Oppose on EV. The article text doesn't mention the Taj Mahal at all, nor is it clear which part of the text the image is illustrating. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - serious damage/artifacts around the face, visible posterisation/JPEG artifacts towards the bottom. MER-C19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:MER-C, I fixed the area next to her face (next to her chin), and I restored the pixel level integrity of the nom version to that of the original scan from the source (University of Kentucky). Now the restored (nominated) image differs from the original only in the retouched areas. It's as good as it gets (given the original). User:FatCat96, I took the liberty of taking (and using) your restored version and uploading an updated version on top. I hope you don't mind. Thank you for your restorations and nominations. Bammesk (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remain in the oppose column. That removed the artifacts around the face but the face and neck has the same problem. MER-C11:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's on the original itself. It looks very much like brushwork to add texture to her skin. Not defects. That’s not something we restore or remove, unless there was a good reason for it. Bammesk (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Good environmental capture, but suggest a moderate crop from right. (Target is a rather stumpy 130 words, but that's probably enough for a copy block.) – Sca (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2024 at 23:30:39 (UTC)
Reason
Not sure why this failed to reach quorum last month. There's examples - I should prepare one - of the process from this sort of thing to a 3D maquette (and presumably to stage, but the actual stages were rarely photographed; you sometimes got newspaper impressions) and they're clearly stages of a design process, so it's pretty fair to call this a set design.
Oppose I don't think you should renominate so soon, Adam. I gave a reasoned argument against the nomination so you shouldn't be unsure why it failed to reach quorum. Not quite the same as my juvenile wombat which just failed - 4 support votes and no negative comments. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. To make this a simple series of points instead of a rant:
I read your statement; I responded to your statement at the time, and you never commented again. You still haven't clarified your point.
Nothing about your previous statement was framed as an objection. It was a comment about whether this counted as a set design, which I responded to both there, and in the introduction here.
You did not vote oppose last nomination. There were zero opposes.
You've never stated how this being an early stage in the set design - from which we know the final designs were made - ruins its EV.
This the only image of his work in Cicéri's article, and I'd say an example of Ciceri's work is of high EV in the other article.
I've reviewed every single example of Cicéri's work on Gallica (at least that comes up from a author search by him), and
Due, I presume, to when he worked, the vast, vast majority of his work isn't able to be assigned an opera or play.
There's not a lot of his more finished works that survive. This, and the unidentified [1] are probably his best surviving work, at least on Gallica. (Ones I'd consider somewhat close are: [2], [3] (unidentified ), [4], [5], [6], [7])
In one, and only one case, can I compare one of his works to a post-production lithograph. Now, I wouldn't necessarily trust a lithograph or other published illustratiosn of an opera to be perfectly accurate in pre-photography days, but this set design from Robert le Diable and this lithograph) are similar enough that I'd presume a lot of the differences are down to inaccuracies in the lithograph (after all, it's by necessity an impression of the stage design, probably not actually sketched from the same angle it's presented from) at least as much as any changes in the design later on.
My oppose here is because I don't think we should be nominating again so soon. There isn't rule against it but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I saw your explantion on the first nomination but my comment still stands: 'This is the artist's signed watercolour which was presumably used for the set design. It is not the set design.' So the problem is not the EV of the image, it is the description which the rules say 'Properly identifies the main subject'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has zero EV. Discussion was not rigorous, just a few self-appointed people who think they have the right to choose this image. Undemocratic nonsense. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose As previously noted, has zero EV. Also not visually interesting, looks almost generated by AI. Under no circumstances should this be a "featured picture". - LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a good photo of this person, but not of FA standard. Without even wanting to look into the discussion in the article, it seems odd to only have a single lead image given that huge differences in appearance are one of the features of humans as a species. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2024 at 18:36:03 (UTC)
Reason
This is my first time nominating a featured picture, I think this is a quality picture that is able to accurately depict the effects of one of the most successful defences against Cross-site leaks in the last decade. Cache partitioning is a feature in most modern browsers that prevent cache timing attacks (a type of Cross-site leak) from occuring. Before the introduction of Cache partitioning, an attacker could gain information about a different site (say Gmail) by checking how long a particular image took to load. If a image took a small amount of time to load, the attacker could infer that the image was previously used by the website (since the image would be stored in the Web cache). Similarly, if the image took too long to load, a attacker could infer that the image had not been previously loaded by the other website. With cache partitioning, both a cached image and an uncached image from a different site will take approximately the same amount of time to resolve blocking this kind of information leakage.
