Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/April-2013

Featured picture tools
Featured pictures (on Wikimedia Commons) Featured picture criteria Featured picture candidates (on Wikimedia Commons) Featured picture thumbs Featured picture archive Picture of the day (Guidelines) Picture of the day archive (and schedule)
v t e

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

	Older Archive
	Miscellaneous Archive
2004:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2013 at 02:59:29 (UTC)

Reason

good image, has EV

Articles in which this image appears

Abraham Maslow, Aspiration Management, Disposable Energy, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Psychology, Reward management, Self-esteem, Work motivation

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams

Creator

Factoryjoe

• Support as nominator --Mediran (t • c) 02:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I found the the white-on-orange and white-on-red text on the bottom two layers to be a bit difficult to read, and I suspect that others will squint at the next two layers. A quick Google image search suggests that there isn't any consensus on the colour scheme to use here, so swapping things to more reader-friendly colours seems a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are colors necessary at all? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is whether this concept - a visual way to show how needs build on each other - is something that a Wikipedian-created image can ever be considered an FP. It's text in a triangle, after all. I could see Maslow's original illustration being notable, but I think FPs have a minimal complexity necessary. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support FFS, we FP toasters. Moreover, I want a copy of this featured to show my wife that sex is indeed a need, not a want. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very well-photographed toasters (at least in theory: Do we actually have toaster FPs?). Diagrams, though, are eminently redrawable, and so need to be particularly well-done. I'm not sure this subject can rise to that level, since its extreme simplicity means it can be drawn to about the same quality by anyone. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are many simple and non-complex items (http://en.wikipedia.orgview_image.php?q=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/April-2013&sq=Qlik&lang=&file=File:Electric_steam_iron.jpg) that are FP because they are technically excellent. They lack wow, but still illustrate a concept or thing very well. The reproducible nature of it shouldn't be a major concern. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. "morality" is listed twice. I would guess that the listing at "Safety" level is incorrect since morality seems a higher-level function than the others in that section. (I also agree that some of the text is harder to read than it should be.) 86.160.220.22 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Security of Morality and Morality could be construed as different needs. I noted that this text is the same as that which is found here: http://www.maverickpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/maslow-hierarchy.jpg Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "security of morality" is a difficult concept to comprehend, and to the extent that it makes sense at all, it does not seem to be on a par with the more basic securities listed on that level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.220.22 (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... however, "security of morality" does seem to be shown in the same way in a number of other sources, including several books, so I'm beginning to think it must be right after all. Hmmm, it does look a bit odd to me though... 86.160.220.22 (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your sentiment though, as it seems out of place. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2013 at 11:49:08 (UTC)

Reason

good image, has EV, already achieved FP status in Commons

Articles in which this image appears

1558, Coronation of the British monarch, Elizabeth (film), Elizabeth I of England, Elizabethan government, English Armada, Holy Jesus Hospital, Legitimacy (law), List of longest-reigning British monarchs, Portraiture of Elizabeth I of England, Tudor dynasty

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty

Creator

Unknown
Dcoetzee (uploader)

• Support as nominator --Mediran (t • c) 11:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a scan of a halftone print, not a photograph of the original painting. The NPG's image, though lower resolution (in the pure sense of number of pixels), is actually higher quality (well below FP quality, obviously--I just mean that it's a clearer representation of the painting as a painting). Chick Bowen 04:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2013 at 05:12:44 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, notable painting and artist.

Articles in which this image appears

Madonna in the Church +1

FP category for this image

Paintings

Creator

Jan van Eyck

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'll admit I'm a little distracted by the solid black fill in the cropped out background at the top, but it's a minimal complaint and probably unavoidable. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, good painting. The interior's light and shades are particularly excellent. Brandmeister^talk 20:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Pine^✉ 18:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It appears the apparently wooden frame is, in fact, part of the painting. Note the painting damage on the middle left. Given {http://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/196/flashcards/1182196/jpg/madonna_in_a_church1329251793777.jpg] and the rather awkwardly edited File:Jan_van_Eyck_Madonna_in_the_Church.jpg include it, the awkward crop seems unacceptable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2013 at 11:03:19 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Myrabella

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nominator. EV seems good. Dusty777 02:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Horizon line not level... — raekyt 14:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ...but the crosses are. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From memory, this site is on a slight hill, which probably explains the horizon. I don't think that this is the most arresting composition of this much-photographed site though. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support while not the best photo possible, the EV is good. We can do a D&R later if we get a better one. --Pine^✉ 18:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2013 at 12:34:22 (UTC)

Reason

Image is of very high quality (nearly 3,000x3,000 pixels) and conveys in clear, "encyclopedic" terms, the object it depicts (a radiation capsule). The drawing is very precise in technical terms, and the subject is very important for understanding the pivotal piece of machinery involved in the Goiânia nuclear accident of 1987.

Articles in which this image appears

Goiânia accident

FP category for this image

Medical devices

Creator

KDS444 (Please note that this was uploaded from my Wikimedia account, KDS444, which is different from my Wikipedia account, KDS444. Am working on unifying these. Thanks.)

• Support as nominator --KDS444 (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Something like this should be a SVG file not JPEG. — raekyt 19:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This diagram is very well-done, but generally for technical diagrams we expect them to be in SVG format. I'll be happy to support it if an SVG version becomes available. If I have time, I might even do the SVG conversion myself (but I will most likely only become free in the summer)! dllu (t,c) 22:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per abovee Mediran (t • c) 04:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please see new nomination of this image as an SVG file at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Teletherapy radiation casule redux KDS4444^Talk 14:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination superseded by Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Teletherapy Capsule2.svg. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2013 at 12:16:09 (UTC)

Reason

Is of sufficiently high resolution and detail, has been analyzed for artifacts and when found have been removed, provides a thorough visual description of the basics of this animal's anatomy including difficult-to-describe elements such as the passage of the intestine through the ventricle

Articles in which this image appears

Scallop

FP category for this image

Anatomica

Creator

KDS444 (Note this was originally uploaded through my Wikimedia account, "KDS444", which is technically different from my Wikipedia account, "KDS444". Yeah, I get confused too.)

• Support as nominator --KDS444 (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Also should be a SVG file... — raekyt 19:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This diagram is very well-done, but generally for technical diagrams we expect them to be in SVG format. I'll be happy to support it if an SVG version becomes available. If I have time, I might even do the SVG conversion myself (but I will most likely only become free in the summer)! dllu (t,c) 22:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support SVGs are useful, but are very bad at shading. The image would be far less attractive as an SVG, since it uses a lot of delicate shading. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have redone this image as an SVG file and renominated it. Please see Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Scallop Diagram Redux and place your votes of support (or voice your opposition) there. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 14:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination superseded by Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Scallop Diagram2.svg. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2013 at 19:26:05 (UTC)

Reason

High-resolution and good quality portrait of a voice actor looking relaxed and natural.

Articles in which this image appears

Robert Clotworthy, Jim Raynor

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Robert Clotworthy (permission request and upload by User:Deskana)

• Support as nominator --Julia\^talk 19:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I don't like all that use of screen realestate for the image. Too much shirt not enough face plus he is very slanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechFilmer (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TechFilmer. Unfortunate daylight-colored glare on glasses, which is probably (carefully) removable. And I could be wrong, but it seems his nose is in focus but his eyes aren't. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt added: Cropped (and slightly rotated anticlockwise). Really don't think the glasses glare detracts from the portrait. Julia\^talk 20:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do, sorry (regarding glare). I also think there should be slightly more headroom, again per TechFilmer's comments. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I don't believe in rigid portraits and quite like the composition on this one. The headroom can be increased in PS if it's a very big deal --Muhammad(talk) 03:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original but support alternative version. The framing seems off to me in the original one, a portrait should have a larger portion taken up by the head. The alternative version looks good to me. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both I think the flat lighting and brightness washes it out too much, far to flat of lighting, makes it less interesting then it could of been. — raekyt 14:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The technical quality is quite good but I can't bring myself to support due to the flat lighting and aforementioned composition issues. I think a picture like this picture would be better at illustrating his profession as a voice actor (although that linked image is CC-BY-NC-SA which is not allowed here). dllu (t,c) 08:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2013 at 20:45:50 (UTC)

Reason

I discovered that the article on Church's Aurora Borealis portrayed Rainy Season in the Tropics as a painting that, alongside with Aurora, exhibited "renewed optimism" after the American Civil War. Church's paintings were known to be symbolic (sometimes blatantly so) of the historical goings-on of the period. The article was missing the image, so I inserted it and it has been stable since. This image is an extremely minimal and lossless crop of the original scan to remove the border on the top, left, and right sides. I double checked various points in the painting to make sure pixels still matched (one never knows) and the lossless crop is not altered in any other way. (Lossless crop was done with Xee; an overwritten upload, seen in the image history, was more of an experiment with a Photoshop save at level 12.) I was recently in San Francisco and had intended on visiting this painting (mostly for personal pleasure) but also to confirm colors, but didn't have time, unfortunately. The colors are similar to a fold-out reprinting in the book American Sublime (ISBN 0691096708).

Articles in which this image appears

Aurora Borealis (painting), List of works by Frederic Edwin Church, Frederic Edwin Church

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Frederic Edwin Church (painter); de Young Museum of San Francisco (scan/exhibitor); Google Art Project (compiler); DcoetzeeBot (image retriever/reconstruction); Keraunoscopia (slight crop)

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amazing painting. — raekyt 00:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mediran (t • c) 05:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Original, Support Alt 1. - it's a small change, but if you look closely around the edges of the image, it's clear bits of the painting were cropped out, which is unforgivable in an FP where the relatively undamaged version is readily available. While a bit of border creeps in, actual painting also appears in the removed strips, as the strips are not straight. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried several methods to keep every pixel of the painting, namely by straightening the strips; either by affecting only nearby pixels or affecting the entire painting. The difference was so negligible that I preferred the straight crop, which still lets a bit of border seep in somewhere at the top and right I think (it's been a while). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For any thumbnailed use the crop is not noticeable, the EV is slightly reduced by removing any pixels of the actual painting in it's full resolution, so having it not cropped doesn't affect wikipedia's usage at all, since it's only a mater of a few pixels on the sides which can't be seen in the thumbnails... so I'd support the uncropped one over the cropped one too, tbh. — raekyt 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why choose the bad version if it's not noticable at thumbnail? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Tomer T (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either; wonderful scene. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, weak support alt I find the border distracting on the alt due to its irregular visibility and angles. Good aesthetics on the original painting. --Pine^✉ 18:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Frederic Edwin Church - Rainy Season in the Tropics - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2013 at 00:00:00 (UTC)
Unsuspended nomination

Reason

good image, EV, good quality

Articles in which this image appears

C. Everett Koop, Geisel School of Medicine, Surgeon General of the United States

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

United States Public Health Service, with restoration byJ.J. (original) or Adam Cuerden (Edit 1) I always work from originals when doing restorations, when possible, and, in this case, the old restoration is only available as a JPEG, so would likely have suffered progressive loss of quality if I tried. - Adam

• Support as nominator --Mediran (t • c) 05:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Is this from a scan? The image seems dusty. Spencer^T♦C 07:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's from the 80s, so it has to be a scan of film. I've got this one; cleaned version will be up by tomorrow. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not happening on my original projected timescale: I didn't realise how utterly filthy this image is. Will get it done ASAP. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • About a third to half done, though, to be fair, I have been quite busy. May stop to do the infantryman I promised if I need a break (these sorts of very dirty images are a little frustrating) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is the mechanism for suspending the clock? I have a support vote ready to apply as soon as you finish, but there might not be very much time left when you are done. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll throw it into Suspended nominations. Oh, by the way, don't be surprised if you see some restorations from be in the meantime. When I get frustrated with a difficult restoration, I relax by doing something relatively quick. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Right. Let's get this uploaded. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Upload and Support Edit 1 Let me know about any other changes desired. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 — An amazing amount of crap that you had to remove! Kudos to you for your fine job of cleanup! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. Good restoration. Spencer^T♦C 21:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. Good work cleaning up all the dust specks. The picture itself has a professional composition and depicts the notable subject in a clear way. The sharpness and detail is not great by modern standards but is perfectly fine for a 1980s photo. The removal of dust spots seems to have produced some barely perceptible splotches (compare with original) but it is not a big deal. 99% of the monitors in the world cannot see those splotches anyway. dllu (t,c) 20:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye, the black was particularly hard to edit, as I had to actually be a little creative to be able to see some of the parts needing cleaned, which is annoying. I removed as much as possible of the problem, but didn't want to over-edit, but did want to get out the obvious smears above the image. I'm afraid your image for the original doesn't display, however, so I can't quite tell what I'm looking at Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:C. Everett Koop, 1980s.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2013 at 09:56:48 (UTC)

Reason

This figure illustrates a mind-blowing result of quantum mechanics, the phenomenon of counterfactual measurement. A Mach-Zehnder interferometer is adjusted so that 100% of the output impinges upon detector B. Having been adjusted in such a manner, 100% of the light will continue to reach B even if the the light intensity is reduced so that only one photon at a time travels through the apparatus. It appears as if the wave function of each individual photon travels both paths and engages in interference at the last beam splitter, so that only the wave to B is constructive. In figure (a), although the photon is illustrated as having taken the "northern" branch of the interferometer, it interferes with itself so that only detector B detects the photon. The same holds for figure (b), although the photon is considered to have taken the "southern" branch of the interferometer. Figure (c) illustrates the situation where an obstacle has been introduced on the "southern" branch of the interferometer. 50% of the photons are deflected by mirror M, and the remaining photons are split 25% to detector A, and 25% to detector B. Figure (d) illustrates the fundamental paradox raised by this demonstration. An individual photon arriving at detector A must have traversed the "northern" path and could not have interacted with mirror M. The arrival of a photon at detector A constitutes proof that an obstacle exists on the "southern" path, but no exchange of energy has taken place between the photon and obstacle M. How could the photon possibly have acquired information about M without an exchange of energy?

