Comment – A bit excessive flash glare on her face. Not optimal file/image size, given the camera. Not sure about the crop either [1], the background's depth is appealing. Bammesk (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a compromise between these two. The architectural backdrop on the right of the uncropped version seems excessive. (Halfway between her elbow and the stonework would be better, with probably at bit less background on the left.) Sca (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There doesn't appear to be significant noise in the original, so I don't quite know what the last edit did, but we can go back to the original and colour-correct it, and save with appropriate settings this time. Adam Cuerden(talk)20:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd suggest this be moved to suspended nominations until the issues with the image can all be worked out. Cat-fivetc ---- 20:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 06:26:33 (UTC)
Reason
Highly encyclopedic set of images with good EV for illustrating the concept of colour balance in photography. Has everything you could want: a subject in a neutral-coloured shirt which underscores the differences, a colour pallette so you can see how different colours are affected by colour balance, and different sources of lighting which offer different colour balances.
If I read the source correctly [2], the images (although faked) are uncorrected (i.e. as shot or raw) sensor renderings given neutral, warm, and cold light sources. The designators are not necessarily the temperature of the (rendered) images. The labels given here are misleading!? Bammesk (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose because they are indeed faked. The lighting fixtures are photosouped onto the basic image, and don't give the correct distribution of lights and shadows. Leave them out, and fix the "cool" image (should be blueish, not greenish), and I might support. --Janke | Talk05:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Herald: the fake part is only one part of one user's opinion, read all of the comments above, the images don't represent what the "reason" section of the nomination claims they do. Bammesk (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could care less that they are faked, but the color is way off on image three, as mentioned above, and that just utterly destroys it for me. Cat-fivetc ---- 20:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I think this is a great idea for a featured picture set, but I share concerns about the faking and the not-quite-right colours. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: There were a lot of scratches and fine dirt. Admittedly, it may partially be concealed by the pale colours, but there's several hours of work in this. An easy place to see the sort of damage is the bottom of her neck, where the shadow of her collar is very obviously scratched up. Adam Cuerden(talk)20:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2016 at 05:15:45 (UTC)
Reason
It's a really good-quality candid action shot. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vera Songwe (back in February) barely failed from lack of quorum. There's a minimal amount of motion blur on the arm, fine for a candid shot. I think it deserves another chance.
Support – Per nom. Although her article at 300 words is quite brief, pic is a nice 'action' capture of a fairly notable person who seems quite animated at this moment. (Doesn't hurt that subject is black & fem.) Sca (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – good EV but the focus is off on her face. The camera can do multiple exposures in one second and the subject is sitting down. No reason to settle for a moderate quality action shot. Bammesk (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The blur on the hands is easier to overlook than the blur on the face but I still think it is of acceptable quality, if only just, considering the fact that it is an action shot. Cat-fivetc ---- 20:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A valuable photo, and while I do applaud what I take to be the motivation for this nomination, I don't think that this matches up with our other featured portraits in terms of lighting and composition. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Not particularly outstanding and for a 2015 photo 1800-something pixels on both sides is rather small (even older generation smartphones shoot at higher resolutions). Brandmeistertalk12:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 19:57:36 (UTC)
Reason
It has a high educational value, as it also shows the parts of Guard cells. In addition, even though it is small, it can be resized without reducing the image quality since it is a SVG. It also passed under the W3C validator without any warnings nor errors.
Oppose - Sadly I will have to oppose this one. First, the guard cells are not labelled. Second it says "cell walls" when it's just a "cell wall". Third, the movement of the potassium ions are not clearly described (How do they get in and out of the cell? Ion channels? no arrows indicating direction?). Why is it H2O and not "water"? Why is H2O repeated so many times...? Are the ions going into the epidermal cell or the space between cells?I think the diagram increases confusion, but I would love to see an updated version of this...! Mattximus (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a great portrait and the restoration from the original is done well enough for me to not be able to see the points of restoration even looking closely. Blue Rasberry (talk)21:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2016 at 15:11:45 (UTC)
Reason
Surprising that there is no FP yet on the famous Hindemburg zeppelin. I think all these 3 choioces can be considered as featured media candidates: the grainy burnign airship, the high res when alnded, and the famous "Oh the Humanity" live radio broadcast of the disaster
Comment - There is also a copyright-free movie of the explosion, including the "humanity" broadcast as soundtrack on archive.org. I'd support that rather than just the sound. --Janke | Talk13:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone comment on the relationship between the resolution requirements for photos and the size of the original photograph? The first image is a recognizable historic photograph which has irreplaceable cultural significance. By insisting on a 1500 pixel size, does that mean that if some archivist had access to the original photograph, a higher-quality archival image could be created to meet requirements here? If the digital reproduction is poor, then I understand that. If this digital reproduction is the best that anyone might expect, then that gives me pause. Blue Rasberry (talk)16:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one could take the original, scan it at a higher resolution, and save it with less compression. The version nominated was compressed a lot (only 200kb) and it shows. Banding and jpeg artefacting in the image. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk)