Oppose - too esoteric and difficult to understand for the average viewer. Visually, it's just a couple of diagrams. --Janke | Talk19:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Janke The fact that this diagram illustrates a fairly esoteric concept itself should be a reason for a FP. To my knowledge, a graph demonstrating the effect of cache partitioning on cache timing attacks does not exist even on the wider internet as of yet. Also, even if we do find one, there is a very slim chance that it will be near the quality of this picture since those tend to be pixelated and embedded in research paper (which are mostly non-free).
I'd like to withdraw my nom here. Based on the opposes, it's clear to me that FP is not the intended audience here. I assume the opposers have access to an abundance of high quality graphs that depict and demonstrate timing attacks in much better ways than mine and my contributions are indeed just gobbledygook and intelligible. Thank you for the feedback. Sohom (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if it's AI enhanced, straight Oppose. There's probably cases for AI usage in restoration - to generate a missing bit of paper texture, say - but the AI tools are not meant for "hit button and you're done" use on archival imagery, and the lack of documentation thereof is a problem Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.21:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware the nominated image was AI enhanced in any way. In that case, we could merely replace all instances of the image with the uncropped original. ―Howard • 🌽3323:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann, Adam Cuerden, and Howardcorn33:, the nom image is not the AI enhanced version. The AI enhanced version is File:MLK and Malcolm X USNWR cropped (Remini enhanced).jpg and it is clearly distinct when viewed at full size. FYI, on 8 June 2022 an AI version was uploaded Here, but shortly after a few hours it was correctly reverted to the previous non-AI version. I have gone on and uploaded the original TIFF file from the Library of Congress Here, and I have updated the "other versions" fields in all of our now seven versions of this photo. Bammesk (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've taken it upon myself to include all variations of the photo and shown it in the gallery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardcorn33 (talk • contribs)
Comment Personally, I prefer the uncropped image, although I take Howard's point that it can't be nominated if it isn't used in an article. Another problem, not yet mentioned, is that all the versions, including the edited and enhanced ones, still have quite a bit of dust, hair, and other blemishes that need to be cleaned up before they meet the standards expected of most historical FPCs. In my opinion all of the enhanced versions are unsuccessful, partly because they don't address this problem, and partly for other reasons. The Remini AI version, in particular, is a monstrosity from some kind of hell dimension, with its weird blue halos around the eyeglasses and its unnatural juxtaposition of noisy textured surfaces and waxy smooth surfaces. (My opinion, which I admit has no support in policy, is that this kind of vandalism of historical photos ought to be banned from the Commons as having no conceivable educational purpose.) I wonder if better results might be achieved by going back to the original tiff, cropping the black borders, increasing the contrast by a small amount, carefully removing all the dust and crud, and leaving the rest alone. Choliamb (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator I found a copy large enough for FPC. Quality is so-so, but this is a Pulitzer Prize winner. – Yann (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ConditionalSupport, once the original crop is restored – It's an action shot, with expected motion blur, and it's a historic photo. I suspect a higher quality scan wouldn't be much different, so it's a 'Support' for me. Good lead image in the riot article, and it's a Pulitzer winner. Bammesk (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: your last upload on March 31 needs to be fixed. On the center of the image, on the back of the man being hit, there is a long horizontal 'cloned trace'. The previous uploads don't have that. Bammesk (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: I think the uncropped version is much better. The crop just made the composition more busy. Also, it's the uncropped version that won the Pulitzer, so we shouldn't change it. Bammesk (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my vote to conditional support. I am open to cropping historic photos, but I don't think we should change the composition (the crop) of an award winning photograph. Bammesk (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk: I think it is the opposite. I followed Toohool with this crop (3rd version), who said as upload summary: "re-cropped to the portion that was printed in 1941 - cropped portions could still be under copyright". And my crop is actually a few pixels larger, avoiding cutting the man at left. Yann (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Tells the story fairly well, but question whether it meets Criterion No. 3, even tho it's 1942. Wartime strikes presumably were widely covered. (Perhaps Ford Strikers Riot should be the first target?) – Sca (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bammesk. (I do however see what looks to me like a fairly obvious scratch on the extended right arm of the young man at left. It's not too conspicuous, but as usual with these things, once you see it you can't unsee it.) Choliamb (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2024 at 08:55:13 (UTC)
Reason
A really good image with beautiful composition, excellent EV (for both Aurora and the church) and previous nom could not reach necessary quorum with no opposes.