Articles in which this image appears

Original appears in Mach–Zehnder interferometer.
Edit 1 appears in the article Counterfactual definiteness but is not seven-day stable.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others

Creator

Tatoute (original author), Quibik (edits), and Stigmatella aurantiaca (edits and English-language labels)

• Support as nominator -- Support both versions, with preference given to Edit 1. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see why the final beam splitter is there. As far as I can see, it would mean that a photon could take the "southern" path and arrive at A (after being diverted by the beam splitter) even in a classical interpretation, which rather defeats the point of what the experiment is claiming to show (i.e. that to get to A, the photon cannot have passed through M classically). EDIT: Wait, no, ignore me. M is a mirror, not a half silvered mirror. MChesterMC (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we were to remove the final beam splitter, then in Figures (a) and (b), the photons would be split 50/50 between the two detectors A and B. There would be absolutely no mystery about how photons could reach detector A in Figure (c); indeed, no photons should reach detector B with M in the way. On the other hand, the experiment as illustrated works even if we attenuate the light source so that only a few photons per minute pass through the apparatus. The path of the photon is affected even though no energy is exchanged between the photon and the blocking object M. — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. It looks as if you interpreted blocking object M as a beam splitter rather than a mirror. Perhaps this means that the illustration needs some revision to eliminate any possible confusion between the two? — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeh, I had a bit of a brain fart and forgot how mirrors worked... Although, as dllu says below, a bit more differentiation would be nice. I'd also question what the difference would be between adding the mirror M, and removing the bottom left mirror, which would make for a cleaner diagram. MChesterMC (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been exchanging ideas with dllu. You can look at his talk page to see what I have so far in terms of an "Edit 1" version, which I might be posting here in a few hours if dllu gives his blessing. So far as removing the bottom left mirror goes, I'm sure that after spending several hours getting the mirrors, beam splitters, light sources and detectors set up, any experimenter would be rather reluctant to remove any of the major optical components from the optical bench unless he or she had to. Adding a blocking mirror is much less disturbing to the experimental setup. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:

• The ellipsoid shape of the mirrors is confusing (they are not curved mirrors, and they are not lenses) considering the diagram is a top-down view. Consider changing it to flat mirrors (like in File:E-V bomb-testing.svg).
• The appearance of the light source is quite ugly and looks like an incandescent light bulb (which is misleading, since incandescent light bulbs are most definitely not suitable for generating single monochromatic photons). It is probably better to change it into something more abstract-looking.
• The appearances of the actual wave packet photon vs the "ghost" photon should be made more clear to indicate which is which, especially when viewed at thumbnail scale.
• Despite the title of this nomination, the image does not appear in the counterfactual definiteness article.

• I added a tentative version of "Edit 1" to the counterfactual definiteness article, and will be posting "Edit 1" here if you give your blessing. Thanks for all of your helpful suggestions, by the way! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I am inclined to support because I believe that a good diagram very significantly contributes to understanding of the concept in the article. As a side note, maybe the File:Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester.svg picture should be placed into the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester article. dllu (t,c) 20:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had wished to make a minimal number of changes from Tatoute's original illustration (which, after searching through Commons, appeared to be the best there is for illustrating the phenomenon), but yes, I agree with you that there is a fair amount to be desired in the figure. Let me make some more dramatic edits and offer it as an alternative. Give me a day. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, take your time :) Let me know if you need any help. dllu (t,c) 02:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit 1 is now available. Although the appearance of this version may be greatly modified from Tatoute's original figure, it preserves the basic pedagogical elements of his presentation that made his illustration of counterfactual measurement the best on Commons. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1: it is a straightforward, clear, and effective illustration of the concept. dllu (t,c) 06:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe the picture would be more inviting if there was a clearer delineation and/or more space between the four sections. At the moment, at first sight it looks like one big complicated forest. Also, on my screen, at the sort of size shown above and used in the article, the beams are virtually invisible (Edit 1 even worse than original in this respect). (compare this with the beams in, say, File:Mach-Zender interferometer fringe localization.svg, which are very clear even at smaller sizes). Because of these concerns I feel unenthusiastic about the image as it currently appears. 86.160.220.22 (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your concern regarding the visibility of the 'beams', especially at thumbnail scale, but in this experiment only single photons are sent instead of continuous beams so the red dotted lines serve only to indicate the optical path. Feel free to suggest any way to represent the optical path without making them look like solid laser beams. (perhaps Stigmatella aurantiaca can just make the width of these dotted lines bigger) By the way, when voting, you should log into an actual account since votes from an IP address do not count. dllu (t,c) 19:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a comment, not a vote. However, I'm not sure that excluding people without accounts from a "voting" process conforms with wider Wikipedia policy. If it does, please point me towards that policy. 86.160.220.22 (talk)

I know it was a comment. At the top of WP:Featured Picture Candidates there is the following sentence: Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. See also the last item in guidelines for what an IP user can or cannot do. dllu (t,c) 20:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I have on occasions voted in other parts of Wikipedia without being logged on, and no one has ever commented that it was improper. It only seems to be here that people have an issue with it. However, I note the policy* 86.160.220.22 (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC) *Though having said that, I notice that the page you link to explictly says at the top that it is not a policy or even guideline, and should be treated "with discretion".[reply]

Although the guidelines state that anonymous votes are "generally" not counted, I personally have no problem with your being able to vote on this image. Your concerns are legitimate, I will do my best to address them, and the image will be improved as a result of your input, no matter which way you ultimately throw your vote. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll increase the width of the beams in Edit 1 tonight, but as dllu stated, I really didn't want them too visible. On the other hand, I just checked the diagram on a smartphone, and you're right, they could stand a bit of broadening. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Better now? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tatoute (talk) Hello, i am Tatoute, the original author of this picture. first i Apologize for my terrible english. I am very honored to be cited here. I have no problem at all about the fact that edits be done. Please let me make some explanation relative of the original picture: the original picture was intentionally made as most international as possible, impling only numbers and letters (i did not found idea to remove roman letters). Introducing english indication reduce the availability of your work. Indication of semi-reflective nature of 2 mirror was done by letting light beam seen through (for beam splitter) & not seen through for mirrors. I agree about the remark about elliptical shape: it may be confusing, parallelogram would be better, but reducing mirrors as simple line remove the immediate perception due to the small color gradient in them. I did use incandescent light bulb as light source for simplicity: Wikipedia is not for specialist, so basic illustration may be clearer. Please note that Mach Zender_interferometer has to work even with light bulb... Regards, Tatoute —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support as author -- Support both versions, with preference given to origninal. 80.236.86.132 (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you log in to verify that it was indeed you who posted that? Thanks. dllu (t,c) 06:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2013 at 23:35:26 (UTC)

Reason

Another fine photochrom showing the hotel's history.

Articles in which this image appears

Shelbourne Hotel

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Detroit Publishing Company, Detroit, Michigan

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice and sharp, like it. They did some really good photochroms — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above. Nice Mediran (t • c) 10:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor and unmotivated color correction. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I compared it to some modern pictures to get the colour right, and I also wanted to get it to at least somewhat resemble the one that I uploaded over, without having that versions hideous blue cast, since that was so widely used in so many wikipedias, but was so very awful. If you want to see the minimally-changed colour version, I can upload that as well, but this does seem to resemble the colours found in some that I've done with colour bars. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Saarburg - Leukbach - Wehr.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2013 at 20:11:41 (UTC)

Reason

An appropriate image for the article as it shows the famous Qutb Minar (which gives the complex its name) as well as part of the surrounding ruins. The bird making a landing on the ruin is a minor bonus, which IMO adds to the historic feeling. Good quality and EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Qutb complex

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 20:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The view is quite tight and one of the walls is leaning, being probably distorted. Brandmeister^talk 14:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Brandmeister in regard to the framing... I personally would rather have this picture taken further forward, so more of the tower and immediate ruins are shown, and less of the over-imposing walls - have them as more of a frame than a focus, if that makes sense? As an aside I also don't understand the comment about the bird providing "historic feeling" - how does a random bird being caught in shot do that? Unless it's a historic or ancient bird, and this tower is famous for attracting birds I don't see how it makes a blind bit of difference whether there's a bird in shot or not - not worthy of a reason for nomination anyway... gazhiley 14:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2013 at 00:19:30 (UTC)

${\displaystyle t=0}$

${\displaystyle t=1}$

${\displaystyle t=2}$

Reason

A set of high quality vector diagrams that clearly illustrate how Monte Carlo localization works. The nine pictures here depict three time steps of the algorithm for a very simple example where a robot is attempting to determine its position in a corridor with three identical doors.

Articles in which this image appears

Monte Carlo localization

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams

Creator

dllu

• Support as nominator --dllu (t,c) 00:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination it seems that I have not yet done a sufficiently good job of making these diagrams understandable for all audiences. dllu (t,c) 11:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2013 at 01:25:52 (UTC)

Reason

High-quality, high-res, and overall a beautiful photograph. It is also reasonably encyclopedic. A POTY Finalist for 2013!

Articles in which this image appears

Mülheim

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes, or some other subset of /Places

Creator

Tuxyso

• Support as nominator --ceranthor 01:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very low EV, article doesn't even talk about the bridge... Probably far better subjects to represent the city/area than a bridge too. — raekyt 02:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too dark to have enough EV, other than the grass in the foreground and a bridge that could be anywhere... I appreciate that the picture is pretty, but the sun being where it is just means that detail is missing, and that is important for our FPs... But more importantly (per raeky) having an FP of a bridge that isn't actally notable enough to be in the article it is being nominated against is kinda a big sticking point... This is an encyclopedia, not a photo gallery sorry... gazhiley 09:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sky is terrible. Arctic Kangaroo 16:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, I figured it was worth the risk. I will go ahead and withdraw this nomination, then! ceranthor 22:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2013 at 14:42:54 (UTC)

Reason

Considering that it was taken during dusk, the image is relatively sharp. Some of the important CBD landmarks, such as the Marina Bay Sands, Arts Science Museum, the Esplanade and the Supreme Court are captured. Overall, I find that it is quite a satisfying picture of the CBD.