Support as nominator – Please note that I work for the organization which provided this photo, Consumer Reports, and have a WP:COI in nominating it. I am unsure whether there are customs in place for anyone nominating content on behalf of their employer. Blue Rasberry (talk)15:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The page is unambiguous. "TIFF files are not supported by most Internet browsers. They are an archival format, and should never be used for images intended to be displayed." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, I didn't say PNG. PNG has the same thumbnailing issue as TIF. "Note that currently JPEG thumbnails receive extra sharpening, while PNG thumbnails don't. Hence, uploading in both formats may be a good idea if the PNG thumbnails look a bit blurry." I'll upload a JPG. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492 Thanks for converting to JPG. I mis-read or did not read. I apologize for my oversight. Yes - the PNG and TIF smaller images look exactly the same. The JPG image is clearer, and for example, I can read the text on the device more easily in the JPG version. It seems that I should convert any raster TIF image to a JPG if it should go in a Wikipedia article. Blue Rasberry (talk)21:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm wondering somewhat why it's a coffeemaker from a Japanese company. In my experience – certainly not a scientific sample – most people have U.S. or German coffeemakers. (Nothing against the Japanese, of course, but I didn't think coffee was particularly part of their tradition.) Sca (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sca I did not take into consideration brand popularity or country of origin when I choose this image. Perhaps I should for any future rounds of product photos. I am in a building which does have data on coffeemaker brands, but I cannot immediately get a comparison on which brand is the most popular. I choose this image because Zojirushi Corporation is a respected brand. Japan does have a coffee culture, and so far as I know, Hario coffee equipment including their "Skerton" grinder is among the more popular brands in the United States. Other countries may have more history of coffee culture but I also think it is safe to say that Japanese products for coffee making are well respected. I personally liked the look of this coffeemaker, but the choice was a little arbitrary. Blue Rasberry (talk)21:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – FIXED. the darker shade of the background, at the base of the coffee-maker, needs some work. It didn't blend well with the rest of the background, visible at full size, for example at x,y=3810,3575 pixels relative to top left corner. Bammesk (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fantastic. I may be asking too much, but I believe any species that is sexually dimorphic should be nominated as a pair exactly like this one. Mattximus (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on procedural grounds. Since there is already a FP of the exact same image, it should be nominated as a "Delist and replace", otherwise if this passes we will end up with 2 identical FP of the same thing. Mattximus (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – very nice restoration. Bammesk (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC) Side note: source link [6] has the name of the photographer and gives the date as circa 1910, where does 1908 come from?[reply]
Comment - Very nice picture and lovely restoration, but I question the EV for this picture. She was not Queen at that age, so it's essentially a picture of a child. We don't nominate pictures of Churchill, or John Lennon at age 8... I'm not sure I understand why a picture of someone famous as a child would be included in an encyclopedia. Mattximus (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As biographies, in addition to the subject's prime years, we do cover their youth and later years if the info is available. We do include images at various stages, for example [7]. Whether non-prime-year images should be nominated for FP is a valid question though. My two cents about this particular case: the image is of the daughter of a monarch who became queen. In the absence of a quality image showing her in her prime, I see no harm in nominating a quality image from her youth. Bammesk (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC) Side note: something to think about, if there were no quality images of Churchill or John Lennon in their prime years, would it be Ok to nominate a quality image of them in their youth? I think the answer is yes, but I could be wrong.[reply]
Oppose - After further consideration, and with full respect to the restoration and quality of the image, I don't think there is any encyclopedic value in a photograph of a person when they were not notable. To me it doesn't really make sense, I can't think of any real life encyclopedia that would include a photo of a famous world figure... as a child. Unless of course they did something notable as a child. Mattximus (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support-at the time of the picture,she was(and had been since birth)Crown Princess of Tonga.For me,that's notable enough to justify the picture. Lemon martini (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2016 at 11:23:43 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image of a notable, Citra Award-winning actress who remained active for almost sixty years. This image is from c. 1960, shortly after Wijaya rose to widespread fame for her role in Tiga Dara. This is also my last image from the first set of Tati Studio promotional photographs I bought (a second set still needs restoration).
Support - There is a bit of a focus issue and a strange indentation on her left shoulder, but given the source and the quality of the restoration it's very much worth featured picture status. Great EV as well. Mattximus (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the indentation is the one I see, it appears to be a fold in the fabric of her shirt, with the light snowflake pattern right at the edge of the light background. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unfortunately, the subject is cut off, which spoils the photo for me. --Janke | Talk15:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC) - - Edit: Apparently, there is an uncropped version available... Edit 2: Which needs some cropping for balance...[reply]
Comment: I'm not going to sink this nomination, but I do feel that I should express my reservations about this appearing on the MP. A tiny self-referential webcomic doesn't really sell Wikipedia, I don't think. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Nice picture, and I don't mind the framing. But I've seen much more clear sports photographs, his neck/face seem to blur together. Mattximus (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – good subject, good nomination, but his face is slightly out of focus, and I wish there was a little more wow factor. Bammesk (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Leaning to support, but there is an unnatural looking bright spot on the head at x,y=1540,856 relative to top left corner. Is it natural, should it be fixed? Bammesk (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]