I can't notice any difference I'm afraid: the water reflections still make it hard to distinguish the caiman and stork. It's a good photo, but the reflections limit the EV. Nick-D (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the better version that has been uploaded, I agree with previous editors that the first version was too indistinct, but it is my belief that this new one is an improvement and the subjects are more clear against the water. Nominator might be well served pinging the previous voters. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2024 at 02:20:19 (UTC)
Reason
High quality lead image in the Tanis Sphinx article. This sculpture potentially dates back to around 2000 BC or perhaps earlier. I placed the image in the infobox today. It replaced a very similar lower quality image, so I think we can take an exception to the 7-day waiting period. The resolution is high 9700x7900 pixels. It was shot with a medium format camera. The uploader and photographer User:Shonagon works at the Louvre museum according to their Wikidata page.
Support - Great picture. I think the argument that this replaces a longstanding lesser-quality image is just convincing enough to waive the wait period. At the same time, this isn't a 1:1 replacement of a lower-res image, it's a new photo of the same sculpture from a similar angle, and a week wouldn't have been that long to wait before making the nomination. Since this is the nomination in front of us, I'll support it, but waiting out the week would have been better. Moonreach (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2024 at 03:28:02 (UTC)
Reason
Quality image shows the physical phenomenon Fraunhofer lines, which are the absorption dips in the optical spectrum of the sun. The dips are caused by the absorption of sun's radiated energy by atoms in the sun's atmosphere. This phenomenon was first observed in 1814. The nominated image is a recent quality measurement and dates to 2022. The image is not in the infobox, but it is properly placed next to a corresponding table which lists the dips, their wavelengths and the corresponding atoms.
Same. For what it's worth, I'd propose this image. There are a lot of very good images connected to this event, it's just a question of finding which ones are best. Moonreach (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Sorry, but vids of the event have flooded the net since March 26, along with countless news stories. All too familiar. – Sca (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – For the EV. Users interested in the subject will appreciate having the video in the article as they read the text. It shows a clear close-up view on the day of the collapse. Bammesk (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2024 at 19:49:57 (UTC)
Reason
Since nothing by Jackson Pollock appears to be available with a free license, this is a good substitute, showing an (admittedly less-than-abstract) example of the technique. Large, colorful, eye-catching, with a free CC-BY-SA license. The article is short, but informative. (Oops, just noted it's been only 5 or 6 days in the article... does that matter?)