Articles in which this image appears

Singapore

FP category for this image

Creator

Chensiyuan

• Support as nominator --Arctic Kangaroo 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Your view on what constitutes a 'satisfying picture' is clearly at odds with the standards imposed here at FPC. You are not looking at these with the kind of critical eye of an encyclopedian but rather that of someone hemped up on HDR crack experimenting with HDR. The halo around each and every building is a good example of what happens when HDR is not done well Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that calling him "hemped up on HDR crack" is a bit harsh. dllu (t,c) 02:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Although there is quite a bit of encyclopedic value in depicting the relative locations of the landmarks Marina Bay Sands, Esplanade, Supreme Court, and other important buildings, the technical standard is not acceptable for FP. In particular, it fails criterion 8 of the WP:Featured Picture Criteria: [a Featured Picture] avoids inappropriate digital manipulation; as well as criterion 1: [a Featured Picture shows no significant] image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies. The post-processing in this image has caused some image noise in the sky, and bright halos around the buildings (especially around the OUB Centre). Another processing anomaly I have noticed are dark or unnatural spots in the middle of highlights, seen in the headlights of cars outside the Old Supreme Court (pic) and the yellow lights on the UOB Plaza 2 (pic) and the lights around the Supreme Court dome (pic) (this artifact seems to occur frequently in Photomatix Pro if settings are not correctly adjusted). In addition the image currently does not fulfill criterion 7 of the FP Criteria: ...has a descriptive, informative and complete file description in English, since the file description is not written in full sentences or correct capitalization (and seems to be just a bunch of keywords about the notable landmarks depicted). It should be rewritten and link to the Wikipedia pages for the respective buildings. dllu (t,c) 02:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The logo on the building in the middle center right looks like it was placed there, or had the color adjusted... It just looks fake. Check out those crazy buildings sliding off the picture in the bottom right corner. Sadly, this picture appears over-processed. Dusty777 02:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am not a technological image specialist-- most people who read Wikipedia are not-- but I believe I am capable of looking at this image with a deeply critical eye (the eye of an enclclopedian, as it were) and I find this image to be very compelling. The halos around "each and every building" look to me like faint brightenings around one or two structures, and only serve to make those structures more distinct (i.e., I find that they are improved by these things, not degraded by them). I looked for the unnatural spots in the middle of headlights-- I can see headlights everywhere in this image (Singapore is a busy place!) with no spots in them, and have to search to begin to detect the anomalous black spots that have been mentioned (even with my critical eye). That it has not fulfilled criterion 7, an informative description in English, seems hardly a basis for disqualification: the description says-- in English-- that it is a picture of Singapore: that is enough for me to know exactly what it is (capitalization and complete sentences notwithstanding). As for the "crazy buildings" sliding off the edge of the image on the lower right, this is a result of the curvature of the lens with which the image was taken, not the result of any postprocessing or manipulation of the image-- I would have thought that was obvious and, in fact, if the author had attempted to correct for this curvature, THAT would have been reason for disqualification. The details captured here, HDRI or no, are amazing in their clarity (HDRI frequently improves an image that otherwise contains extremes of bright and dark-- if it was used here, it has made the image better, not worse, while taking nothing away from its beauty). The image is certainly large enough, eye-catching enough, sufficiently free of anomalies, and highly encyclopedic in its purpose and quality. I do not understand the almost emotional opposition to what is clearly, in my mind, a crisp and technically superior image of Singapore. KDS4444^Talk 13:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. I think it is a fabulous image. 86.151.119.14 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shame you didn't log in before posting that, as now it will not count towards the final vote. KDS4444^Talk 18:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image is fine for flickr. It is not a good example of the skyline nor is it a good example of HDR. That limits its EV. You might want to look at the linked image to see a good example of HDR for the Singapore Skyline: http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielcheong/5665732556/lightbox/ Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion-- that image is also certainly striking. Can you explain to me in what ways this image is not representative of the Singapore skyline? (you must have some ideas, but I do not know what they are). Also, you have stated that this is not a good representative of HDR-- does this mean that it does not show undue influence from HDR technique? If so, then perfect: that must mean that it is clear of the criticism, voiced above, that it is over influenced by HDR... But if you mean that it is "poorly done" HDR, then I ask for some explanation as to exactly how, because the contrast between light and dark looks beautiful to me. The flickr image shown in the link above, though striking, seems a good deal less compelling to me than this picture. Or is there no way a person can win that argument? Are HDR images in some way preferred to others? If not, then why is this being discussed as though it is a criterion for being a featured picture? The details in the trees, the grass in the parks, the golden criss-cross of lines on the soccer fields-- this image makes me feel like I am really looking into a hyper-urban city! KDS4444^Talk 18:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The anomalous highlights are visible not only in car headlights, but also in almost every illuminated logo on the skyscrapers (one of which Dusty777 pointed out). Furthermore, there is a very significant amount of image noise throughout the sky. I have expanded the image description page and have crossed out my concern regarding that in my original comment. Now, as for the halos around the buildings, it is my personal opinion that it detracts from the value of the image when used in an encyclopedic context in that it is no longer a faithful representation of the scene. Aesthetically, I also find the dark halos around the bright clouds and bright halos around the dark clouds annoying. I have found that it is possible to tone map an image to capture a large dynamic range without producing significant halos. I agree with KDS4444 regarding the "buildings sliding off the edge". This picture correctly uses the rectilinear projection, which is the expected standard for architectural photography. The focal length is only 16 mm and therefore gives the impression of stretched buildings near the edge of the frame. dllu (t,c) 21:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose I really don't like this picture sorry... The orange uplights on the top of a few of the buildings look so bad it looks like cheesy flame effects added to make it look like the city is on fire, and the logos on the top of the buildings (as mentioned above) look superimposed... The grey-fronted building looks almost fake as well with it being completely different in colour and shading to the entire rest of the city-scapre... Add to that the appearance that the bottom right corner appears to be stretching almost cartoon-esque as it falls into a sinkhole and I really really don't like this sorry... I think this picture would be better if taken in daylight, thus avoiding the light effects, and using stitching or something that avoids the distortion. gazhiley 13:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2013 at 00:23:12 (UTC)

Reason

Notable painting and artist, good resolution, attractive, and article is in great shape

Articles in which this image appears

Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych, +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Jan van Eyck

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Brandmeister^talk 15:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mediran (t • c) 04:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JKadavoor Jee 15:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Godot13 (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jan van Eyck - Diptych - WGA07587.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2013 at 08:09:33 (UTC)

Reason

good image, has EV

Articles in which this image appears

Apostolic Age, Circumcision controversy in early Christianity, List of popes, Peadar, Peter (given name), Saint Peter

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Peter Paul Rubens

• Support as nominator --Mediran (t • c) 08:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2013 at 13:29:21 (UTC)

Reason

aesthetically pleasing, high resolution

Articles in which this image appears

Los Gatos, California

FP category for this image

places

Creator

DavidLeighEllis

• Support as nominator --DavidLeighEllis (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose EV is currently lacking, and the photo's colors look over-saturated. This might be appropriate for a Commons FP if the color issue was fixed. --Pine^✉ 18:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the color saturation issue; that's just a faithful representation of how the church looks to me. I concede that I may have some bias in that respect. Of course, editors are welcome to modify it, and replace the article usage with the modified version, if they think the church more dull and plain. Personally viewing the church when empty might be a good idea, but isn't strictly required. Please don't upload a modification over the existing file, however, because that will break my userpage. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do also note that I look with this picture with entirely natural light, which is admitted to the church solely through brightly colored stained glass windows, with the exception of the two skylights at the altar. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. If you look at the candle on the left side of the image near the icon of Mary, see how bright that is? Maybe what I'm seeing is overexposure rather than over-saturation, but I can't believe that a candle flame would be that bright. I also just noticed how slanted the hanging lights are at the upper right and upper left corners of the image, so I think you'd need to fix. Finally, even with those issues fixed, the EV is seriously lacking right now. Can you think of some other article where this image would have higher EV? --Pine^✉ 03:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was a 30 second exposure at f11, iso 100. In such low light, it is entirely possible for a candle flame to be that bright relative to its background. The slanting of the lights is a byproduct of their circular shape and heavy rectilinear perspective from the 14mm (FX) focal length, which no overall persective or lens distortion correction can fix. Individually fudging the perspective on particular objects in images is difficult, and frowned upon. If I placed the image in Roman Catholic Diocese of San Jose in California, would that resolve the EV issue? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm ok with the flame, but the colors just seem off to me, perhaps it's because of the low lighting and long exposure. As for the lights, an FPC some time ago failed because of slanted towers and I think the same standard would apply here to slanted lights. As for EV, unless this photo is an especially notable sanctuary for the diocese, I think that placement in Roman Catholic Diocese of San Jose in California won't help with the EV deficit. A photo of the diocese's cathedral would be more likely to have sufficient EV for the diocese article. The only way I can see this photo passing the EV test is if the church where this sanctuary is located has high enough EV to get its own article or if the sanctuary was referenced in some notable newsworthy event that has its own article. My guess is that it would be easier to pass the EV test with photos of the cathedral. --Pine^✉ 06:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The church isn't even mentioned in the article. Does it run the schookl of the same name? Even if so, that's a single item in a long list of schools. En-wiki FP requires the photo adds value to an article, usually by illustrating some aspect of the discussion very well. At the moment, it doesn't, since the church isn't mentioned outside of the picture, indeed, outside of being a category of schools in the town, religion isn't mentioned.

It's a good photo, please don't get me wrong, it just needs to b used better. Is the church notable in any way? If it is, it could have an article on Wikipedia, and this would be a very good FP candidate. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the image to Roman Catholic Diocese of San Jose in California. As for an article on the church itself, I was able to find at least one RS. Does that description seem to suggest notability? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2013 at 21:32:25 (UTC)

Reason

Very high quality, good EV (greater EV viewed as a set).

• 
  $5 Demand Note, depicting Alexander Hamilton and the Statue of Freedom
• 
  $10 Demand Note, depicting Abraham Lincoln
• 
  $20 Demand Note, with a vignette depicting Liberty

Original – Demand Notes, produced from August 1861 to April 1862, were the first United States federally-issued paper currency. Bearing the issue date of 10 August 1861, these are the only U.S. Banknotes (1861 to the present) to enter circulation without a treasury seal. All demand notes were hand-signed by treasury officials (Assistant Treasurers or clerks) on behalf of the Register and Treasurer of the United States. Demand notes were issued in $5, $10, and $20 denominations only.

Articles in which these images appear

Demand Note

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle

Creator

American Banknote Company (Image by Godot13)
From the National Numismatic Collection, NMAH, Smithsonian Institution.

• Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another great set, to bad they didn't have uncirculated versions.. heh — raekyt 19:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An uncirculated Demand Note would be a sight to behold...--Godot13 (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no doubt :) But I would of thought if anyone would of had one the Smithsonian would.. heh. — raekyt 05:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Shame about the harsh black borders. I understand that a non-white background may be needed to pick out the edges, but I think a softer colour might look nicer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.119.14 (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand the point you bring up, but a black background is fairly standard for archival imaging of banknotes. Thanks --Godot13 (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Personally, I like the black borders, especially when both the front and back of the bill are shown in the same file. It helps to delineate between the 2 sides of the bill. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was not objecting to the borders per se, in fact I mentioned that they were necessary to identify the edges of the banknotes. My objection is to the colour black, which to my eye is unappealing, making the whole image look a bit like an obituary notice. 86.130.67.47 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. JKadavoor Jee 15:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:US-$5-DN-1861-Fr.1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:US-$10-DN-1861-Fr.7.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:US-$20-DN-1861-Fr.12.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2013 at 22:16:05 (UTC)

Reason

Very high EV, providing a good overview of the whole reading room, its layout and proportions, as well as an extraordinary level of detail.

Articles in which this image appears

Sainte-Geneviève Library

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Marie-Lan Nguyen

• Support as nominator --ELEKHH^T 22:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The picture is quite nice, does not have significant distortions, and depicts the subject in a compelling manner. The only technical flaw I can see is some green-magenta chromatic aberration but that's not too serious. dllu (t,c) 05:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral aesthetically pleasing as a thumbnail, but at full size it lacks sharpness especially on the right side of the image. --Pine^✉ 18:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sharpness looks fine to me. This is a 12MP image that hasn't been downsampled. Interesting that it's mirror image pic is the featured one on Commons.Colin°^Talk 11:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I doubt whether File:Salle de lecture Bibliotheque Sainte-Genevieve n02.jpg has more EV as the Sainte-Geneviève Library reading room. JKadavoor Jee 15:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are lucky in this case to have three almost equally good images. What I would like to appeal to is not to get distracted by this, but use it as an opportunity to discuss the merits of each. I find all three appealing, but the nominated image is the version which has been in the article for more than a year. The oblique perspective is the more natural one in some regards, as seldom do people stand in the very centre of a space to contemplate its symmetry. The central perspective (Alt2) obscures the central row of columns (a main feature of the design), but shows that the reading room is not perfectly symmetric, with the staircases on the northern side, allowing less light to come in. This is also visible in the third version currently featured on Commons. In terms of composition the central perspective is a bit clumsily framed, so my preference stays with the nomination, or Alt3. --ELEKHH^T 00:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. I think all three are great and would support whichever one is in the article. Colin°^Talk 06:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree and support any. JKadavoor Jee 11:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the presently nominated picture is a slightly different white balance than the other two picture. It seems somewhat more reddish. Which is closer to the actual colour of the library? dllu (t,c) 08:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't really see much difference, other than that in the nominated image more of the reddish floor is visible, while in the Alts less. --ELEKHH^T 09:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that both Alt 2 and Alt 3 have been edited in April 2012 to have the less reddish white balance and some perspective distortion correction; whereas the original has not been thus edited. dllu (t,c) 18:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, thanks ELEKHH for nominating my pic. All original pictures were taken with the same white balance settings (daylight if I remember correctly). I don't know what changes were made by Paris16, who uploaded the new versions. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2013 at 18:18:18 (UTC)

Reason

Large image of a creature in the fossil record, lead article image

Articles in which this image appears

Asteriacites, Brittle star

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others

Creator

Wilson44691

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 18:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - No prob. Arctic Kangaroo 15:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose Blown highlights and lower intensity lighting on the top right even though the fossil extends that far.©Geni 07:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, what blown highlights? And if we refused images every time for faded lighting or blur, I think we would have several fewer FPs in the bird category. Pics like File:Mute Swan Emsworth2.JPG, File:Setophaga_coronata_MP.jpg, File:Calidris alba - Laem Phak Bia.jpg, and File:Crowned Lapwing (Vanellus coronatus) Mikumi shadow lift.jpg all would have failed. --Pine^✉ 21:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that you are comparing what is effectively product photography to wildlife photography. Those areas have slightly different standards with regards to lighting.©Geni 18:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2013 at 18:13:10 (UTC)

Reason

Notable painting, large scan

Articles in which this image appears

Aurora Borealis (painting), Frederic Edwin Church

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Frederic Edwin Church

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 18:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Easy decision on this one. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support my only concern is that, as the Google Art Project indexes more and more notable artworks all over the world, the rate of one Picture of the Day per day would not suffice to keep up with the large number of new featured pictures added. dllu (t,c) 03:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mediran (t • c) 03:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Naturally. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Godot13 (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Carioca (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Frederic Edwin Church - Aurora Borealis - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2013 at 03:54:05 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality photo used in three English Wikipedia articles. It's already featured on Turkish Wikipedia. I think the bright highlight on the left is not a significant detraction from the overall attractiveness and EV of the photo.

