The shape of that boomerang (admittedly a very low quality photo) is recognizable, but this current candidate looks more like a piece from some Alvar Aalto furniture... ;-) --Janke | Talk06:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Comment – Fine feathery pic., but target article is a tiny 43-word sub-stub drastically unsuitable for main page promotion, thus not eligible for POTD (particularly since comp. is vertical). – Sca (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is FPC, not POTD. Your opinion in this discussion had no support. This image is not being proposed as suitable for POTD. Suitability for POTD has not been agreed as an FP criteria, so please do not invent criteria. And to suggest that an image cannot be POTD as it is 'vertical' is a nonsense statement. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My "opinion" was a factual explanation about the structure of Wikipedia – which, be it noted, I did not devise: All nominations here at Featured Picture Candidates, if approved, are perforce potential choices for the POTD. Those who don't like it can lump it. (I decline to comment on your "nonsense" jibe.) – Sca (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca:, you are wrong. Read POTD guidelines. It says FPs don't have to become POTD, for instance when article quality is low. This is FPC, not POTD, so read the FP criteria too and the instructions on top of FPC page. In the past you said you disagree with the FP criteria, diffnom, and that you don't go by it diffnom. If you disagree with the FP process, start a RFC on the project's talk page. Adding invalid oppose rationales and comments to FP nominations is Disruptive. Bammesk (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not responsible for every glitch in Wiki instructions. Standards for Main Page play are what they are. Please don't ping me again with such prolix protests, whoever you are. Adieu. – Sca (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This disagreement is not helping the FP project. Sca's opinion is quite reasonable, but surely we cannot allow oppose votes on criteria which are not part of the current guidelines. Could an admin (if any watch this page) help us out please. In the meantime I have initiated a vote. Please participate. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't changed my position or understanding of Wikipedia one bit, but I'm sick & tired of all this overwrought kerfuffle, so I changed my evil opsn to a 'comment.' Is everybody happy now? – Sca (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – Background looks unnatural. My guess is that the background is overprocessed, but regardless of whether it is or isn't, flat backgrounds look unnatural on live animal photos captured in the wild (with the exception of night photos having a dark background). Image has EV, hence weak oppose. On a sidenote, we have a FP of this bird: here which should be delisted if this nom passes. Bammesk (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2021 at 13:10:55 (UTC)
Reason
High quality, large size, good composition, and shows the property clearly. This photo also has been retouched to remove sensor dust in the sky and some artifacts from the window glass in the sky.
Support – Delicate image of demoiselle at work. V. good res. (Homogenized background a bit puzzling, but can be ignored.) – Sca (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second antenna is muted, almost invisibe (see for example [1], [2], [3]), I assume because it's pointing toward the lens. Is there a way to make it more pronounced in the focus stack? Bammesk (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is pointed towards the lens. A focus stack does not create sharpness, it only combines the sharpest elements of each shot. Charlesjsharp (talk)
For reference: The image was placed in the two articles today/yesterday [4], [5] (see FP critierion 5). The image was published (publication link) on 29 July 2021 in the N+1 science website (traslation). The Commons nomination is at this link. I am not a specialist and cannot judge the scientific significance or accuracy of the image. Personally I think, assuming that the N+1 website is not a peer-reviewed publication, we should wait a while (at least a few months) and see if any concerns are raised about this image in the talk pages of the two articles the image was added to. Bammesk (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Dear Colleagues Janke, Charlesjsharp, Bammesk, Sca! Before publication on the N+1 popular science portal, the image received 3 reviews from scientific consultants:
Borisevich S.S. PhD in Chemical Sciences, Specialist in Molecular Modeling of Viral Surface Proteins, Senior Researcher, Laboratory of Chemical Physics, Ufa Institute of Chemistry RAS.
Arkhipova V.I., specialization in Fundamental and Applied chemistry, senior engineer, RNA Chemistry Laboratory, Institute of chemical biology and fundamental medicine SB Russian Academy of Sciences.
