Oppose as is - there is another version with incomplete captions, but that needs to be improved. Also, all similar planet comparisons I've seen have the sun to the left, why the reverse order? --Janke | Talk10:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2022 at 16:40:18 (UTC)
Reason
Quality image of this 11th century castle. I saw this on Commons recently. In the article, this image replaced an almost identical lower quality image, so I am taking exception to the 7 day waiting period.
Thank you for the ping, Bammesk; sorry that I didn’t notice it earlier. Well, when I edited the photo I examined it thoroughly and noticed that there may be a tiny little bit of tilt. I write “may be”, because when taking and editing photos of such old buildings I have often noticed that they are tilted (sometimes substantially) in reality. Therefore and because the tilt is very small I decided not to rotate the photo in my edited version because any changes of the projection cause a loss in detail resolution and sharpness of a JPEG image; in the end I prefer a little bit more sharpness and microcontrast over the correction of a very small and uncertain tilt. But that was my personal consideration, and it was geared for the requirements of the Commons FPC review where image quality (even in detail) is very important. For this nomination as a Wikipedia FP the documentary value is even more important, so here a rotated version may be more appropriate if you think so. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, this is a colourised image. I'd really rather have the original. Compositing is one thing, but colourisation has a lot of copyright issues, as well as accuracy ones. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs01:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nom version needs a cleanup, it has lots of small dark spots (visible at full size) on her suit and the background. Also the file page needs to specify the source link (I don't see the nom version on flickr.com). Adam's copyright concern can be cleared at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Bammesk (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can clean it up and place a copyright inquiry on Commons, if/when the nom gets a few support votes. Good composition, but I am concerned about the technical quality of the nom image as well. At full size, her face has better definition in this B&W version. Bammesk (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close I am more concerned about the copyright status. I have read through the text and references, and am unconvinced that this qualifies as NASA image. It was photographed for Life magazine although never used. The photographer is dead and the negative is in the hands of a Wikipedian. As the "topic of discussion in the article", it could be uploaded to Wikipedia as Fair Use if it wasn't on Commons. Coordinator: Please withdraw this nomination. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2022 at 01:44:30 (UTC)
Reason
A 360 view of the cockpit of an F-4 Phantom II fighter jet, a workhorse of the cold war from 1961 to 1981, and still in service in some countries. Click on the image to view as a 360° interactive panorama. (currently passing unopposed on Commons)
Comment I quite like this image, and the viewer looks great, but it's kind of buried in the article, and it requires bouncing out to toolforge to work. I'm kind of inclined to Support, but there are hesitations. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs18:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Support stands, and, although I'd love to see the tool integrated to Wikipedia, trusting coders to do things here is... uh... Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs16:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, the way I see it, it is "integrated". In the article, the image is displayed using Template:PanoViewer, therefore if one clicks on the image one automatically gets the 360 interactive viewer, plus there is a blue "help-link" in the article's image caption. It's the same as clicking on a video, which opens a window and plays the video. Bammesk (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2022 at 20:26:56 (UTC)
Reason
It's been stable in his article for around 6 years, which is a plus. It recently passed Commons. Now, this is one of my older restorations, but it does seem to hold up. Am slightly jumping the gun on my rule that I don't have more than two images that haven't reached quorum, but hopefully Taylor (and, ideally, Cox and Box) will be passing soon enough.