Articles in which this image appears

Easter, Egg (food), Easter egg

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle

Creator

Jan.Kamenicek

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 03:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The top left corner is probably blown, but otherwise quite nice. Brandmeister^talk 14:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose considering that Easter eggs are made every year, it should be possible to obtain a better, higher resolution photo using modern photography equipment. This photo is excellent for something taken in 2006, but by today's standards it suffers from numerous technical deficiencies: image noise, mediocre sharpness, blown highlights (not only on the top left corner, but on the eggs themselves too). This picture also only barely clears the resolution requirement for FP status. The objects on the top right corner and bottom right corner are also somewhat distracting. dllu (t,c) 01:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Really not a fan of the way the lighting is done. Frankly it detracts heavily from the image. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2013 at 04:00:02 (UTC)

Reason

good clarity, lighting, high EV for actor, already featured on commons

Articles in which this image appears

Sean Astin

FP category for this image

People

Creator

Daniel Schwen on Commons

• Support as nominator --BNK (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. His sweater doesn't exactly match the background. Seriously, though: whilst probably a good shot for a manual on stage-lighting (low key for serious speaker chapter), there's nothing outstanding whatsoever about the shot itself. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2013 at 08:05:44 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, good EV, fairly good quality from what I can see

Articles in which this image appears

Chris Hadfield

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Robert Markowitz of NASA

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Criteria 1 (Compression artifacts are clearly visible). What is the point in taking a studio photograph with a Hasselblad in 2011 and then applying 97% compression on it, resulting in a 0.7MB filesize (about 5-10x too small). If NASA want to over-compress images on their website that's up to them, but they should make available high-quality versions for download. This isn't acceptable quality for publication or FP. Colin°^Talk 11:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have looked over this image and I do not see the compression artifacts mentioned above. What I CAN see, however, is every single hair on this guy's head as well as the individual pores on his neck and even the minute capillaries running under the skin of his cheeks under his eyes (check it out-- capillaries). The image is 2400 by 3000 pixels and is a 300 dpi rendering of an 8x10 portrait. The file is "only" 696KB in size, but the image appears to be well within specifications with regard to size and quality, and I do not see the "obvious" compression artifacts (please point some out for me if you would so I can get a better handle on them). Otherwise, this is an image of almost embarrassing personal detail. I feel like I kissed him after I was done looking at the image up close... And he's SO not my type! KDS444 (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is hard to notice what you're missing. You really can't see "every single hair on this guy's head". What you see is a general impression of hair, with some stragglers. Look closely at the hair and you'll see the 8x8 matrix of the JPG, something that absolutely shouldn't be visible if the JPG is saved with any reasonable level of compression. The camera that took this picture is medium format and the output was likely between 22 and 50MP. This is 7MP and 0.7MB so Nasa aren't releasing anything close to the picture that was taken. Which they should really because that work is in the public domain. IMO we should stop featuring these "compressed for web" images and request a higher quality version from NASA -- any print publisher would do, because this image isn't fit for print. Colin°^Talk 07:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I also see the compression issues, especially in the bottom red section of the flag, but also where the man's undershirt meets the inside of his suit and in spots all over the background. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No compression artifacts please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechFilmer (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A cliched-since-Mercury-era astronaut pose by awkward, shiny astronaut. As an example of Fake Smiles In Photos, it would do very well but not as an FP. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2013 at 05:26:24 (UTC)

Reason

One of the most iconic images of the Second World War. I'm well aware that this is below the minimum size for FPs, but this specific image is famous — if it weren't in the public domain, it could qualify for the same kind of fair use rationale as File:Legendary kiss V–J day in Times Square Alfred Eisenstaedt.jpg has. Encyclopedic value is immense for Siffleet himself (his notability seems to depend completely on his being the subject of this photo), as well as for the Pacific War article. Unless we find a better-quality version of the same photograph, we're never going to be able to find something that could replace this image, and as such, we should waive FPC #1 and #2; it definitely "illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more"; it's PD; it's irreplaceable for the Siffleet article and for others as I noted above; it has an extensive English description; and it doesn't appear to have been the subject of extensive digital manipulation. Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in which this image appears

Leonard Siffleet, Decapitation, Pacific War, plus lots of others where it's used rather more tangentially

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military

Creator

An anonymous Japanese solder

• Support as nominator --Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Immense amount of EV, and I can accept the flaws on the basis that it obviously can't be retaken... gazhiley 10:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it's possible to ask the Australian War Memorial to rescan the image at higher resolution for Wikipedia. I found one high-res version, but its borders are cropped. Brandmeister^talk 13:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If we find a higher-resolution version, would we have to start this nomination all over again, or would we simply insert the better version and keep on going? Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, just D&R this one (could be uploaded over the current one). Brandmeister^talk 13:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, reluctantly While this has loads of EV, FP is about finding our best work, and I can't help but think that means we should reject this. This isn't a particularly good scan (it's very high-contrast), and it's very, very low resolution (just 426x620px, large thumbnail size), and we haven't made any attempt to get a larger copy yet. I can't help thinking that if this was all we had for a painting, even if that painting was one that defined and codified an entire genre of art, we wouldn't even consider supporting it unless it could be shown to be impossible to get anything better (say, the painting was in private hands, and was now destroyed). As it stands, we haven't even really tried to do better. That's not really the FP ethos.

The Australian War Memorial offers high-res scans for sale. They cost money, of course, but that's the cost of wanting to do specific FPs. As I *cough* may know from experience. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't noticed at first glance that they charge a fee, but I think it's rather dishonest to make money from a public domain image, especially when it depicts a death (and it looks like this is not just the case of Australian War Memorial). Brandmeister^talk 14:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for running on an off-topic discussion, but I've now run into three museums or libraries (!) that won't release high resolution images of public domain photographs or paintings. I wish we could hire a wiki-lawyer to just get this stuff available to the public already. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can find lots of wiki-lawyers here without a lot of searching. Nyttend (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem isn't lack of lawyers. At the end of the day the person who owns the original property (in this case the original photo) can do what they like with it. You need lobbyists to get a change of policy.©Geni 03:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Australia has been in contact with the AWM over their images (among other things), and they're in the process of somewhat uploading larger - but not full sized - versions of images. These larger images will be of considerable use in articles, though they'll still be too small to be FPs. As I understand it, the AWM's position is that it's not funded enough to be able to provide full-sized versions of images online for free (even when these have been scanned in at high resolution, which often isn't the case) and the income it earns from selling full-sized versions is a useful source of revenue to support its activities (which include maintaining its excellent images database). Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose The photo has been edited (as noted on its talk page. See the original here notice the difference in the number of men between Siffleet and Chikao.©Geni 03:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of this I will strike my vote... gazhiley 13:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This whole situation has been disappointing — not because of what people have said, but because the situation is clearly less featurable than I expected. May I withdraw? Nyttend (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2013 at 13:47:39 (UTC)

Reason

This is a recreation of a file I previously nominated (a few days ago) that was in JPG format. A few editors said they would support it if it were in SVG format, but otherwise would oppose. There didn't seem to be any other opposition to the image as a candidate, and there was clear support for it in terms of its quality and style. So I have regenerated File:Scallop_Diagram.jpg in SVG format.

Articles in which this image appears

Scallop

FP category for this image

Mollusca

Creator

KDS444 (Again, image was uploaded through my Wikimedia account, not my Wikipedia account.)

• Support as nominator -- KDS4444^Talk 13:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I am actually impressed by your shading work, the labels are blocky and unreadable due to Wikipedia's thumbnailer. That's a major problem. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose that is not a vector image. It is a JPEG file embedded inside an SVG file and therefore possesses none of the advantages of a vector format. That also explains why the labels are blocky and unreadable. Hence my original oppose still stands. dllu (t,c) 18:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I was right that the shading on the internal organs is probably undoable in SVG? If so, it may be worth reviving the old JPEG nom. Though perhaps after a couple weeks, since as prematurely-closed and a bad nomination is too much to do before a proper nomination. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not impossible, it's just a lot of work. If I am to convert this to SVG, I will probably be using something like Inkscape rather than coding up the SVG by hand as I did for the teletherapy capsule above. But I'm quite busy this month so I won't be able to do the conversion any time soon. dllu (t,c) 23:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very poor compared with original image. Note "jaggies". Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wondered why the conversion process went so "smoothly" on Illustrator, and why nothing looked at all different once I "converted" it. Yet it tells me it has generated an SVG file, and the MIME format comes up as SVG. Looks like I need to improve my skills at Illustrator. My apologies for the nomination. Let me see what I can do to it with Illustrator. If I can't get a decent SVG file out of it, I can certainly drop the whole thing. Thanks for your help. KDS444 (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the main problem is text scaling, can you put vector text over a bitmap image in an SVG file? 86.130.67.47 (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can put vector text over a bitmap image. dllu (t,c) 01:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ok, what about now??? KDS444 (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me (Win 7, IE 10) it seems to render OK,* and appears to be a genuine vector graphic. I wonder if the default size for rendering should be just a tad bigger though? There is a noticeable rendering delay, but it's hardly surprising since the file is apparently 19.4 MB in size. I know it's quite a complicated picture, but should it be so big? 86.176.213.160 (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC) *Though actually I've just noticed that when it's rendered on a Wikipedia page the "Gills", "Tentacles" and "Eyes" legends incorrectly impinge on the associated red lines, whereas when I view http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Scallop_Diagram2.svg directly they don't. Is this a difference between some Wikipedia module rendering it as a bitmap versus IE rendering it "native"? I do not fully understand how this stuff works technically... 86.176.213.160 (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, I just realised that the label positioning is different because a different font is being used. In the "native" IE rendering, it's a kind of weedy serif font, whereas in the Wikipedia rendering it's a nicer sans-serif font. Is that right? Shouldn't the letter shape definitions be embedded in the SVG file? 86.176.213.160 (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, at which point I face a new dilemma: the image was created using what I thought was a simple, professional looking font, Myriad Pro. That is the font I was expecting the image to have when I converted it into an SVG file. Turns out, there is a setting in Illustrator which allows me to preserve this font by rendering it as outlines rather than as text. BUT-- one of the Wikipedia policies with regard to diagrams, apparently, is that their text (in HTML) be editable so that they can be recreated for use in other languages without having to recreate the SVG file, remove the existing outlined text, and then add "real" text in the new language. So I am stumped as to what to do. I do NOT like the way the text is being mauled in various browsers, but I understand that Arabic probably doesn't have a Myriad Pro font and I don't want the picture to lose its candidacy for failure to follow formatting procedures. Thoughts on that one? KDS444 (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myriad Pro is copyrighted and may not display correctly everywhere. You can try using a free font such as DejaVu but not everyone has it either (MediaWiki does, though, so PNG versions should render correctly). Personally I just use font-family:sans-serif;. Try posting on WP:SVG Help. Be careful when converting a copyrighted font like Myriad Pro to a path or outline since scalable font outlines can be protected under copyright. dllu (t,c) 21:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In many diagrams that include text, the layout depends quite sensitively on the exact dimensions at which the text is rendered. Unless you include the letter shape definitions in the SVG file, I don't see how you can be sure that the diagram will display correctly for other people. If the user doesn't have the specified font then some unknown font will presumably be substituted, and the layout may break. The same would seem to be true if users have different default fonts for a particular class (such as "sans-serif"). It only takes small differences for things to start to overlap or get misaligned, and then the diagram starts to look a mess, or in bad cases (e.g. of misalignment) will no longer even make sense. The idea that you can translate diagrams simply by editing the text seems mistaken to me. OK, it may work in simple cases but often the text being a different length will mess up the layout, and the layout will need to be adjusted. 86.169.184.182 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that converting font to path data will give a more consistent, better typographical appearance (as mentioned in WP:SVG help). Still, for simple text, like this diagram, precise placement is not necessary so I recommend leaving the text as is for easy translation and editing. dllu (t,c) 18:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even in this graphic, if the text is not the expected length then the labels will not be properly aligned with the red lines, and there will be unsightly gaps or overlaps. The diagram may still be intelligible but it is likely to look messy. (In fact, in the version I'm looking at above now, the alignment of and spacing between the labels and the red lines is poor in places and noticeably inconsistent throughout. Whether that's a font problem or an original layout problem I'm not sure.) 86.169.184.182 (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... oh, one more thing, when I zoom in close in the current version (the version currently displayed above) the text is seen to be really poor quality, like a vectorisation that has gone wrong. For an example screenshot, see http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/6654/svgr.png. 86.169.184.182 (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2013 at 14:18:37 (UTC)

Reason

Only opposition to my previous nomination of this file was because it was not in SVG format. So I have now fixed that.

Articles in which this image appears

Goiania accident

FP category for this image

Radiation therapy

Creator

KDS444 (Uploaded through my Wikimedia account, not my Wikipedia account.)