Comment As this is appears to be an original artwork by a living artist, I suspect that a VRT ticket confirming that they have released it under Wikipedia-friendly licences is needed. At present all we've got to go on is that an account with the same name as the claimed artist uploaded this, and that's a bit risky. Googling the name of the artist also doesn't return anything indicating their notability - all the returns seem to be websites or sales listings linked to them rather than works about the artist. Nick-D (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the nomination is not about the artist, but the drip painting technique, of which we have no other example, AFAIK. His contact info is on https://www.olehedeager.com/, somebody more experienced could ask for a VRT (assuming there is some support for this FPC)... --Janke | Talk07:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality photo that clearly illustrates one of the key features of this tank, so the EV is also very high. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I corrected that. I added the original as alternative. It was in Adobe, and I moved it RGB color profile, which may explain the color issue. Yann (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, two years later, but that was the objective of this diplomatic agreement. I edited the description to be more precise. Yann (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - visible grain and posterisation at file description page size, perhaps even in the thumbnail here. The TIFF has much less grain. MER-C19:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Question whether being a Weston photo makes this one interesting or informative. It's one of over a dozen pix in the Weston article. EV? – Sca (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I added a bit more about it to the Weston article, though there was already a fair amount there. Weston isn't really known for industrial photographs but this is probably his most important picture in that genre. blameless02:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was printed from a black & white negative. We don't even know if the print was in sepia. In the 19th century, prints were done in sepia, but in 1922? I also proposing a sepia version. Yann (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1922? Very common. That said, why is the MOMA one subtle sepia and this one all-in on sepia? Adobe RGB to sRGB conversion error?Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.13:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An excellent, simple photograph that illustrates the subject perfectly. While it's true this is the fourth photo down on the page, it's not an enormous article where the photo gets lost. Moonreach (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are these clementines from the Death Star cafeteria? What's with the black mirror background? It would be nicer if they were on a plate or wooden cutting board or something where they didn't look so out of place. Nosferattus (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly responding to say "death star cafeteria" made me laugh. I feel like the reason people (like me in this case) use surfaces like this are to try to make an ordinary, everyday subject into something dramatic. It's like, if I'm going to take the time to set up a whole photo shoot for a piece of fruit, focus stack a whole lot of shots of that fruit, meticulously peel it, and do the whole thing over again then I might as well be consistent with treating it like a celebrity. That's a "why the photographer did this" explanation, though, and not a "what someone thinks would be most natural in an article" explanation. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should all be in focus (it's two focus-stacked pictures composited next to each other). It got by the pixel peeping on Commons, anyway. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I added Alt, with the top and right side trimmed. It's a temporary CSS image crop. If it passes, we will upload a real crop. Bammesk (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2024 at 20:19:00 (UTC)
Reason
The framing of the image, is of high resolution, and the Washington Monument at the bottom half of the frame serves almost as a leading line pointing up to the eclipse. The foggy background adds to the dramatic effect.
Procedural oppose – Opposing all 2024 eclipse pictures for 10 days due to stability issues. Try renominating after a month or so, so that the image is stable in the articles The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2024 at 03:00:59 (UTC)
Reason
Seems like a good example of Vainakh tower architecture, dating back to first century and medieval times in Chechnya and Ingushetia regions of Northern Caucasus. This photo is a military fortification in the medieval village of Erzi. According to the file description, these towers are around 95 feet (29 meters) high. I saw this on Commons FPC recently.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2024 at 12:02:05 (UTC)
Reason
While it does not fulfill the first criterion, it is undeniably a historical photo. This specific image is probably the most published version, and even appeared on the cover of The Economist. An alternate photo does exist, however this is the less widely distributed version and appears on no English wikipedia articles.
Absolutely we should not promote the worse copy. Replace the image and then nominate. Though, really, we want a bigger copy if one exists. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Added a cropped version of the alternate. This one does not, however, meet the size requirement.