Also, this isn't really aesthetically pleasing, it's too irregular, and the "spikes" seem a bit too big compared to the "real" electron microscope images we've seen... --Janke | Talk08:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Janke, per file description and image captions this is the "model of the 'external' structure", (struck per explanation below) so the spikes are not to scale compared to the body. The intricate spike details are magnified here. This may not be the best image for the infobox (the article editors will decide that). I will support if the image remains stable in the article(s) for a few months (infobox or not). It adds significant EV to the article(s) IMO. Bammesk (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Bammesk (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello! Thank you for your comments, I will try to answer. When aesthetics is on one side of the scale and scientific credibility on the other, we choose science. You can see from the micrographs that the spike proteins should be arranged irregularly. We also took into account the flexibility of the S-proteins and reflected it in our model. The virus looks less neat now, but all sacrifices are in the name of science. Next, we need to remember two facts about the size of the coronavirus. The first is that SARS-СoV-2 does not have a strictly defined size - it is in a wide range of diameters. The size can be either 60 or 150 nm. Second, the size of the S-protein is determined more precisely, approximately 30 nm. So, it turns out that the ratio of the spike protein and the "body" of the virus may differ. We have chosen averages to create our model. We can find many sources confirming the truth of the dimensions of the parts of our model, but I will refer to one from Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2665-2 If you pay attention to the relative sizes of spikes and virion in the electron micrographes in Fig. 1, their length ratio will be 0.35. In our model, the ratio of the lengths of our spike to the size of the virus is 0.32. It seems to me that the numbers have been successfully confirmed by science? I hope I managed to clarify this question ;) AlexeySolodovnikov (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For reference: AlexeySolodovnikov and Valeria Arkhipova became the winners of the Wiki-Science competition (1st of March - 30st of April 2021): first place in one of the nominations and award from the Science TV channel. The image was placed in the articles SARS-CoV-2 (in russian) from 21 may 2021: the image in the article (infobox) has remained stable for over 2.5 months (= few months). What is your opinion, Bammesk, Charlesjsharp and Janke: is it worth waiting further and are you satisfied with the arguments from the author of the image? The depiction of the day on Wikimedia Commons (8 Aug) also revealed no criticism of the model. — Niklitov (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the arguments from the author, but. We have had science images that passed nominations which needed (minor) corrections. We (the reviewers) aren't experts. This nomination is just too soon. As I mentioned above I would like to give the image some time in en-Wiki before supporting. Bammesk (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Impressive, but doesn't show the entire, massive rock - from the side, it's about three times wider than seen in this view. --Janke | Talk11:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support – Well, it sure looks BIG, and res is pretty good. I can imagine a POTD copy block comparing its size or height with Gibralter's. Leaning toward support. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and it still does! ;-) But if you look at it on Google Earth in "3D", you'll see that it looks even more massive from the south, instead of the west... BTW, I'm leaning toward support, too. --Janke | Talk14:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2021 at 18:58:13 (UTC)
Reason
Unanimously featured on Commons two years ago; higher resolution and better composition than existing FP File:KyotoFushimiInariLarge.jpg (will be nominated for delisting if this nomination is successful).
Please renominate when it has been stable in article. It should not be in skipper article. I suggest nominate at FP in Commons before here. Not very big image. Should identify male and female. Top one is worn specimen. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Nice photo (interesting reflection on the water droplet). But doesn't add significant EV to the article. Mainly because the article says little (almost none) about water resistivity (repellence) of polyester. Bammesk (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Is the wide angle really necessary? Presumably to avoid waiting for a time when no cars are parked outside in the street. And the colour balance looks very artificial. ProfDEH (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, if you want a photo with the bottom of the house not covered by the fence around the lot, you need to be inside it - and use a wide angle lens... --Janke | Talk19:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D, this is common for a multi-coated lens [8], [9], which most lenses are these days [10]. At ~45 degree angle one sees the reflection off of the lens coating. There are many examples on the web [11]. Here are two versions of the same lens, with and without multi-coating [12], description [13]. The tint can also be blue or green [14]. I have 3 lenses that do this, one of them reflects the same color as the nom image. Bammesk (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to explain that one to me. We have an article on the very camera itself. We have a good-quality picture of that very camera. How on Earth is that "limited EV"? The featured picture criteria itself states that an image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributing weakly to many. -- Veggies (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Limited in that only a few photographers interested in Olympus cameras will read the article. Limited compared to more popular brands, and compared to other articles on a river or a mountain or a town. --Tagooty (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It is what it is: a very good-quality photo of a camera. If we're going to have electronic products in and of themselves as featured pictures, I can't see why this one wouldn't qualify. -- Veggies (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Strangely bleached-out colors in the top left portion of the image - compare with other image on file page. --Janke | Talk19:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2021 at 23:36:47 (UTC)
Reason
As one of the most influential experimental films and being added to the National Film Registry in the registry's second year, this film has more than enough pedigree to be a Featured Picture.
Comment - where's the sound? The article says "Experimental electronic artist Sd Laika used samples from the film's soundtrack for the track "Meshes" on his debut album" --Janke | Talk10:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – having the entire content of a film listed by a BBC critics' poll as the 40th-greatest American movie ever made seems like decent EV to me. As Bammesk says, the soundtrack wasn't original. TSP (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I overwrite previous edition. True, date is wrong, it is 1909 painting. As stated in museum, it is Erich Šlomovič collection, adressed as a Head of a Woman. With note : The painting was done in the summer of 1909, during Picasso's stay in the Spanish town of Horta de Ebro and it is one of the representative examples of Analytical Cubism. The model for the series of portraits executed in various techniques in drawing, paintings and sculptures, created between the spring and winter of 1909, depicting a female bust or head, was Fernande Olivier. In these works Picasso endeavoured to consistently apply and fully develop the Cubist principle of poly-perspective. If you read her article date should be fine. Also analytic-cubism is places around that date. Dimensions arent stated neither expo number. Will correct date after passed voting. --Petar Milošević (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This isn't in public domain in it's home country (and it's not on Commons). Although the FP criteria doesn't say so specifically, I think all of our FPs are either public domain or have a free license for use in any (I meant home) country.Bammesk (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]