• Support as nominator -- KDS4444^Talk 14:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose that is not a vector image. It is a JPEG file embedded inside an SVG file and therefore possesses none of the advantages of a vector format. Hence my original oppose still stands. dllu (t,c) 18:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very poor compared with original image. Note "jaggies". Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• New SVG version available I have created a new, truly vector version of this diagram. I have not yet had the time to create the fancy gradients, so here it is without any gradients. Please check to make sure that it is accurate and correct. Thanks! dllu (t,c) 23:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in very fussy comments, to me some of the circular arcs do not look exactly geometrically correct. 86.171.43.180 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment maybe the encyclopedic value would be augmented if the picture was included in the actual teletherapy article too. dllu (t,c) 00:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have more EV there I think... — raekyt 16:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2013 at 02:17:37 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution (Google Art Project) scan of an immense painting, whose scale only appears when you notice the tiny figures in the fore-midground, the Native American camp in the rear-midground (I'm coining terms here), and the dead deer and saddle in the extreme foreground (right side)—to me, (WP:OR) this painting has six "grounds" and is as awe-inspiring in the z-axis as it is in the x- and y-axes. There are almost a dozen versions of this painting available on Commons, but none are as detailed or probably true to color as this is (once again, impossible to determine without visiting the actual painting) and I think those of us who aren't in Brooklyn, New York are extremely fortunate to have this available to us. The painting was done by Bierstadt after visiting Mt. Evans in the Colorado Rocky Mountains; he was inspired by real locations, but exaggerated the appearances and scale of the mountains to enhance the still-impressive landscapes of the Rockies. In my opinion, this painting stands out as one of his finest (probably excluding some of his Yosemite work) that uses many of his best-known techniques: clouds, mountains, water, wildlife, foreground/background, and of course, the contrast between golden sunlight pouring in at a low angle and the deep shadows that are just as filled with detail. One of the best things about this painting: counting how many waterfalls there are. The only two flaws would probably be a frame (or something) shadow on the far right edge and a resolution that I wish were ten times higher. The signature and date (1866) are so clear that I corrected four en.wiki articles that erroneously credited this painting to 1886.

Articles in which this image appears

A Storm in the Rocky Mountains, Mt. Rosalie (newly created), 19th century Western painting, Albert Bierstadt, History of painting, List of works by Albert Bierstadt, 1866 in art

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Albert Bierstadt (painter); Brooklyn Museum (scan/exhibitor); Google Art Project (compiler); DcoetzeeBot (image retriever/reconstruction)

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it really is an impressive painting, digitised with a very high technical standard. However, it seems to me that the placement of this image is only in galleries and lists, and the articles do not discuss or mention this painting at all. As such, it is not clear what the encyclopedic value is. Your reasons for nomination, though excellent, seem to be mostly your own opinion and research and are not reflected in the articles in which this picture appears. I would gladly give my support if the relevant articles are expanded to talk about this painting. dllu (t,c) 05:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was aware of that, sadly. Consider it fixed. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. dllu (t,c) 08:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, inspiring. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, amazing. TechFilmer (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : absolutely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very nice work. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Albert Bierstadt - A Storm in the Rocky Mountains, Mt. Rosalie - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2013 at 16:27:31 (UTC)

Reason

Unique Perspective

Articles in which this image appears

Yacht racing - ALT:Newport Harbor Yacht Club

FP category for this image

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 16:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the composition is clean and nice but unfortunately the picture does not meet minimum size requirements for FP and furthermore has blown highlights. dllu (t,c) 18:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, support alt I think more than one yacht should be in the photo of an FP for the article yacht racing. I've added an alt that looks more suitable. Due to the very bright sunlight that's common in this setting I think some technical issues with blown highlights are to be expected. The alt is about 1320 pixels on the short side but almost 1900 pixels on the long side, which I think is adequate. --Pine^✉ 23:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, Support alt Orig doesn't demonstrate yacht racing - could just be a single yacht out on it's own going for a nice sail... Alt demonstrates this better... gazhiley 10:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment:I agree with the above comments, ALT is a far better rep dont know why I did not submit that in the first place. In the upper right hand corner you can see the Race Commity boat, as well as the flags it is displaying to communicate with the yachts crews prior to the start. The chase boats as well also can be seen in the top of the photo. This is yacht racing. Also seen in this photo is the yacht that won the race overall, owned by a member of the Disney family .--WPPilot 04:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Don't like the creeping window in the top right, but I didn't even notice it for a long while. Sharp image, great angle. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cabo San Lucas Race Start 2013 photo D Ramey Logan.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2013 at 16:42:31 (UTC)

Reason

why you think it meets the FPC criteria and should be featured (check criteria first)

Articles in which this image appears

Newport Beach

FP category for this image

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 16:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment the yacht at the bottom is cut in half. Overall, I think that an aerial perspective of a yacht race is a very good idea but currently the article only mentions yacht racing in one sentence and thus the EV may be lacking. Considering that "the annual Newport to Ensenada International Yacht Race is the largest sailboat race in the world", I would hope that the article has at least a few more sentences discussing that. Also, the image size may just be a tad too small (which is surprising, since the Nikon D90 should have no shortage of pixels). If it has been downsampled, I would appreciate if you could upload the original size since image guidelines frown upon downsampling pictures. dllu (t,c) 18:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the original NEF file and can export that in a higher res if you still would like to see it..--WPPilot 18:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)(talk)
• Oppose per above, and the colors seem dull. --Pine^✉ 23:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2013 at 00:36:47 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, aestheticly pleasing, has encyclopedic value

Articles in which this image appears

Cathedral Basilica of St. Joseph (San Jose, California)

FP category for this image

places

Creator

DavidLeighEllis

• Support as nominator --DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose: this is subjective, but the picture does nothing for me. Sure it's the ambo and cathedra at a Catholic cathedral, but I onky know that because I'm familiar with the ambo in question, having read from it in the past. Nothing in our article suggests either the ambo or the cathedra at St Joe's are particularly noteworthy or encyclopedic. In this particular picture, they blend together, being almost the same tone of brown. At first I thought it was a function of scaling of the image for use in the article, but they seem to blend in the full sized picture as well.

Unless there's a good reason to pick another subject, for the primary photo of a Catholic church, I'd rather see an exterior of the building, or the altar (because of the centrality of the Eucharist in Catholic liturgy). Your photos are nice additions to the article, but I feel we've lost something in the illustratiion of the subject of the article. The former photo (taken by myself for full discosure) that has been removed in favor of this one clearly showed the central dome of the church the article mentions, but which is now completely not illustrated. Gentgeen (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The stain-glass windows are almost lost with the blown highlights, which robs this image of quite a lot of EV. Centy – reply • contribs – 16:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion can we get a larger version of File:StJoseph1.jpg? I think this addresses some of the concerns above, with more context provided by the wider shot of the interior of the building, the inclusion of the altar, and less space in the photo occupied by the very bright windows. I think this photo has enough in its favor that I'd support it if we can get a larger version. --Pine^✉ 23:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't upload that photo at full resolution since a person would be identifiable in the original file, and we can't do pixelations in featured pictures. However, I took File:Stjosephinteriorhdr.jpg today, which might fit the bill. I had to use fairly heavy HDR processing to fully light the interior while avoiding excessive blowout of the windows; much as I am tempted to simply use high-power studio flashes to light the interior, I'm sure the Church would not appreciate the disruption. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I still prefer the shot that I mentioned earlier. Can you retake that one? Another thing you can think about is nominating a set of multiple photos of this building, since you're taking a number of photos and I think it would help to have them nominated as a set, but that fisheye effect continues to be a distraction. As for pixelations, I think it's ok to do that in FPC nominations so long as they're not excessively distracting. I had someone tell me one time that they thought something should be obscured in a nomination. --Pine^✉ 18:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Sorry, but I don't like the way the fresco is cut off at the top of the image. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2013 at 06:01:02 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality image of one of the five surviving female British World War I Mark IV tanks; high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Mark IV tank

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

Peter Trimming

• Support as nominator --—Bruce1ee^talk 06:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fails to meet minimum size requirements. Centy – reply • contribs – 16:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Honestly guys, if that is true then the rule is silly and needs looking at. The size of this picture is completely adequate for its purpose. 86.130.67.47 (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I view the minimum size requirements as not set in stone, and I think this photo is close enough. The photo has good EV and technical quality. It's only short about 150 pixels on one side, and the other side is about 2000 pixels, so I think this photo's size fulfills the spirit of the rule. --Pine^✉ 23:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Minimum size requirements: I know what they are and I'm normally careful to check before nominating, but, to be honest, on this occasion I just forgot; but I still stand by my nomination, because, as others have pointed out, it is just below the minimum requirement, and the technical quality is good. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't really see a compelling reason to disregard the size requirement here. The tank is a large and demands more resolution; plus, it's not going anywhere. Cowtowner (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For size. Weak Support I think it's probably OK EV with it's current usage, and the limitations of background and stuff isn't solvable since that's it's current location in the museum. But I'd MUCH rather support an actual histprical image as a FP for this tank, like: http://www.flickr.com/photos/drakegoodman/5406694099/ which isn't uploaded, but very high resolution. It's tagged with a NC license, but it wouldn't be in copyright so it should be uploadable.... — raekyt 23:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above issues size wise... It can easily be re-taken at correct size requirements... If we start bending rules without genuine reason then it'll all decend into anarchy! ;-) hehe Support as new improved size uploaded.. gazhiley 10:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not a huge advocate for this being an FP ... I don't think the composition is great for a start ... but I'm really struggling to see why the size is a problem for so many people. 99% of people will be looking at this on a screen, in which case the only reason for having resolution much more than typical screen resolution is to allow people to zoom in on areas of detail. Here I just don't see where is the detail that anyone would want to zoom in on to microscopic level. OK, you can't read the tiny print on the notice, but would you really expect to? As far as printing it is concerned, too, you could practically print it poster size before noticing any degradation. Unless anyone is wanting a very large-format very high-quality print, where is the problem? I don't get it. 86.171.43.156 (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding your screen resolution argument, one of the reasons for the image size requirement is for "future-proofing" as future screens get better. A man in 1995 might say, "Why do we need pictures greater than 640 × 480? 99% of computers only display 640 × 480." Even on my current screen, this picture does not take up all the screen space viewed at native resolution. In addition, we expect the images to be usable for all purposes, including print. The current resolution is not acceptable for "poster-size" as you have mentioned. At typical 300 dpi quality, this picture is only good for a print that's 6.8 inches across. dllu (t,c) 08:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment High resolution file provided by Peter Trimming on request has uploaded over. Original file and the license (CC BY 2.0) are available at http://www.geograph.org.uk/more.php?id=3376211 (login required) and at http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3376211 (click more sizes). JKadavoor Jee 14:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jkadavoor, thank you very much for requesting a high resolution file from Peter Trimming and uploading it. I really appreciate it. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the new high resolution version is sharp and technically fine. The composition is rather mediocre but seeing as there are only 4 surviving female Mark IV tanks, which are all in museums, it would be near impossible to get a better photo. Although Liberty is in a somewhat easier to photograph environment, it is in a poorer condition (e.g. missing guns). dllu (t,c) 21:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per dllu. JKadavoor Jee 13:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; historical pictures would have much higher EV, like the one linked to above. Also, don't like the busy composition — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:MarkIVFemaleTankAshfordKent.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2013 at 01:28:22 (UTC)

Reason

Another notable work by landscape painter Frederic Edwin Church

Articles in which this image appears

The Heart of the Andes, 1859 in art, Frederic Edwin Church, Landscape art, List of works by Frederic Edwin Church, List of Hudson River School artists

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Frederic Edwin Church

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 01:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not a particularly arresting or outstanding work, and as a recognisable representation of the Andes, somewhat questionable . Plutonium27 (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We aren't here to be art critics, although aesthetics can be a factor in judging a photograph but not an artwork such as this. We are here to look at the encyclopedic value and other featured picture criteria. The article Heart of the Andes seems to make clear that the painting was very notable and critically acclaimed in its time, and it is not our place to substitute our judgement for well-sourced and historically accurate information in the article. --Pine^✉ 05:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - High quality scan of a painting with it's own article = sky-high EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Church Heart of the Andes.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2013 at 08:11:13 (UTC)

Reason

There has not been a decent picture of Lord's cricket ground showing its famous pavilion (on the right in the picture), the modern media center (on the left above the stands) and the stands in one picture. I think this picture has decent clarity and has high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Lord's Cricket Ground

FP category for this image

Sports

Creator

Natesh Ramaswamy on Flickr

• Support as nominator --BNK (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose extreme JPEG compression, poor sharpness, posterization in the sky, uneven lighting across the frame. dllu (t,c) 04:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose lacks sharpness. --Pine^✉ 02:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2013 at 19:07:48 (UTC)

Reason

Important public figure. This is a candid (not studio) shot and surprisingly high quality considering the shot's parameters.

