Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2023 at 21:24:35 (UTC)
Reason
Quality lead image in Hudson Yards (development) article. We have another FP of this neighborhood Here shot from a high-rise within the city. The nom image is substantially different though, it's a view from across the Hudson River. Currently passing at Commons FPC.
I don't love the crop, and source isn't given. But it's a strong enough image that I'm neutral as long as Gallica doesn't have a better copy Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs.04:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to find a possible source of the image at HathiTrust. It appears in the weekly French newspaper L'Illustration Volume LVIII N°1505, which was published in 30 December 1871. However the newspaper states that the engraving of the elephantine execution is actually just an extract from a book(?) called Tour du Monde. My french is pretty lacking so I can't really read the surrounding text around the image. Howardcorn33 (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Gallica's scan from the original print in Le Tour du Monde; it's of significantly lower resolution. The Wellcome Collection has a cleaner print from 1875, though the resolution isn't great either. Without the caption, it's hard to determine where the version uploaded by Hohum comes from, unless maybe they remember? --Paul_012 (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
download. Metadata points to Getty images. Metadata also points out it's "from the book Tour du monde (Hachette), illustration from the magazine L'Illustration, Journal Universel, volume LVII, no 1504, December 23, 1871.". (Hohum@) 10:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
....Some of my restorations are on there, being profited off of by random people. They set it at a price point that a publisher will just pay and stop looking Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs.22:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I actually forgot to check the metadata. The original digitisation appears to be from de Agostini Picture Library (here via Scala; not the above Getty link, which is a different version). Scala also has another version with the caption intact. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wonder if the image can be better placed in context. Is it an accurate historical depiction? Or is it more a reflection of the orientalist views of the time? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point regarding the inherent nature of such works. I just wonder if we can tell how much (if anything) was embellished in the processing of the image, from photograph to engraving. Also, I understand that cameras from that time required long exposure times, meaning that most photographs had to be staged to some degree, so it'd be interesting to know how the original shot was actually taken and what it looked like. It's not a critical issue, but I also have some concerns regarding quality (see below). --Paul_012 (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I think quality-wise, the image requires some restoration. The brown smudges and show-through from the other page are quite noticeable. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2023 at 17:37:30 (UTC)
Reason
Quite a nice image; not perfect (the fade out is more abrupt than the more delicately done ones are), but we really don't have a lot of options for him, and I'm pretty happy with it overall.
Weak support. They are pretty bad articles, but we don't have to mainpage it until they improve. But they're a bit too bad - one's short, the other unreferenced. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs.07:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I would support this once the article is improved. Promoting a Wikipedia FP without a well-written article is akin to Commons FP with a lower bar of 5 vs. 7 votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagooty (talk • contribs)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2023 at 19:36:28 (UTC)
Reason
High resolution, really popular image, high quality. Probably one of the most iconic portraits of all time, it even has its own article. There was a previous nomination for this image which failed to be promoted to featured picture status, however that was a lower quality and highly compressed older version of the photo which was uploaded in 2006. It has since now been updated and I believe it deserves the status.
Comment: I did not create this image, I only performed some reverts. The lack of grain is claimed to be the result of AI cleanup, but I do not know if this is true or not. — Huntster (t@c)22:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've found what I think is the true source - that image definitely isn't the V&A image - given the appearance of lines and spots based on damage to it, especially the one on the cap. .
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2023 at 18:29:41 (UTC)
Reason
Quality close-up view of Lhotse-Nuptse Massif West Face, important feature in the Everest Zone of Nepal, Himalayas, in good light and favorable weather conditions.
Comment Excellent image, well worth FP. A concern is that the article has minimal content. Should the article be expanded first? --Tagooty (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not an expert on standards but the article seems good enough to me, clear and concise. Other peaks such as Ama Dablam, Pumori and Everest have accumulated more history and mythology in recent decades so their entries are naturally longer. --Argenberg (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article was rated as Start-class as it lacked structure, content and references. I've substantially improved the article to address these deficiencies, and reassessed it as C-class. --Tagooty (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Comment – This famous photo already appears in today's OTD fixture on the Main Page. Running it again as a POTD would be duplication. – Sca (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's really a terrible reason to oppose. A tiny reproduction in OTD, or as the lead image of TFA shouldn't mean that in months and months we shouldn't feature a good image in POTD. Further, POTD draws from featured pictures, but FPs are not required to be capable of running on POTD (we've had many that couldn't possibly run there). I do think this image could use some restoration, and there's some weird damage that makes me want to research a bit, but.... Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs.15:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously, it'll probably be six months to a year until it recurs. If we were talking about it reappearing instantly, there'd be a reader issue. But we're not.. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs.19:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high quality portrait for this era, and as this is clearly the best image in the article I image it's the best image we have of her. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Choliamb: Thank you! I try to keep my eyes open. I can't be an expert in every subject, so when I learn of interesting people, I try to check them immediately. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs.02:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On English Wikipedia Featured Picture Candidates, only usage on English Wikipedia counts towards the image's encyclopedic value, and, while I do think it's a good image, it's only used in one article here, and as the last image on it. I'm not sure that's enough. It's flat-coloured, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when you compare, say, File:Ulanen 13.jpg, it doesn't quite have the same pizazz. I feel bad saying all this, though, as, if it had better usage, and maybe slightly better shading, this feels like it'd be a very valuable image. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs.10:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your attention, Mr Adam Cuerden! I agree with the comments, I’ll try to create an article about the 4th Kharkov Uhlan Regiment. In my opinion, a vector image is better without a gradient and shadows. Best Regards, — Niklitov (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but you may need to renominate this, given how late in the nomination period this is. As a general rule, waiting a month or so between nominations of the same image is preferred, but given the addition of the article, it's probably okay to go faster than that. You may want to consider a set nomination with the two other images of the uniforms. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs.03:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2023 at 10:50:20 (UTC)
Reason
Ovington was a founding member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I'm fairly pleased at the detail some levels adjustments were able to get out of the original, slightly unpromising-looking image. Image is very chiarascuro, but nice.
