I'd say, as long as it's not at risk of merging, that can be dealt with before POTD (I'm the POTD co-ordinator). Longer would be better, though. There's plenty of material in the article's sources. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs21:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support And, if you'll forgive the immediate laziness but promise of future effort, if the image gets more supports I'll try and do a 5x expansion and get it to DYK. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs21:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but think this needs recropped a bit. A little too much blurriness around the bird. It's arguably artistic, but its unusualness is pulling too much focus. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs21:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2022 at 20:01:23 (UTC)
Reason
Lead image in Iolanthe with good reason: Gives several key scenes in a bright, colourful way. Text is a little wonky, but that's original; there's no way to make it all straight.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2022 at 16:07:42 (UTC)
Reason
This set of videos shows a snapshot of the energy absorbed (incoming, blue image) and the energy radiated (outgoing, red image) by the earth and its atmosphere. The data includes transient atmospheric effects (cloud contributions). The data was collected over a two day period in January 2012. This set is informative in the two articles and helps explain the subject. If this nom gets a few supports, I will convert the video formats to WebM (which is preferred to ogv).
One can't help but feel that using different colour scales for things meant to be compared, and the inability to watch them next to each other, makes this an awkward set. A simple map projection - ideally without the missing information in the top image - would allow easy comparison. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs13:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a simple comparison, their physics are different. The incoming is shortwave radiation (blue, as in optics) and the outgoing is longwave (red, as in optics). The outgoing includes energy storage effects, but the incoming has no such thing. The outgoing relates to heat on Earth (red being a natural choice), and the incoming related to input from outer space (blue being Earth's natural color from outer space). Yes a map would be easier to look at. However, the incoming video conveys a spatial relation between the energy source (the Sun) and the revolving of Earth (useful for novice readers). There is an advantage in either type of illustration. The missing data on the incoming video is unfortunate, but this isn't an everyday type of measurement, IMO it's good enough. Bammesk (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a photo of a river and a couple of bridges, so I'm not seeing particularly strong EV for this topic. Yes it's notable that the German-Polish border is now undefended and trivial for most people to cross, but there has to be a better way to illustrate this topic than this photo (a photo of a sign marking the border at the side of a highway would get the message across more effectively, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too big at 41Kx16K pixels, thus Oppose unless file resized to manageable size (e.g. earlier upload 2021-12-04 12:36:54), now it breaks Firefox, breaks ZoomViewer. There's no need for a map with this little detail to be such a large file. --Janke | Talk21:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of have to agree. It's only a tiny bit of the map, in the end, and there's not really much text saying why this is an important part of the border (if it is). I could see it as part of a gallery/set, but it's hard to understand why specifically this one. I also fully get why it passed Commons, where the usage wouldn't be judged so much. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs15:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think these deserve to be in the article, but damn that article's image use is an utter mess. They're a gallery sandwiched between images left and right. I think they're excellent images, but can we quickly fix the usage? Conditional Support. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs18:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Might cut a few pixels from the bottom to remove some of the blurred foreground, but otherwise extremely good. Background slightly distracting, but not too bad. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs16:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2022 at 02:57:07 (UTC)
Reason
There's maybe one or two more Royal Gallery of Illustration operettas of note that posters are available for,[1] but this is to some extent the end of the set. This one is for a work by W. S. Gilbert and Thomas German Reed which is still revived occasionally; indeed, I actually performed in it back in 2017 or so. The poster gets reproduced in Gilbert biographies a lot as well, and the plot is rather fun, albeit with a couple bits we decided to cut as they hadn't aged well. By the by, if this passes, and the Iolanthe one lower down this page does tooPassed., by my count this'll be 599 FPs. I'm planning a more labour-intensive one for #600. (I also have one backup prepared for if Iolanthe doesn't pass, because I plan these things way too much.)
^ Balfe's The Sleeping Queen gets occasional performances still, and Tom Taylor's The Family Legend is at least discussed in books I've read (mainly for having inspired Ages Ago and thus Ruddigore, but, y'know. That might be as much because a lot of the books I read about it in were specifically on W. S. Gilbert, who I helped raise to Featured Article well enough that I don't think it's ever been challenged.) But I digress.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2022 at 01:42:27 (UTC)
Reason
Subject Usefulness: Non-meteorological indices helping to describe the relative enormity of a hurricane impact.
