Comment: Wings are very nicely focused, but the head and, most-importantly, the eyes are not. Insects really are incredibly difficult to do perfectly. -- Veggies (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Colorful for sure, but the up-angle and the relative thickness of the branch obscure some of the subject. Blurry background seems somewhat distracting. Sca (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – I'm coming round to the colorful aspects. But as usual I'd prefer a tighter crop, particularly from the bottom – to make the branch less obtrusive. (Just throwing that out as a possibility, though I don't expect much agreement.) Sca (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I think I have to leave the branch in to frame the hidden tail. Charlesjsharp (talk)
I experimented offline with a bottom crop around the fork in the branches (also a bit of a trim on the left and just a shave on the right), and thought it looked good. – A suggestion for zooming in a little. Sca (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there is a round halo/shadow around the upper-left and lower-right of moon (visible at full size). Bammesk (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC) . . Sidenotes: given this FP [2] of an older eclipse, I am hoping there is a better image out there. This gif is interesting: [3], added it to the article.[reply]
Chris, I don't think the extra halo/shadow is real. Other images don't have it [4], [5], [6] (the last two were uploaded today). Also, in the nominated image the moon is compressed vertically, it is perfectly round in other images. I struck my vote for now, would support a better image. Bammesk (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion -- One might consider substituting the original with [7] in the above post (slightly cropped and/or rotated) - no halo, otherwise almost the same... --Janke | Talk13:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not FP quality, just added to article. Midhun Subhash, you might want to take a look at some past FPC discussions to get a better idea of what is expected of FPs in general. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I added the photo's location to the caption. At one time Eden Township referred to the greater Hayward area [8]. The area has a Japanese-American community [9], [10]. Bammesk (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good restoration. As Bamm says, infobox images are not the only images we promote; EV is what we look at, and this image has plenty of it (as evident from its stability here and widespread use on other websites). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a distinction can be drawn - hundreds of thousands were killed at Jasenovac, I don't think anyone is saying they were at the American camps. But, yes, the caption is distinctly whitewashy - "evacuees", "housed" - in our article we use terms like "internment", "forced relocation", "incarceration", it would probably be better for the caption to more closely follow the article in this rather than use the National Archives caption unaltered; unless we specifically mark the caption itself as a historic artefact. (But that doesn't alter the merits of the photograph.) TSP (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the last sentence from the nom's caption (that sentence was never in article's caption). The word "evacuation" is used in many sources, it refers to one phase of what happened, so I left it be, for instance [18], [19] (title), [20] (table of content). Obviously all sources describe what happened as the incarceration that it was. Bammesk (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the caption actually is by the US National Archives - it's marked "original caption" on the archives pages so I believe is the original caption from 1942. "Evacuation" is used in some modern sources, but few of them use it exclusively - it seems to appears mostly in constructions like "evacuation and internment"; whereas this caption exclusively uses these terms. I'd suggest we either keep the whole caption intact and put it in quotes, marked as "original caption", as an explicit part of the history alongside the photo (ideally with some commentary on how those events are now viewed, but space may not allow that); or rewrite completely into terms more similar to our article text. A compromise seems in danger of putting outdated views into the voice of Wikipedia. TSP (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment It is a high quality image, but it doesn't add significantly to the article as it is not a notable performance. Many of the other images could illustrate the article equally well. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's a well-taken artistic shot, but I don't really see the EV (see WP:FP?). This production isn't mentioned in the article, and the photograph doesn't really tell us anything about the production or the play - this could be two actors in almost any play. I actually prefer the other shot from the same production, which at least shows something of the staging and more of the characters. TSP (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought was that it could be lightened up a bit (Photoshop et al.) on the right side, to give it a better balance, but when you look at it in full size, it doesn't feel so necessary. I wouldn't oppose a careful lightening/gamma correction on the right half, though. --Janke | Talk07:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about cropping out the right side, and to balance it, cropping out a bit of the left side? I added a CSS image crop. The harbor is almost entirely on the left side. The right side is dark and the buildings are cut off in the foreground. Bammesk (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, thanks. Whatever people like best. I really try to avoid artificial colorizing or brightening/darkening as much as possible for WP images. I haven't had the chance to head out to Baltimore to do another pano in the daytime, yet. -- Veggies (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like the sharpness and the lighting, but I agree the crop is too tight, no foreground, I would support if it wasn't so. Sidenote: we have 2 other FPs of this [22], [23]. Weak oppose (regretfully). Bammesk (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2017 at 22:39:59 (UTC)
Reason
There appears to be a high technical standard, high resolution, has good lighting, is under a free license, and it is used in quite a few articles. Should I write more? This is my first FP nomination. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The crop is a Wikipedia creation - original here - so might be worth someone recropping; but the original is 36 megapixels at 2.9mb, which by my maths is even more compressed... though I have to admit that it *looks* OK to me. (On the uncropped photo a larger proportion is the uniform dark grey background.) TSP (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I just don't see the point, in terms of either reader interest or EV, in featuring portraits of widely known current entertainment personalities (or politicians, or sports stars) on the Main Page. Sca (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We vote based on EV. And someone's face does provide the best EV for an article on a person, unless the person is known for doing something specific (like play tennis). Popularity is not to be considered when voting. Encyclopedias don't just use pictures of obscure people... Mattximus (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Matt said. Also, we're fortunate that some people donate/make available images like this, and that one or two editors are regularly in positions to take pictures themselves. Highlighting some of these images (that meet our standards, obviously) offers an incentive for further donations. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's the thing. You just think of FP as a PR machine, rather than a means of promoting growth on Wikipedia. Frankly, it's better for us if we have recognized celebs like Weird Al Yankovic as FPs; it is more likely to draw other photographers' attention. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inaccurate title. And I really cannot see that this image has EV as it does not significantly improve any of the four articles and is not representative of education/literacy etc. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose While this is a useful photo, it doesn't clearly show that these children are in an outdoor school - a composition showing their teacher as well would be much superior. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Criticism on the basis of composition is very well and good, but look at this image: it shows in brilliant, beautiful color and with bright upturned faces the experience of education in a third world country. No teacher is present, but his/ her presence is more than implied by the faces of these students. They are not staring up at the clouds! And the boys in the background are absolutely perfect: they suggest an almost universal (if stereotypical) truth about boys and the educational process (I think I see myself in the kid in the orange shirt in the front row here). This image meets all the technical requirements (yes?); the criticisms based on composition don't hold up against what I see as a dramatic, eye-capturing moment in the lives of a group of children. The evidence of being an FP on all the other Wikis is not accidental. This is a great shot. It just is. I hope we won't hesitate in recognizing this. ( Charles, Mattximus, Chris, Nick, Janke, I have never asked any of you to do this before: please consider taking a second, harder look at this one. Ok? Thank you!) KDS4444(talk)09:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 20:39:49 (UTC)
Reason
Featured on Commons. "Bluish haziness and noise in the background," as Daniel Case put it in the Commons nomination, "[while] normally a flaw actually makes the image stronger."
Comment I'm surprised that it was made an FP, but it did pick up ~150 votes in POTY so I will not vote against it. Wiipedia article should be edited to show this as hard antlers and the main image as antlers in velvet. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]