (better) version here: [16] which seems to be the actual scan. Bammesk (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk:This is a copy of Camera Work, which is a photogravure. I think photogravure gives a soft tone. According to the museums which have a copy of the picture, there were also prints with various processes (carbon print, gelatin silver print, collotype print). Of course, each of these will give a different result, in terms of contrast and colors. Why should we prefer one rather than another? There is no perfect solution. I don't believe Stieglitz wanted his images to have a pink tint. We can only try to have one with the best quality, and more faithful to the intention of the creator. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For historic photos (especially works of art which this is now) I think we should try to keep them as they were at the time, and keep the reprocessing to necessities. The four links I gave above (plus one at Cleveland museum) tell us about the tone and contrast. I agree that the 1913 version [17] didn't originally have a deep tint as it does now, so I agree with doing some correction there. But I don't think it had a high contrast as depicted by the nom versions. Bammesk (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - do we know anything about the history of the crop in the Original? The Original has far more detail, sufficient that I would be uncomfortable promoting the Alt (look at the coat and front horse - the alt merges these into undifferentiated black); but quite a bit is cropped out. Do we know if this crop was done by the photographer or is a later edit? TSP (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This source shows 4 prints, first one is dated 1895, then lower on the page 1911, ~1913, ~1929. The first nominated image is the 1913 crop (edited). According to the primary article, Stieglitz was active in New York between 1893 and 1895. He shot this photo in 1893, so I figure the 1895 print is closest to being an original. Bammesk (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that 1895 version might be a better nom than either of our current options? It's the closest to the original photographic date, and the brighter processing reveals detail the others don't (e.g. on the horse's collar); though at the expense of some detail at the high end (e.g. on the snow piles). TSP (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This looks to be impressively captured, epecially since it involved multiple exposures. Incidentally it's inspired me to try focus stacking, a technique I didn't know about. ProfDEH (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - visible JPEG artifacts and posterisation, especially in the large dark bit about two thirds down and on the left. Not even close to a FP-worthy reproduction. MER-C19:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – per MER-C. I had not seen the artifacts, but I thought the image was soft and the small file size of 608KB was questionable (for 3700 x 6200 pixels). Bammesk (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – There is still one warning in WD, but merits the star anyway (location of discovery). I added "creator = unknown". Yann (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to judge, because it's outer space and the source is NASA. However I also support an Alternate version (edited version) with less saturation. Bammesk (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it's worth reading the blog post on how this image was created. It isn't exactly a single image (though isn't exactly a montage either) - to me it feels a little artificial with the lack of colour data on the moon, but certainly a striking shot. TSP (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2021 at 14:28:49 (UTC)
Reason
Gerty Cori and Carl Ferdinand Cori, two Nobel prize recipients in the laboratory in 1947. The couple (husband and wife) discovered how glycogen is converted to energy in the body. Restored image.
Support – Bammesk (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC) . . . . FWIW, if the snow appears a bit pinkish, it's because 3 weeks earlier there was a bit of atmospheric sand storm. (per this link at Commons FP nomination)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2021 at 19:31:42 (UTC)
Reason
Was seen on Commons FPC last month, where it was featured without opposition. Some technical flaws (particularly with the blown highlights, which are understandable) but the composition makes up for it.
Oppose - I want to support this one, as I feel nighttime photos are sometimes overlooked here, but I can't for this one. There is significant noise where the structures meet the night sky. I can't say exactly what it's from—if it was done in post-processing or not, but this fringe of noise, which doesn't extend into the deep sky is too distracting. Yes, I'm aware that this is a FP on Commons. -- Veggies (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit compressed vertically, the clocks on either side are oval. The image is used in a gallery (not strong EV). For this church I think a daytime photo would be better (similar to the infobox photo but without excessive shadows). Bammesk (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Bammesk, I didn't realize that, it's fix now. Regarding taking the shot during the day, well, yes, during the day you will have shadows, but also lots of people. The church is very visited among tourists and also to have a good perspective you need to be far from this but subject including potentially even more people in your shot. --Poco220:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, I agree with your night versus day comments. If the image is repositioned and used more prominently in the article, and then renominated, it might pass. It's a very good photo. Bammesk (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It's noisy but good EV (ISO 5000! and pro camera). The article can use inline citations. I think the external link covers a lot of it. Bammesk (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree with the technical critiques (reflections, noise), although personally I go with the EV in this case. Looking at other online photos, an image that shows more of the room, something like this but without the people, makes a better FP. Bammesk (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That angle and ligting is definitely better, but the image is too small. With a little care, it should be possible to shoot an almost perfect photo... --Janke | Talk15:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2021 at 14:14:41 (UTC)
Reason
High resolution image of needle file set shows various shapes. This is a second nom [18]. The first nom wasn't conclusive on which format, PNG or JPEG, is better. PNG has a transparent background, JPEG renders sharper on Wikipedia. If you have a preference, please specify.
The article File (tool) has a section about "Needle files" (where the photo is used) under the heading Types. That's the same as your recent nom Here where there is a short paragraph about Larva and your larva photo appears nearby (which by the way I supported). We can't have one set of rules for one nom and a different set of rules for another nom. Besides, this photo shows six cross sections or types (described above it in the article). That, plus its high technical quality, makes it FP worthy and the best photo in the article. Bammesk (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an engineer I can tell you that needle files would be low on my choice list to illustrate an article on tools or hand tools. The key feature of a typical hand tool is a grip suited to the human hand. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The primary article is File (tool), not tools or hand tools as you say. As far as hand tools go, files are a quintessential hand tool. In particular, needle files are used with and without a handle attachment. You should know that since you are an engineer! Bammesk (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]