Support. Maybe a tiny bit of additional cleanup on the right ear? I see a few small blue specks that wouldn't matter at all in the background, but for some reason they stand out more on the ear (especially the larger one directly beneath the horizontal wisp of hair). But they're really, really tiny, so not a problem if you want to let them go. Choliamb (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2023 at 21:15:29 (UTC)
Reason
Cameron was Secretary of War under President Abraham Lincoln, and U.S. senator from Pennsylvania. The restoration has some scratches removed. It's a nice quality image for FP, I think.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2023 at 08:31:07 (UTC)
Reason
Poster from the original tour of Basil Hood and Arthur Sullivan's The Rose of Persia. If I'm reading the museum site right - it's a little weirdly phrased - this is the same as the one used for the original London production. Renomination, original is here and got three supports, no opposes. I think that was just one of FPC's slow periods, especially as it's featured on Commons and has been stable in the lead of the article since.
Oppose An ordinary image. I can't find anything outstanding here. Resolution and image quality in detail are only average. The perspective is not ideal because the tree on the right obscures part of the building. --Milseburg (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Unremarkable straight-on photo, excessive foreground (= miniscule people). Many high-quality pix of the bldg. are extant. (This structure hasn't housed the Reichstag since 1933. It's now home to the Bundestag.) – Sca (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a little cleanup that could be done, but it's relatively minor and a good first project for someone if they want it. On the whole, it's not the most exciting image, but it's decent for its time. Support, prefer restoration.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs.22:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Christ Mocked, a painting by Cimabue (25.8 cm (10.1 in) x 20.3 cm (7.9 in) ), discovered by chance at a private home in northern France, sold at auction for €24 million in 2019, declared a National Treasure and reserved by the Louvre Museum. Definitively acquired in November 2023.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2023 at 21:35:43 (UTC)
Reason
Very clear example of virtual reality, showing both the gloved and headset. In addition the picture is of high quality and really clean. I think it is a perfect fit for the Virtual reality article.
Support – It would be an improvement to add the year 1992 to the image caption in the article. If the image is ever demoted from being the lead image, it makes a good addition to the history section of the article. Bammesk (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great photograph. Simple and outstanding at the same time. Practical, realistic, down to earth but is also stirring the imagination. --Argenberg (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not an engaging portrait, it looks snapshot-ish. Shallow depth of field. For the year 1998, and a public person (who was photographed regularly I suppose), a better photo can be expected. Bammesk (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2023 at 09:30:18 (UTC)
Reason
Rather nice photo of a Nobel Prize-winning scientist with some of his work. Alvarez is one of those people who did a ridiculous number of things, so there's probably not one device that would show his full career, but it's a good image of him, so screw it.
Dew will do that. I think I like it, though this might be one of those effects that wows at Commons, but hides too much to pass here. Weak supportAdam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs.17:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2023 at 18:19:48 (UTC)
Reason
Bit of a borderline case given the aspect ratio, but this image does encompass the environs around Laguna Miscanti (more than the lake itself) very well. I was hoping to find an image specifically for Laguna Miscanti too, but it seems like each one has one section or another that's heavily blurred.