Articles in which this image appears

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Secretary General of NATO, Prime Minister of Denmark, List of NATO Secretaries General

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Magnus Fröderberg with some NR and colour fringing fix by Colin

• Support as nominator --Colin°^Talk 19:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This doesn't strike me as being a good photo - he has a weird facial expression, and the colours seem wrong. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you say specifically what is wrong with the colours? Comparing to other pictures in his category on Commons, the skin colour looks fine to me. Colin°^Talk 07:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Contrast is cranked up way too high. Kaldari (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not charming, colors don't look natural. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2013 at 23:16:18 (UTC)

Reason

A great depiction of both the Lady Elliot Island and the coral reef that lies below the surrounding waters. I find myself impressed by the quality of the picture.

Articles in which this image appears

Lady Elliot Island, Seaview SVII

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Underwater Earth / Catlin Seaview Survey; uploaded by Hersfold

• Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice picture, would grace any wall in a house quite happily... But as far as an FP representing an island, this is very very low EV for me, and thus cannot support... The lump of sand with trees on it could be any lump of sand and trees... No way of using this picture to garner any information about the island itself... Pretty, but not FP worthy sorry... gazhiley 09:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Cool photo, even cooler camera. I still don't understand the FP process fully, but this image is FP and taken by the same camera. Does that mean there can't be two FP images represented in one article (in this case, the camera's article)? As for this nomination, and an image representing a specific island, I agree with gazhiley. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This image has enough encyclopedic value, in my opinion. I disagree that there is "no way of using this picture to garner any information about the island itself". I can garner from this image that the island is surrounded by shallow water and coral reefs. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Arctic Kangaroo 15:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nm, I agree with Rreagan007, and I learn a bit more from this photo than the aerial photo of the island itself. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Pine^✉ 02:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mediran (t • c) 10:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lady Elliot Island SVII.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2013 at 13:09:41 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV. Good underwater photography.

Articles in which this image appears

Platax teira

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish

Creator

Alexander Vasenin

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - Superb picture. Arctic Kangaroo 16:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I just used this photo to help me clean my screen :P Great photo. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Hard to believe this wasn't shot in a tank. Black fringes fool you into thinking it was overexposed until you look at it in full res. A little noise in the background but not that bad. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support lacking in sharpness but not bad considering the inherent issues in photographing underwater. --Pine^✉ 02:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 03:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mediran (t • c) 10:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Platax Orbicularis in the Egyptian Red Sea.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2013 at 14:27:59 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Mughal emperors, History of Gujarat, Humayun, Bahadur Shah of Gujarat

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Manre Royale d'Aubusson Dharmdas (India, active 1580-1610)

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great painting and IMO has high EV BNK (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I see no problems with this image. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High quality, good EV, used in multiple articles.--Godot13 (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good to be a featured picture. Shows history of vast number of humans.--Digitalsurgeon (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Flight of Sultan Bahadur During Humayun's Campaign in Gujarat 1535.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2013 at 14:34:27 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Boudhanath, Tibetan Buddhism, Buddhism

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Ggia

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I think File:Stupa_in_bodnath.jpg provides better context, although it lacks sharpness so I'm not proposing it for an alt. --Pine^✉ 02:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This is an amazing monument. This image isn't perfect but I'd love to see this or another photo of the monument featured.--Razionale (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2013 at 15:23:14 (UTC)

Reason

The only aerial photo of Råsunda Stadium. Råsunda was the first of two stadiums to have hosted the World Cup finals for both men and women. It hosted the men's final in the 1958 World Cup and the women's final in the 1995 Women's World Cup. Sufficient resolution and quality for an aerial view.

Articles in which this image appears

Råsunda Stadium

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Arild Vågen

• Support as nominator --Arild Vågen (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would suggested bumping up the contrast to compensate for the haze. Otherwise, wait until right after it rains and get back in the plane :) Kaldari (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThanks for your comment. I uploaded a new version with more contrast. I can't go back, the demolition has already begun.--ArildV (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2013 at 04:16:09 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Supreme Court of Hawaii - Aliiolani Hale

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 04:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I have found this photo on everything from "t shirts" to coffee mugs and everything you can think of, in the shops around Hawaii as well as online, so it would seem that others like it a lot too.. --WPPilot 04:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    • On the new Hawaii Five-0 it's Five-0's headquarters. Daniel Case (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Good colors and sharpness, but the image is curved on the far right and far left. --Pine^✉ 02:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2013 at 10:12:26 (UTC)

Reason

has great EV and clearly illustrates how a push up is done

Articles in which this image appears

Calisthenics, Push-up

FP category for this image

Calisthenics

Creator

Frank C. Muller

• Support as nominator --BNK (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment On the downward motion the arms should achieve 90 degrees of angle. He does not. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as a GIF. Image is already plenty big, slow connections have issues with Gifs like this. A video would be better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose poor white balance; inaccurate technique as pointed out by Saffron Blaze. dllu (t,c) 03:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw I withdraw my nomination.BNK (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2013 at 09:42:35 (UTC)

Reason

Nice action shot, good quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Carl English, Personal foul (basketball), Zoran Dragić

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Kadellar

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pretty good action photo, and stronger than usual EV by also appearing in the Personal foul (basketball) article. --Pine^✉ 02:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support, I like how the bodies more than compensate for a potentially distracting background, and the detail is great. However, it's not as sharp as I think it could be. Daniel Case (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree this is a good action shot. It is caught at just the right moment to demonstrate a personal foul as best you can in a still photo. I also like the intensity on the players' faces. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, essentially per Reagan. It's nice to have some high quality action shots — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I added this to Dragić's article; the previous one there was a picture of his back. I think the use for both players gives it sufficient EV for me; I'm not totally convinced by the use in Personal foul because it's not clear that the foul was called (it should have been, since the defender's feet aren't set, but a foul visible in a still photograph is not always visible at full speed to an official); the uploader gave no indication. Sharpness is adequate to me; the defender has a tiny bit of blur but the ballhandler is pretty sharp. Chick Bowen 03:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Estudiantes vs Unicaja Málaga - Carl English y Zoran Dragić.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2013 at 02:21:57 (UTC)

• 
• 

Reason

Two high quality images that show F-16 aircraft from above and below. Both appear in the article General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon.

Articles in which this image appears

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. The left image appears in several additional articles including International Traffic in Arms Regulations, Equipment of the United States Armed Forces and Military history of Puerto Rico. The right image also appears in the article United States Air Force.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

United States Air Force/Master Sgt. Andy Dunaway (left), and United States Air Force/Staff Sgt. Christopher Boitz (right)

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 02:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Perfectly sharp, great pictures... Any reason not nominated seperately? Other similar pictures are nom'd seperately... gazhiley 13:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support picture 1. Picture 1 is sharp and provides many details. Picture 2 is nice and useful but falls short of the minimum image size requirement. As for putting them as a featured picture set... There are two existing FPs of the F-16 and I see no reason why these two photo should be grouped together specifically. dllu (t,c) 17:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Picture 1 is sharp, but I don't like the distracting glare near the pilot's head. I'm also distracted by the magazine on his "dashboard". Playboy? Reference Quarterly? Or maybe the manual on how to fly the thing. Compared to the F-16 images linked by dllu, picture 1 doesn't really pop. Picture 2 is too blue and was possibly cropped; the plane is too tight to the top. Sorry :( – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Striked out "popping" comment; on second thought, picture 1 shows more of the plane than the other two FPs. But the glare and magazine still stand. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2013 at 08:18:36 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good clarity

Articles in which this image appears

Bar-tailed Godwit, List of Charadriiformes by population

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Andreas Trepte

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - A little noisy, but the colours are still nice and the picture is relatively sharp. Arctic Kangaroo 11:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice and sharp with good EV. Tad bit noisy though. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 15:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High Quality'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bar-tailed Godwit.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2013 at 10:04:38 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Pied Avocet

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Andreas Trepte

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Probably because I shoot too much butterflies in which rule-of-third is strongly emphasised, but without complying with the rule-of-thirds, I just don't really like the picture. Arctic Kangaroo 11:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Rule-of-thirds", as far as I know, isn't really a rule... Merely just a guideline. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've never photographed a butterfly, so I'm not that concerned about the "rule-of-thirds". Rreagan007 (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Don't like how the black plumage in the head merges into the background. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you. Arctic Kangaroo 14:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Striking enough. Dazzling bird. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Nice image, good EV. Composition could be somewhat improved, and I feel the shadow is distracting. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this composition is to include the shadows. Further, here it seems we give emphasize to EV; not giving much importance to the artistic beauty (unlike in Commons). JKadavoor Jee 15:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2013 at 10:08:59 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Pied Avocet

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Andreas Trepte

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Sharp, nice and cute. Arctic Kangaroo 11:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is a nice image of a juvenile. And bonus points for being cute. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice image, good quality and composition with good EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice combination with the adult below. JKadavoor Jee 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pied Avocet chick.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2013 at 22:08:42 (UTC)

Reason

A portrait, which is rather different from many other 19th century faces. I abstained from restoration in this case because in my view it's generally better to show the actual condition of the photo rather than to patch it with fake pixels (especially when the image is not heavily damaged, which is the case).

Articles in which this image appears

Ellen Terry

FP category for this image

People/Entertainment

Creator

Julia Margaret Cameron

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both versions — A favorite historical figure of mine, and an excellent example of Cameron's skills at portraiture. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Really beautiful portrait, but should the image be cleaned up at least a little bit? I'm distracted by some of the more obvious marks or whiter pixels that can be easily removed without ruining too many pixels. Not sure much could be (or even should be) done about the unfortunate grainy areas, which don't appear to be original, so I'd think any touch-up should be conservative. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't tell for sure where it's natural and where there's a possible digitalization flaw (assuming Google Art's generally good reproductions, I'd say it's a merely natural ageing that contributes to EV). Anyway you may clean relevant parts. Brandmeister^talk 08:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Although scanned from a book and obviously inferior in most respects, this version offers insight into what is original versus what represents a flaw in the particular print chosen for scanning by the Google Art Project. For instance, that does not appear to be an actual mole on the back of her hand. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a conservative spot removal in the actual photograph (not the frame), mainly removing bright pixels but also a few other spots; major damage wasn't touched. I also uploaded a PNG with transparent background (see image description page). Also removed the apparent flat mole on her hand as suggested by Stigmatella aurantiaca, although thanks to that suggestion, apparently she has a large freckle or something immediately above her blouse? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support restoration. I've always been struck by this photograph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt as well. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the images have enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2013 at 06:48:29 (UTC)

Reason

A close-up of the animal in this case is necessary to illustrate the horns article. Good qulaity, compostion and resolution. Already featured on commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Horns, Keratin

FP category for this image

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support any as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 06:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfortunately it has it's face in a spider web. — raekyt 15:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had the image been solely depicting the impala (and not the horns), I'd have considered it a weak argument at best but in this case I don't see how the web affects the image at all. --Muhammad(talk) 16:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't our mediocre work, or passable work, FP is our best work, and the web is less than our best. — raekyt 16:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for calling this mediocre. You have still not explained, why would the web make this picture mediocre? --Muhammad(talk) 19:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raeky, we've an edit available for this. JKadavoor Jee 04:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit 1 Added. Spider web removed, support now? --Muhammad(talk) 14:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, EV concerns are too big now. I think there's better images on Commons that have much higher EV for these two articles. Like Watusi cattle or one of the billion other species that have horns or hair or something else for keratin like micrographs, molecular models, etc... — raekyt 15:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hah, so the EV concerns did not exist previously? This is one of the clearest views we have of horns on wikipedia. Your oppose sounds like a fishing expedition now, at least I got a laugh from your biased vote --Muhammad(talk) 15:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • • No, the flaws in the image overrode those concerns. EV is still a concern, your bias that this is the best image we have out of thousands is obvious. Plus lets go ahead and oppose for using a license that isn't even allowed on Wikipedia and deleteable under speedy deletion criteria F3 (WP:CSD. It's obvious that your license choice and battleground behavior to justify it is a clear attempt to restrict usage of your images commercially which is against the spirit and core values of this project, and calls into question why you're WP:HERE. That better rationale? — raekyt 17:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • If there are such serious flaws I ask you to show them. The only flaw that you could nitpick was the spider web which was removed. If there are better images on wiki, let's see them. Re the license, if that's the case, we have at least 130 FPs with that license from me and a larger number than that from Fir and that's just the two of us. Let's be realistic and vote based on the criteria and not our own made up set of rules. FWIW, I prefer your truthful oppose based on non-existent criteria than the original made up one. And before I forget, kindly strike off one of those opposes, only one per person :) --Muhammad(talk) 17:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Distracting vegetation in the foreground (not necessary to illustrate horns), distracting spider web (cloned out but obvious it was cloned out if you look thus not ideal, rather strong handed approach in color saturation changes. I did provide an animal I think better illustrates horns than this one, the Watusi cattle, and I think there is almost no EV for keratin. Those are the flaws, and some EV concerns. That's without mentioning your licencing choices. This isn't a consensus process, justification doesn't need to be supplied for the !votes here. — raekyt 18:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • All those reasons were not mentioned before which makes me believe they were meant to fit the oppose rather than the other way around. FWIW, we are discussing images, provide an image which better illustrates horns as evidence --Muhammad(talk) 19:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit1 as in Commons. JKadavoor Jee 14:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit1 as per reasoned as what User:Jkadavoor, said above, as becuase it is of better quality as the picture doesn't have the spider web so it can focus more on the subject of the image.--Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original - The web isn't very visible and doesn't really ruin the image. The fact that it was so easily photoshopped out is proof of that. Why not get rid of the plants in the foreground while you're at it? The animal may be interested in the ensnared insect, which means this picture shows an aspect of its natural behavior (do impalas munch on spider webs?).Kurzon (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit1 I agree the spider web was distracting. It looks much better without it. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original : I think, if the spider web is not there, the picture will go meaningless, because the action of the animal is based on the object :-Mydreamsparrow (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose edit 1. The animal is clearly looking at the spider web, or whatever is caught in it. Without it, he's just staring at nothing. Chick Bowen 14:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the spider web? It is not a wasp in search for spiders! They prefer their nose to sense their food. All I can see is it's careful, passive observation on the photographer (to sense any chance of a danger). JKadavoor Jee 16:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It has flies around its head and it goes near a spider web. Maybe its trying to get rid of them. --Muhammad(talk) 06:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original, which raises interesting questions, why is the impala looking at the spider web, or is it? Oppose Edit 1 which uses a degree of image manipulation that is beyond what I believe is allowed in a Featured Picture. See Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria rule 8. -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only prohibition in criteria 8 I see is "Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable." As the main subject of the image is clearly not the spider, I see no problem here. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the impala just standing there staring at nothing? Or is it showing curiosity at the trapped insect carefully wrapped in silk and the tending spider? As I suggested in my support vote, there are a whole range of thought provoking questions about animal intelligence and curiosity raised by the original photo which are totally absent in the edited version. Are spider webs edible? Maybe the impala is just interested in a tidbit? All these thoughts pass through my mind as I look at the original versus the edited version. So yes, the edits misrepresent the original. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is not being used to illustrate non-human animal intelligence or impala behaviour, though. You might as well say "Support, lovely picture of the grasslands. It'd probably be even better if there wasn't an impala in the way." J Milburn (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added below the "additional votes" line after end of voting period The way I count it,