Technical: good framing, very high resolution, good contrast, immediately striking display of the topic (aftermath of a severe storm), image taken by a well known and celebrated photographer who has donated her entire work to the Library of Congress with free license, image applicable to other articles / illustrative of various storm-related encyclopedic articles / useful into future entries related to catastrophic storms
Oppose Aside from this not being a particularly great photo (in itself not a disqualifying issue for a Wikipedia FP), I don't think it illustrates the topic well as it depicts a devastating disaster that no business could survive. The 'Waffle House Index' is largely a reference to the chain's reputation for staying open or quickly reopening in the face of natural disasters, so an photo showing a Waffle House open despite destruction around it would better illustrate the topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting 'historical' photo but does it add value to the article? I don't think so. You can't even be sure who is salvaging who. There is no salvage action and no salvage equipment visible. Google marine salvage and you'll see what I mean. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2022 at 16:44:10 (UTC)
Reason
Quality image of an Antique shop, and lead image of the article since 2013. There is a small motion blur on her head-hair area, due to the low lighting and therefore the slow shutter speed. I wouldn't hold that against the photograph though, because it shows she is alive and human, unlike every object in the shop. FP on Commons.
Oppose This is not an antique shop; it is a part of a market with many sellers. The items on sale are vintage, not antique. Quite apart from that, this is an out-of-focus image, poorly composed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am leaning to support, but the wings look soft for a focus stacked photo. Am I missing something? Is there perhaps mis-stacking artifacts on the wings? @Iifar:. Bammesk (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2022 at 01:19:18 (UTC)
Reason
Meets the high technical standard, and is hi-res. Great composition, subtle lighting. Captures well the habitat that the plant grows in. Beautiful image.
I like the composition a lot, honestly. It's the camera quality that's holding it back. Everything's just a bit out of focus and it's not so big of an image that that's forgivable. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs13:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Adam here. I found this really eye-catching at thumbnail size, to the point that I am commenting although usually the photos of pretty flars here just bore me. But at full resolution it's obvious that there's some sharpness missing. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2022 at 03:36:58 (UTC)
Reason
Easily the best image available for her. A dramatic pose, a nice expression, and a very labour intensive restoration (so many little horizontal microtears)...
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2022 at 04:23:51 (UTC)
Reason
And, while we're at it, a stunning chioscuro artwork - I've probably misspelt that - which shows how art was designed for woodblock engraving, as well as being a stunning image for an interesting play. It's a very good parody of Hamlet where Claudius' crime is much less (he wrote a really terrible play), so the plot focuses more on how annoying it is having Hamlet running about soliliquising all the time, and no-one dies.
@Charlesjsharp: Given the show's history - its early history was largely defined by benefit performances, save for a single run, and the first performance was a benefit performance - I think it's not atypical, and it gets the mood and spirit of the show quite well in the middle illustration of the dénouement. It's also not a show with a lot of illustration options. It's possible I could find some of the 1891 benefit or the 1892 short run, but whether they'd be particularly worthwhile is hard to say. Known drawings do not bode well (Though I'm pretty sure that's Hamlet's speech to the players, which is at least a significant moment; mind, the current suggestion is the performance itself that the play centres around.) Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs18:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2022 at 15:35:43 (UTC)
Reason
This shows flour grains levitated in a quadrupole ion trap. Science subjects are hard to depict. This brings attention to the subject, and as FPC instructions say: "to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article" (I hope). Not a high pixel count but meets the FP requirement.
I think it's somewhat important to ask: Is the green light functional in some way? Because the ion trap works with rapidly changing electrical fields. If the light's part of the device, then of course I'd support. If it's just being used to make it look "science-y", though, I can't. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs05:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither. It's not part of the electric field (which is radio frequency per article, and invisible), and it's not there to make it science-y. It's there (perhaps at both ends) to illuminate the trap space and the trapped particles, to make them visible. The particles are almost microscopic. That's what the device is designed for, ionized/charged particles, i.e. very small. It will be hard to see much there with room lighting, camera flash and such. Bammesk (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There appears to be pretty significant subject motion blur on the trapped grains, but I think that serves an encyclopedic purpose, to show their motion within the trap rather than conveying the impression that it freezes everything in place. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's also a current FP which shows the fruit in a longitudinal section, and is currently used (rather inappropriately IMO) in the prepared food infobox for canned mangosteen in syrup. The horizontal cross-section in the new image is a much better depiction not least because that's how the fruit is normally opened, though maybe some indication that the two fruits are shown in different orientations would be a good idea. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doubts about what? I responded at the Commons fpc. There's nothing weird going on -- just a couple feathers which look a bit smoother/less detailed than the others. It's in the raw file. That kind of pixel peeping may be sufficient motivation for some not to support, I guess. I think it's a special shot per what I wrote over there, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — Rhododendritestalk \\ 00:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I don't think Sca's reasoning is relevant to the Featured Picture Criteria, this photo was taken at a manufactured tourist attraction in Pattaya, and the authenticity of the portrayed subject and thus the accuracy of the information the image provides should be strongly questioned, especially since it's being used in the Karen people article as the infobox image. I've removed the image from the article, considering that it was added as part of the WPWP campaign, which is known for generating a huge amount of poor quality/inaccurate image additions. The photo could probably find better use illustrating an article about ethnic tourism or something along those lines, were it accompanied by relevant and verifiable commentary. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Good idea, but the tight bottom crop is a problem. There are better images out there [1], but their copyright may be a problem. Bammesk (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]