Comment – Due to the aspect ratio (horizontal thinness), this image seems problematic as a Main Page POTD. Also, given the extent of territory shown, its features aren't particularly informative visually, despite the 25MB size of the file. – Sca (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think FPs must appear on the main page, though? YMMV on the informativeness, it does show the mountains and general landscape (desertish and sometimes flat, sometimes water-covered and sometimes with high mountains) of the area. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Images promoted here as FPs all are theoretically eligible for selection as main page POTDs, but they aren't all chosen as such. Hence, my post above is a comment, not an oppose. The critical comments I made may be considered here on their merits. -- Sca (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they can, but images of extreme thinness showing large expanses of space, such as this one, don't display very well. (Also, arguably, there's too much featureless foreground.) -- Sca (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, promoted FPs are all perforce eligible for selection as main page POTDs – so this issue isn't entirely moot unless the only thing one cares about at Wiki is what happens on this page. -- Sca (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's moot when critiquing FP noms, FA and FL noms, because main-page is not a criterion. Featured content projects are tasked with reviewing and recognizing high quality encyclopedic content, then awarding (assigning) a star to such content [9], that's all, period. Featured content projects are not tasked with evaluating what should/shouldn't go on the main-page. What goes (or doesn't go) on the main-page is sorted out at the POTD and the Main-page projects. Those projects have their own guidelines, norms, and consensus (eligibility, suitability, etc). FP nominations are the wrong venue for rejecting quality content in order to benefit the main-page (as your critiques do). The same holds for FA and FL nominations. We don't ignore quality works based on what's best for the main-page. That's why main-page is not a criterion. That's why it's moot. Bammesk (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you quite sure about that, Bammesk? After all, the title "Featured Picture" is taken from the main page's daily heading Today's Featured Picture. (See the Main Page if you don't believe me.) At Wiki, Featured Pictures don't appear anywhere other than on the Main Page. Period! -- Sca (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Read the one page I linked to above, here it is again: [10]. It says what featured contents are. Featured contents are "the best of Wikipedia". Wikipedia means encyclopedia: [11], it doesn't mean main-page. Main-page is not part of what makes or breaks "the best of Wikipedia". Again, main-page is not a FP, FA, FL criterion. About the rest of your comment, where FPs, FAs, FLs appear (main-page, signpost, home page of an educational organization, wherever) and where their titles come from (the main-page, vice-versa, or wherever) doesn't change what FPs, FAs, FLs are. They are what the following pages say they are: [12] criteria: [13][14][15] instructions: [16][17][18]. Bammesk (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you quite sure about that, Bammesk? After all, the title "Featured Picture" is taken from the main page's daily heading Today's Featured Picture. (See the Main Page.) At Wiki, Featured Pictures labelled as such don't appear anywhere other than on the Main Page. -- Sca (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Parts of this image are excellent, but I can't help but think the left side of the image is really quite bad, especially around the lake itself, and the right side of the lake isn't much better. Admittedly, the image looks very good scaled down a bit (say [19]), but, practically speaking, the viewing choices aren't going to be that favourable to the image: Thumbnails are way too small, even on the file description page, and viewing it full size is not going to make this one shine. The only way to get a reasonable size is editing the width in the URL after opening a thumbnail - not very practical! I usually love Diego's stuff, but this one's a miss for me. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs.16:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2023 at 02:25:00 (UTC)
Reason
One could argue some things about composition, but this is probably the best known image of her, to the point of being used as the book cover of her recent biography. I think that says something. There's also... maybe five to six images of her that exist, most much worse. That's the trouble with scientists whose achievements are only recognised later. Also, going back to that book cover: I did a better restoration than they did. (No offense intended, but you can see scratches and other damage clearly if you zoom in on the cover; damage I fixed.).
Of course. But is her right hand really necessary, and the empty space on her left? And is there some unnecessary space above her head? Cropped, it would still meet minimum size... --Janke | Talk17:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to try, feel free to make an Alt, but I'm not really getting much I'd consider unambiguously better, and, given the preference for full images at FPC, I think you need unambiguous. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.6% of all FPs.18:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2023 at 04:35:47 (UTC)
Reason
Quality lead image. This was nominated previously here: [20]. It didn't pass because one editor had less than 100 edits. I should have voted for it. Hopefully it will pass in this renom.
Mild oppose in current form I like the content, but comparing to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Turgot map of Paris (2), the main image there is an assembled continuous image with the margins between sheets removed, which seems to me the best way to present this content to a general audience. Unless there's some reason the same couldn't be done with this map, I'd suggest that this is not an optimal version of this map to promote, and we should wait for/produce that version. TSP (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The title "Featured Picture" is taken from the main page's daily heading Today's Featured Picture. (See the Main Page.) At Wiki, Featured Pictures (so labelled) don't appear anywhere other than on the Main Page. -- Sca (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. While the photo does provide some EV regarding the skeleton's placement in the museum, the angle is just not good for helping the reader visualise the whale skeleton itself, and that's the only article it's used in. I think the picture would have much better EV in the National History Museum article, as it highlights the surrounding architecture rather than the skeleton. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This isn't particularly useful as a depiction of Saladin, as it's a fanciful recreation of him by someone centuries later (and in a very different cultural context). But all the uses of the image are as (merely) an image of Saladin, rather than (say) as part of commentary on this piece of artwork, or depictions of Saladin, or similar. So I'm struggling to see the EV, here. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2023 at 22:15:42 (UTC)
Reason
On a bit of a scientist kick, as you can probably tell. Or, at least, finishing long-standing restorations of scientists. I like this photo. It's dramatic, it was used in the logo of his company, and, while Kelvin's balls seem to have been removed,[1] it's a nice picture of a binnacle and a lovely image of Lord Kelvin.
^"Kelvin's balls" are the iron balls that are normally mounted on the "arms" of the binnacle to balance out the magnetic fields from the ship and the like. I couldn't resist.