Comment – Adam, at thumbnail size I see a slight halo (on the background) to the top right side of his hat, with a contour similar to his hat. It is on the original too, so I am not sure if it should be removed. Bammesk (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could see either option as valid. It's probably a genuine halo, but it's not a historically valuable one. Might be an indication of some historic retouching, I suppose, but doesn't fit into the usual looks of that Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs15:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get Sca's objection, then. We honestly have a number of unknown people in the traditional dress section. Is it because those photos are older? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs16:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In journalism generally, it's not acceptable to prominently display a person's photo without a name in the caption/cutline/copy block. (Exceptions only prove the rule.) Most readers aren't going to look up the file description. -- Sca (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the name be included in the caption here? If so, that shouldn't be too hard. Something like "Lidia Patty, Kallawaya parliamentarian" could work. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks! It's a good poster that shows off a lot, though I'll admit it could probably be in a lot more articles - D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, maybe? That said, it should be stable in the under-illustrated Iolanthe, and it does show off the production section really well. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs19:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are not the same image. There is also no source for this FPC on the file page, only the other - which apparently is just an on-line "museum" by two individuals. This image is marked "self-scanned", whatever that means - printed source, perhaps? Interestingly, the largest version is found (TinEye) on a stock photo site, asking for payment for a PD image... Withholding judgement because of all this. --Janke | Talk18:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two photos of this painting here and here. They clearly show the nom image is a flipped version of the original. About copyright, correct me if I am wrong, I don't think any photo of such an old painting can be copyrighted. Bammesk (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is an odd case: It's on an arched roof as far as I'm aware, so it's not a flat 2D work. It's not much more than one, though, so you could probably argue it's not enough to get photo copyright. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs00:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, presuming this is the highest resolution that is available, etc. (which I think is almost certainly true). However, shouldn't this be the JPG version so it thumbnails better? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs23:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2022 at 18:36:00 (UTC)
Reason
High resolution image shows the utility of Polarized light microscopy. It shows the details of a 7mm long (0.27 inch) by 0.7mm wide (0.027 inch) larva of a Midge fly including its internal fibers and structures. Commons FP since January and stable lead image in polarized microscopy since then.
Comment – Six-year-old pic. Do we know how erosion may have affected this arch since 2016? Also, target article is a 186-word stub. – Sca (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a huge fan of switching type of nomination mid-stream. We can delist after, especially as a non-used file is auto-delisted. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs07:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Target article text totals 87 words – a mere fragment of a stub. (The German article is as long as your arm, as befits a castle that purportedly dates from the 11th century.) Initially I was tempted to vote for this just because I was there once, but das wäre inakzeptabel. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spoze I could translate parts of the German article -- it's a fairly famous castle -- sorta busy now -- maybe some winter's night, assuming we ever get winter again. (104/40 due here today.) -- Sca (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The fact that it's in Persian/Farsi would seem to limit its intelligibility for readers of English Wiki. – Sca (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of pictures with non-English text in English Wikipedia articles. This is not a convincing reason. By reading the description of the photo, the reader can easily find out the subject of the photo. Alborzagros (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a notable event. That said, I'm not that convinced by the reproduction, though: The attempt to give a pure white background has absolutely destroyed the photos. If this was a good copy of the newspaper, I would enthusiastically support it, but look at the upper photo, even at thumbnail you can see the lines going through it, and the artifacting gets far weirder if you zoom in - what's with that very strange smear on the man's back? Newspaper reproduction of photos could be quite bad, but this is beyond that, so, unless we can get a better copy, Oppose. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs14:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2022 at 05:25:48 (UTC)
Reason
This photograph, taken during Meiji-era Japan by renowned photographer Kusakabe Kimbei, is a rare historical photograph that provides users with a color image of early Meiji-era dress in Japan. The picture is of historic nature and is of high quality, especially for its era. The use of hand-coloring by the photographer accentuates the value of the image, providing viewers with a glimpse of what life looked like in Japan without having the whole photograph be in black-and-white or Sepia. As confirmed by the Getty Museum (which verifies the authenticity of the photograph and holds the photograph in its collection) the photograph is in the public domain. Its encyclopedic value is clear; the article specifically had described patterns of chyrsanthemums on Meiji-era dress, but lacked depictions of any such clothing until the picture was added to the article. Digital manipulation was limited to cropping to remove faded edges.
Support Focus is better near the bottom of the image, but given it's presumably a drone shot, and likely had to go through a certain amount of perspective correction, I can buy it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs14:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a drone shot, just saw an opportunity from being up high. Perspective correction nonetheless, of course. I figure at 62 MP, some smallish focus issues aren't a big deal (we could sharpen it by downsizing by 50% and it'd still be pretty big -- not that I'd suggest something like that). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed at how well the perspective adjustment is done, then. I was expecting a shot from fairly nearly above the garden. Though I suppose the perspective isn't really in line with a drone hovering above its centre, in retrospect. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs18:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]