Original has support(Muhammad), oppose(raekyt), support(Kurzon), support(Mydreamsparrow), support(Chick Bowen), support(Stigmatella aurantiaca) = 5/1

Edit 1 has support(Muhammad), oppose(raekyt), support(JKadavoor Jee), support(Clarkcj12), support(Rreagan007), oppose(Chick Bowen), oppose(Stigmatella aurantiaca) = 4/3

Even if we adopt a worst case stance and interpret the support votes for Edit 1 by JKadavoor Jee, Clarkcj12, and Rreagan007 as implicitly equal to weak opposes against Original, I get 5/2.5 for the Original, so by my count, Original barely squeeks by in a worst case analysis.

Could a neutral party go over my math? Thanks!

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, in worst case stance, they are equal to a full oppose. This way we get 5/4 for the original. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless explicitly stated, we have never considered such votes (where a user supports a different version) as an oppose. IMO, the original should be closed 5/1 --Muhammad(talk) 03:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct. The recount is to clarify how votes made prior to posting of the alternative would have gone if the alternative had been available from the start. But we already know how those votes (by Muhammad and Raeky) have gone. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. The other have ignored the original and Raeky continued to oppose it. Everybody else is accounted for, so I'd say your math is fine :) --Muhammad(talk) 15:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it matters, I'm neutral, leaning weak oppose on the original (I think the flies are very distracting), and strong oppose Edit 1, since the spider web doesn't even block the view of the impala. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we (JKadavoor, Clarkcj12, and Rreagan007) clearly mentioned how distracting the original is. But I've no problem with any closer decision according to his maths. :) JKadavoor Jee 13:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the edited one. The spider web in the original is not just distracting, but it's also unsightly. Arctic Kangaroo 09:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer IMO, from the comments of users who posted after the closing date, the original passes thru on a 5/1 ratio with the supports of the edit (preferred by them) not an indication of an oppose --Muhammad(talk) 21:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Male impala profile.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 5/1 King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2013 at 11:30:20 (UTC)

Reason

high quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

The Spanish Wedding, Marià Fortuny

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Marià Fortuny

• Support as nominator --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Off-topic, but I can't help but picture this as the Danglars/Cavalcanti controversy in The Count of Monte Cristo. Back on-topic, fantastic scan, great painting. I get the impression it's the artist's only notable one. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2013 at 04:13:08 (UTC)

Reason

High EV as lead image also good quality and a quality image on Commons. It was nominated before but didnt pass by one vote, here is the old nomination Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg.

Articles in which this image appears

Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, List of monarchs of Luxembourg, Monarchies in Europe

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty

Creator

א

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice image.BNK (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - straightforward EV. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's a nice shot. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Now that's a portrait. What's that little slightly dark area on his cheek, I wonder? Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Supported this during the previous nom. Good quality and good EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Henri of Luxembourg (2009).jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2013 at 09:08:55 (UTC)

Reason

Detailed map needed to understand a concept.

Articles in which this image appears

Lake Bonneville

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps

Creator

Fallschirmjäger

• Support as nominator --TCO (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as creator -- Fallschirmjäger ✉ 22:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice map. A few questions: the Pleistocene was 2.5 million years--can the time period this map represents be narrowed down at all (it has subdivisions, according to our article)? Am I right that the coastlines represent their current extents, and that they'd have been different? Do the rivers show the courses then, now, or are they the same? Thanks. Chick Bowen 13:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The map represents the area around 14.500 radiocarbon years (~17,500 calender years) before present. Yes accordng to the article the Pleistocene period was 2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago, so towards the end of this era. So as it was only a few thousand years ago the rivers and coastline would not have changed drastically and would be the same. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 15:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The coastlines were further out at 20,000 BC. We should show that (maybe with a dashed line for present coastline) as it is an obvious feature. The exact boundaries are tricky and not known exactly (and would vary by exact time), but we can show the main concept. See [1] and [2]TCO (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The flood direction indicators are a little unclear at some points, particularly the east-heading floods, where it's not at all clear where the floodwater is coming from. Also, rough dating of the floods would help - perhaps a red-to-orange colour scheme? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified flood direction by adding labels for Sacramento river & Lake Tahoe, will add the coastline tomorrow. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 01:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Fallschirmjäger ✉ 01:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's not perfect, but I'm not sure if anything can be with something this complex. It's a decent overview of a very complicated subject. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The EV here is great. I have always been fascinated by the Bonneville story. ceranthor 01:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Plenty of potential, but I feel in execution this could be that extra wedge better. So, for example:
• I find the wide, white (same as the background) state lines distracting and a bit confusing on the second ground. Have you considered thinner, perhaps light grey lines? (The labels in that tone work very well.) I can see why the lakes are currently above the lines (although it looks a bit odd - particularly the one over the national border), but if they were thin enough then they could potentially go underneath.
• These border lines are rounded where they join other lines. Are they in the SVG as lines? or areas missed out? In any case, they shouldn't round like they do.
• The state border lines also run under the national border, which I don't see the value in.
• Have you considered shading the sea as well, so the rivers more clearly flow into it and are visually tied to it?
• The national border with Mexico isn't explained
• It is impossible to see anything under the ice sheet - I would accept either making them clearer, or removing them.
• Why is the ice sheet labelled when it is in the key?
• Based on the size, I assume it's an ice sheet, which makes reading glacier a bit odd, particularly when it means putting "ice/glacier" in the key.
• As I understand it, the ice sheet is receding. If that is correct, could we show this? It would help the reader understand what's happening here.
• I think the Sacremento river is the thing underneath the label, but this could be clearer
• They are described as "modern" lakes but "present day" coastlines. Modern in this context could mean a wide period leading up to day, I think, thus adding to the confusion.
• I don't see the value in the Mexican and Canadian state/territory borders, since they are unaccompanied by labels. (Contributes to the overall effect mentioned above).
• If the "Scablands" are "unique geological erosion feature" as our article suggests, can this please be clarified?
• I'm showing my ignorance of US geography here, but are the rivers mark modern day or pleistocene rivers (or both - one tracks the state line?)
• Is the North indicated definitely North? It looks as if once we get to the left-hand-side of the diagram at least north curves to the right because the projection does not keep a consistent north. Could you check? The North arrow doesn't add much because we have a good sense of what we're looking at and so if there isn't a constant north it could potentially be more distracting than useful.
• [It's spelled "calendar" by the way, on the description page. Would correct that myself but you've got to learn somehow :D]

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man, awesome commentary. I know how much work it is to look at something so analytically. I hope the judges will allow us a little time to work on the feedback. I agree with all of it. For Canada, I probably prefer to just get rid of the lines under the ice sheet because it is cleaner and doesn't hurt the article. I'm not sure what sort of graphic to show for the scablands. Just cross-hatching or some sort of cartoon-like wiggly lines? And here are some freaking cool Youtube videos showing the Scablands: [3], [4], [5].— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 02:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for taking the time to give such detailed feedback. I also agree with the points you have raised and will work through them asap. Kind regards, Fallschirmjäger ✉ 13:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok I have implemented the suggested changes, apart from Scablands, not sure how to go about that as its a rather small amount of space to work with. Could add image map links. Thoughts? Fallschirmjäger ✉ 01:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Suspended to give the requested extra time. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reset timer after editing was finished. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a high quality graphic. dllu (t,c) 03:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I know that the voting period has already ended, but I am a bit put off by the placement of the inserts. I think that it would be much better if the insert box in the top left corner were moved over just a tad so that it's not on top of the coastline. It's at a sweet spot where the overlap is just the right size to be distracting. Obviously the box in the bottom left corner would have to be moved with it for alignment issues. If my knowledge of SVGs is correct, it would be a very simple change to add a tiny bit more ocean on the left side and move the two boxes over to the left a tad (preserving the padding), and if my knowledge of the FPC process is accurate, I doubt such a change would even require further review from FPC. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I've made it a tad wider and moved the boxes over. Thanks for the suggestion! Fallschirmjäger ✉ 11:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have only officially edited two maps in my life so not a specialist but the thing that struck me as odd here was the aspect ratio of the inset outline in relation to the map itself. The inset is right to be thrown into the sea somewhere but the complete map should be the same shape and position as the outline in the inset suggests which is not indicating enough area to the east and west. This is the first time I have looked at the Featured Picture page and it makes for interesting reading. Keep up the good work everyone. Idyllic press (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lake bonneville map.svg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2013 at 02:43:34 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality lead image for the article Common Pierrot

Articles in which this image appears

Common Pierrot

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Jkadavoor

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 02:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The background is distracting, especially the yellow flower and the picture also isn't really that nice. Arctic Kangaroo 09:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. See my comments at the Commons FPC for this one, which I incorporate here by reference. You are definitely in a very small minority there, AK. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent image! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. I share some of the concerns about the distracting background, but I don't think it's enough to derail this nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The image is beautiful.'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 4.5/1 King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2013 at 10:07:58 (UTC)

Reason

Good image, has EV, already achieved Valued image status in Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Al Khazneh

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Graham Racher (edited by MrPanyGoff)

• Support as nominator --Mediran (t • c) 10:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't like that the image is off center. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I like the idea of this picture, but it seems to be quite unsharp and mildly off-center. dllu (t,c) 03:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Awkward composition, somewhat soft. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Chromatic aberration. And having been there myself, I can say I think the color needs adjusting to begin with. And it always looks better in raking light, anyway. This is easily the most photographed building/structure/object in Jordan, and as such we have a lot of choices if we want a striking image of it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2013 at 21:47:12 (UTC)

Reason

high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Chiyoda, Tokyo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Arashiyama

• Support as nominator --Arashiyama (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support OK technical quality; reasonable EV for illustrating parks and recreation in Chiyoda. It would be nice to have more saturated colours but it is better to have faithful colours. The blown highlight is annoying but not too big of a deal. Overall I enjoy the composition depicting an idyllic scene. The cherry blossoms are great since they only last for a short period of time and are strongly associated with Japan. dllu (t,c) 03:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question before I vote. Is the appearing rather soft to anyone other than myself? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My question being answered, I'm going to Oppose. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the image is of very high resolution and even if you downsample it to a quarter of the size (which would make it appear super sharp) it would still meet FPC criteria. dllu (t,c) 20:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No, it's appearing soft to me as well. I'm also going to make a huge guess here, but the photo appears to be "washed out" like most un-retouched landscape images tend to be, and I don't believe the colors are representative of the location. I have never been to Tokyo, so I'm only guessing here, but I think the photo could be punched up very slightly. It could also be some other issue (hazy day) or no issue at all. That's just what it looks like to me. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the colours are faithful, based on looking at many cherry blossoms in my area (I've also been to Tokyo once). The sky does seem a bit drab though... dllu (t,c) 20:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2013 at 15:51:50 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, high quality example of Thomas Jefferson’s signature on a check.

Articles in which this image appears

Thomas Jefferson

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle

Creator

(Image by Godot13)
From the National Numismatic Collection, NMAH, Smithsonian Institution.

• Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Might also be useful in Cheque if a good place can be found for it. — raekyt 04:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, it has been added.--Godot13 (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why did he write a cheque to himself? Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ask him? lol — raekyt 12:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the days before ATMs, this was one method of withdrawing cash from your bank account.--Godot13 (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or to transfer money from one bank account to another. JKadavoor Jee 16:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That, or he was emptying the white house coffers before leaving office :p --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support :) JKadavoor Jee 05:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice. Not sure I like its random placement on the TJ article, but it almost works better in the cheque article. I'm always a little weirded out at seeing handwriting from centuries past. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The placement was not entirely random: based on a Commons discussion, I wanted to display Jefferson's autographed signature underneath the infobox placement of the subject's facsimile signature. Thanks for the support. --Godot13 (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could help (fix) the link in my comment above I would be grateful...--Godot13 (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. You have to put "commons" twice: once to get to the project, and once to get to the commons namespace on the project. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated.--Godot13 (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I find that it offers absolutely no EV to the Thomas Jefferson article, which already has a clean sig in the infobox, and in fact would advocate removing it as unnecessary. As to its usage in the article on checks, I see it as being a gallery piece, as it's stacked up in a column with other period checks, and is only on top because it's oldest. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful Oppose The historical value of the check is way higher then the EV... I mean, it's not like it was a unique aspect to Thomas J. only, and the article does already have a copy of his signature. Dusty777 01:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I have to agree with the above, the EV is pretty low. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 5/3 King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2013 at 13:51:15 (UTC)

Reason

Absolutely fantastic image of part of the sun, it doesn't appear in the sun article at the moment, although I'm sure we could make space for it. This was the runner up image in POTY 2012 on the commons

Articles in which this image appears

Corona, Solar Flare

FP category for this image

Space

Creator

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

• Support as nominator --Andrew 13:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this is a crop of http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011000/a011095/304-171_Lighten_Blend.jpg from my understanding on http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011000/a011095/index.html JKadavoor Jee 05:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a very dramatic picture Fangfufu (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low EV since both articles are well served with images and this one doesn't seem to add uniquely to what already exists. The image quality reminds me of a GIF, with posterisation problems. I appreciate that this is because it isn't real-light-photography here, but still. Also it is small because it is a crop of a larger pic. I don't understand why it did so well at Commons pic-of-the-year. Colin°^Talk 11:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with the low EV assessment. As you point out, the solar flare article is well illustrated by a number of images and videos, but I think this is, by far, the best image on the solar flare article. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The EV would be better in Solar Flare if it were the lead image. Dusty777 01:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Rreagan007 (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Magnificent CME Erupts on the Sun - August 31.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2013 at 04:24:27 (UTC)

Reason

Nice picture of a Santa Cruz racing yacht

Articles in which this image appears

Santa Cruz Yachts

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 04:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice sharp image, but too high up for me so not enough detail visable as half the yacht obscured by the sail... Plus (as stated in my response when this was used in a prev nom about racing yachts) there's nothing to show this yacht is racing - it's just a nice yacht... The general demeanor and appearance of the crew aren't condusive to racing either - they look more like they are out for a nice relaxing sail... (btw fixed the article link too as it wasn't coming up as a link) gazhiley 07:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has little to do with racing, the page is about the manufacturer of this yacht and this is one of its finer examples. Santa Cruz Yachts is the company that makes this boat, you can see the SC logo on the sail...--WPPilot 08:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose A very nice picture, good quality, just not enough EV to merit FP status. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2013 at 09:54:11 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Hercules the Archer, Antoine Bourdelle (added now)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

PierreSelim

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The image is good quality and there is definitely a lot of EV. That said, I don't think it would be difficult to retake the image at another time of day to have even lighting across the entire statue and with a shallower depth of field to remove some of the details in the background and therefore reduce the distracting elements. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The uneven natural lighting is troublesome. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2013 at 14:21:57 (UTC)

Reason

Nice EV, exciting photo and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Zygoballus rufipes, Zygoballus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Arachnids

Creator

Kaldari

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Appears too blurry for such a downsized image. — raekyt 14:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Legs not sharp. Arctic Kangaroo 15:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can't expect more DOF from a single frame picture with a Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro lens, if my assumption on the lens he used is right. Jumping spiders are restless (see how she tries to attack the lens); so less chance for a focus stacked picture for a live specimen. JKadavoor Jee 16:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It's expecting too much of a macro shot like this to ask for all the legs to be in focus as well. The image hardly seems to be downsampled and taken at around 2x magnification! --Muhammad(talk) 03:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have seen pictures of spiders where not only the body is sharp, but also the legs too. Arctic Kangaroo 14:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because of focus stacking. — raekyt 15:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably bigger spiders and not the jumping kind. These are minute and hardly sit steady --Muhammad(talk) 18:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just to give you an idea, this spider is approximately 3 mm in length – about the size of a large ant. Kaldari (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. While the picture is not of excellent quality, it is my view it would be very difficult to achieve better results in terms of depth of field. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 04:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While I agree it would be better if the legs were in focus, the technical challenges involved in doing so make it an unrealistic standard. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as creator. I guess I'm biased though :) Kaldari (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kaldari Zygoballus rufipes female 02.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 6/2 King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2013 at 14:32:08 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Saint-Malo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Paname-IV

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful shot. Quality looks great. The entire city seems like it has been fitted in one photograph. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2013 at 14:47:17 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

High-density polyethylene, Polyethylene

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others

Creator

Tomascastelazo

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very good EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Striking angles, perspective and nice spots of bright color against the earth tones that inevitably predominate in an image like this more than mitigate the slightly blurry soil in the foreground. Not easy to take an FP-quality image of something like this (and usually better not to try), but you did. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 04:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great composition. Colin°^Talk 20:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good composition and high EV. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Made me want to zoom and look at all the detail. High quality and valuable image of an encyclopedic topic. Slight horizon tilt to the right though? - Zephyris _Talk 23:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hdpe pipe installation.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2013 at 14:57:58 (UTC)

Reason

A renomination. High quality and high resolution scan of an historic landscape painting, with high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Sachsenhausen (Frankfurt am Main)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others

Creator

Peter Becker

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I wish it were larger. It appears within, or below, a gallery, but it's the nicest image on the article. That said, it's gorgeous, and I'm constantly reminded that watercolors don't have to be splotchy paintings. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose Bad crop, cutting off image elements. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2013 at 15:08:39 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

C. Bechstein Pianofortefabrik

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle

Creator

Bruno Bielefeld
Digitisation: Erik Bohr

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is this oversharpened? The red letters at the top look "sparkly" with obvious pixels. Not sure what that is. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second that question. It appears that way to me as well. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2013 at 15:13:53 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and very high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, Medieval medicine of Western Europe, History of astrology, Medical astrology

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others

Creator

Limbourg brothers

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some blank space on the page appears to be cropped compared to this version. Brandmeister^talk 11:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. Why it should be there? Tomer T (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Due to missing portion the page's size is somewhat misleading, but that's tolerable for me (although I'm not a fan of clipping the historical images). Brandmeister^talk 14:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very weak and tarnishes picture.'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2013 at 20:44:08 (UTC)

Reason

High Quality, featured picture on Wikimedia Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Great Cormorant

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very well done :) TechFilmer (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent image! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this is the best photo of the subject in the article.BNK (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose placement in the article makes it have low EV, should be lead. Tomer T (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my opposition, but I don't support because I think it should be stable as lead. Tomer T (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A nice image. It probably should be in the article's infobox. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amazing birds, and you get to see his foot as a bonus. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree. Being able to see the webbed foot is a huge bonus. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Arctic Kangaroo 11:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Phalacrocorax carbo Vic.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2013 at 01:58:36 (UTC)

Reason

It has been the leading image of the article since long time. It presents good EV of the structure and has reasonably good clarity

Articles in which this image appears

Mecca Masjid, Islam in India

FP category for this image

Buildings

Creator

Lala Deen Dayal (1844-1905)

• Support as nominator --BNK (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The sepia-toned version at the British Library actually looks a little clearer to me (compare the scaffolding, for example); I think this grayscale version may be a little too contrasty. Chick Bowen 22:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2013 at 08:47:22 (UTC)

Reason

Good artwork, historical EV

Articles in which this image appears

Satō Tsugunobu

FP category for this image

People/Military

Creator

Yōshū Chikanobu

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 08:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Parchment a bit on the dull side... And lots of dusty marks here and there. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2013 at 09:47:26 (UTC)

Reason

Although we have a gif image in the article to illustrate the difference shutter speed of a camera makes, but I feel this image illustrates the shutter speed in a better way and has good EV. It is already a Quality Image.

Articles in which this image appears

shutter speed

FP category for this image

Electronics

Creator

Nevit Dilmen on Commons

• Support as nominator --BNK (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very high EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is the pinwheel on the far left actually spinning? The 2 pinwheels on the right are slightly tilted, which I assume happened when someone spun them, but the one on the far left looks perfectly verticle, making me think it was never actually spun and was therefore not actually spinning when the picture was taken as the caption in the article implies. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you for nomination, votes and question. The the pinwheel on left is stationary. Best regards, --Nevit (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me for asking, but does that go against the point of the picture? If the left wheel is stationary then it does nothing to demonstrate the effect of shutter speed... I like the other two, and the concenpt of the picture, but I can't see why you would have it stationary... gazhiley 13:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support To quote the Red Skull, "wonderbar!" ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice picture '''SAMƏK''' (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based on principle I like this image, I really do but if the first one is stationary, then the picture is IMO deceitful --Muhammad(talk) 19:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Faked so the caption/description isn't correct. No need to simulate this. Not convinced the right wheel is authentic either -- what's the pattern on it? There are lots of great images that demonstrate shutter speed but this is the most obvious and least interesting (colours are nice, though). Not really sure what this picture adds that can't be guessed from a mention of blur, whereas other possible images can be surprising or fascinating. -- Colin°^Talk 20:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a good idea for a photo but I agree that we can get authentic photography of this phenomenon. --Pine^✉ 01:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw. I withdraw my nomination as per the statement of the author. I felt the first one was not stationary before nominating. I only checked after Rreagan007 pointed out the flaw in his observation. I began to think of withdrawing and gave it a good thought and decided to withdraw it. Thank you for your votes and I apologize for nominating before checking.--BNK (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I removed it from the article, as the caption there was inaccurate. I'd just like to point out, though, how difficult this would be to do for real without precisely adjustable lighting (which would be expensive), if you wanted the pinwheel to look the same at each speed. Chick Bowen 22:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2013 at 19:09:12 (UTC)

Reason

I previously nominated this image as part of a set. The set didn't get a five vote consensus but I hope this image can get consensus as a stand-alone nomination.

Articles in which this image appears

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, International Traffic in Arms Regulations, Equipment of the United States Armed Forces, Military history of Puerto Rico and others

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

Master Sgt. Andy Dunaway

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 19:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, good angle and the nose inscriptions contribute to EV. Brandmeister^talk 20:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as before. dllu (t,c) 18:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this is a very good image. While I dislike the sun glare on the canopy, if it were not there then the jet would not be properly illuminated by the sun. Physics can be annoying sometimes. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support also as before... gazhiley 13:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support due to great EV, despite not being perfect as far as technical details go. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support NICE '''SAMƏK''' (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I opposed it last time because of the cockpit glass glare, then I saw this image on Commons and abstained from voting but it really did give me a chance to think about it again, and really this image is the only one of an F-16 that actually shows the plane clearly, really well, and without fancy paint jobs. Also, this image works better by itself than as a set like last time. So full speed ahead! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Rreagan007. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Arctic Kangaroo 11:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:F-16 June 2008.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2013 at 23:11:06 (UTC)

Reason

High Quality, Value of encyclopedia and Featured on Persian Wikipedia

Articles in which this image appears

Geography of Iran

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps

Creator

Uploader: مانفی, creator: NASA, See

• Support as nominator --'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The lights, water and posssibly land itself look artificial. Brandmeister^talk 07:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree - even beyond the obvious computer drawn roads, this all looks totally drawn rather than a photograph... gazhiley 13:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose aside from agreeing that it looks very artificial, I don't see much EV to it as it it now. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with the above comments concerning EV and artificiality. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2013 at 05:56:57 (UTC)

Reason

A high quality picture of Pico Bolívar, the best free we currently have.

Articles in which this image appears

Pico Bolívar

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Wilfredor

• Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support beautiful... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose severe image noise and poor details. The image has been extremely sharpened to give the impression of being sharp despite the lack of details, resulting in halos around edges of high contrast. dllu (t,c) 18:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per dllu... So many halos, and not a single angel in sight... gazhiley 13:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful and Astonished'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per dllu. That said, the image does have decent EV. I'm curious, how difficult would it be to have this retaken? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, a bit difficult. We're planning to go there on December 2014. It takes 6 days to get there :| — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, I think this image may pass on the grounds of good EV, seeing how difficult it is to take a better one. I change my vote to Weak Support. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, but in my view the original version is better; the posterization in this one derives from the excessive contrast reduction designed to lessen the effect of the overexposed sky. It would be better to live with the sky and leave the mountain as-is. Chick Bowen 22:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I will remain Neutral. Arctic Kangaroo 11:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support it is beautiful. Also, it has good EV. The original version of this file is better as per Chick Bowen. Mediran (t • c) 07:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]