Comment – I am puzzled by Charles' "No EV" oppose rationale. Can Charles or others elaborate as to what characteristic(s) must a photo have to pass the EV criterion #5 in regard to the Cat article? Also, can you point to a photo in the domestic cat category (or elsewhere on the web) that meets the EV criterion (not on the technical or compositional basis, but just on the EV basis)? Thanks. Pinging @Charlesjsharp: since he does not participate here on a regular basis. Bammesk (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp, correct me if I am wrong, you are saying "cat" is a common subject, therefore no image of a cat can "add significant encyclopedic value to the (cat) article and help readers to understand the (cat) article"? Bammesk (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pondering over the same question raised by Bammesk for the past 2 days. I don't understand the EV rationale by the oppose votes either. It says in the criterion that the image should add significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article which this image fulfills clearly. The criterion also says picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. The current candidate is used as an example of the member of species Cat in it's infobox. How can you add any more of encyclopedic value to a picture? When you imagine a cat, this is how it looks like. When you google a cat, this is what it shows. When you see an animal that looks like this, you can understand this is a cat. This is clear cut EV right there. I'd like to ping @Sca and Hamid Hassani: also to the discussion for their take on encyclopedic value of a cat image. Any take would be much appreciated and will help me chose a better image next time (Since per FPC guidelines, All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image.) Also, you may suggest any alternate image too. Additionally, I'd like to ask Charles how this candidate is any different than your black kite nomination that seemingly is in the similar context. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All black kites, as wild animals, look much the same. A high quality image can represent the species, either perched or flying, male or female (if you can tell the difference). Domesticated animals all look different and one image cannot represent them. Quite apart from that, this is a very ordinary image and there are hundreds of excellent cat images to choose from. Finally, we already have an FP. It is not as silly as the attempt to nominate a picture to represent 'MAN'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do understand the oppose votes. Personally, I think this fails criterion #3: "Is among Wikipedia's best work." --Janke | Talk16:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My inquiry (puzzlement) wasn't/isn't about the oppose "votes", my inquiry (call it critique) is about the oppose "rationale". Charles' rationale being "no EV" followed by ZERO elaboration. That's what was puzzling. As User:The Herald said above: "All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image" (per instructions on top of WP:FPC). The keyword is "specifics". User:Sca did offer some specifics when he wrote "nothing special", i.e. not an impressive image. But Charles' original oppose "rationale" offered ZERO specifics. Eventually, Charles finally offered some specifics in This diff by saying "very ordinary image". . . . . . On another note: not "among Wikipedia's best work" is a criterion, but by itself, with no elaboration whatsoever, it lacks "specifics". When you reject a nom, give the nominator "specifics", or at least give the nominator something, instead of nothing. Bammesk (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I personally don't understand the reluctance to support this image. I thought it would be pretty obvious per the nominated reason. ―Howard • 🌽3319:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I personally think it’s a very nice image of a very cute kitty. I don’t understand all the oppose votes. It represents the article well. Also, as the Herald stated, I don’t see how this nomination is any different from many of Charles nominations. Kentuckian|💬05:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2024 at 02:41:01 (UTC)
Reason
Quality lead image in Vela Supernova Remnant article. The image is large so if your browser can't open it, consider opening it at 2048 x 2048 pixels at This link, or download and view it in a photo viewing/editing software. The image is FP on Commons.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2024 at 02:22:44 (UTC)
Reason
Iconic, high quality painting with high EV. The image does fall a bit short on resolution being 36px away from meeting the criteria, but I don't think that really matters considering the EV.
Oppose - Good nomination and excellent EV, but sadly this is not a good scan. Even if we forget the below par resolution, the colors are way off the original (see here). If you can find an alt scan with a higher resolution and better color to the original, I'd consider supporting. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2024 at 12:35:48 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image of a railcar on a rack railway; good EV as the toothed rack rail is clearly visible; lead image in the Dolderbahn rack railway article; recently promoted to FP on Commons.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2024 at 17:46:35 (UTC)
Reason
This image significantly contributes to its article and allows the reader to understand the topic in a way that they absolutely would not be able to without it. It's cool and useful, and it has clear enough instructions for how to use it. I'm very new to this sort of thing but I think it should be considered, as it's definitely one of Wikipedia's most unique images. (Image is in SVG format)