Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/December-2012

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 30 Nov 2012 at 10:30:59 (UTC)

Reason

Much EV, FP on Wikimedia Commons, High Quality

Articles in which this image appears

Haetera piera

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Paolostefano1412

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It doesn't meet our current size requirements (1500px on each side) and more than half the image isn't even the butterfly, so if you cropped it it would be even smaller. Sorry, just too small and not sharp enough. — raekyt 11:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2012 at 07:09:52 (UTC)

Reason

All features of the dragonfly have been brought out well. Artistic image. Good lighting and color balance.

Articles in which this image appears

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Crimson_Marsh_Glider

FP category for this image

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Kallidaimaniac

• Support as nominator --Hari Krishnan 07:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like the focus on the wings. -- Mason Doering ^talk 20:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also pretty sure this isn't a bird. -- Mason Doering ^talk 20:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Oops, sorry about that. Corrected the category. Kallidaimaniac
• Oppose Although I can appreciated the difficulty of capturing an image of a dragonfly with a camera, since they're nearly impossible even to catch with a insect net, lol. It's just not sharp enough to warrant FP status IMO. It's also being used essentially in a gallery, which is against criteria. The article is over-illustrated for a stub, so adding this image isn't adding any value to the encyclopedia. An article that size would do fine with 2 images, one for male and one for female, and since the wings are not in focus, a VERY key diagnostic for ID in Odonata, then this is a worse EV than File:Trithemis_aurora_by_kadavoor.JPG which the wings are more in focus. — raekyt 11:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 19:51:14 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

April Flower

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

Vivek Katekhaye

• Support as nominator --Vivek7866 (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not identified (Properly identify the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable.); not used in any article (The image should be used in one or more articles.). JKadavoor Jee 06:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it did meet those criteria, it would have almost no chance of passing due to the technical flaws in it's lighting, that part of the flower is cropped off, and not showing any vegetation of the plant. So I move to Speedy Close — raekyt 08:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close Too little of this picture is in focus. The edge of the left (from the top petal) petal, along with the bottom in the right corner and the one above so all fall out of focus (some more than others) towards the ends of the leaves. In the background is the stem, which shouldn't necessarily be in focus, would be a better detail to have than to not have. The focus of the photo seems to be less the flower and more the pollination tendrils sprouting from the center, a bottommost of which falls out of focus similarly to the petals of the flower. The blackground of the photograph is very distracting because of several marks on the wall or other material of which it consists (crop, blend). Where was this picture taken? There is a good few inches of unnecessary space to the left of the flower. Finally, the uppermost petal is cut off at the top (cropping issue, may I presume?) and should be fixed if possible. ---Saw1998 (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close per Saw. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy closed --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2012 at 15:17:31 (UTC)

Reason

Sharp; all features seen. Meets FPC criteria.

Articles in which this image appears

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Crimson_Marsh_Glider http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Libellulidae

FP category for this image

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Kallidaimaniac

• Support as nominator --Hari Krishnan 15:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The colours are wonderful, but it's very noisey, and the usage in the articles isn't great. J Milburn (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2012 at 10:13:15 (UTC)

Reason

High Quality, FP in Commons and Spanish Wikipedia, Much EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Diaethria clymena

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Paolostefano1412

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Mason Doering ^talk 10:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as in Commons. JKadavoor Jee 16:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice capture and good detail. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Solid — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Diaethria marchalii.jpg --Julia\^talk 17:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2012 at 18:28:37 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Didgeridoo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Noel Feans

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Hmmm, I'm not sure what to say about this one. The photo itself is actually very good (albeit a little overly contrasty), but for a traditional Aboriginal Australian instrument, it doesn't really 'fit' as one of the lead images in the article. It's not just that the player is Spanish rather than Aboriginal, but also because the instrument itself looks like a cheap, touristy didgeridoo. I guess it could illustrate the way the instrument has transcended traditional use (as it has), but I think I'd prefer a more traditional setting for a featured picture of it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a indigenous Australian instrument, and as such an image like that would be INFINITELY better EV than, to be very politically incorrect, a dirty hippy in Spain would be. So I'd oppose on EV grounds. — raekyt 07:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• On the fence I agree with Diliff; while technically this photo is good, the EV of a white guy playing a didgeridoo in Spain seems limited (though it's certainly not without value). The appropriation of Indigenous Australian culture by non-Indigenous people is a perennial hot issue, though at least in this case its unlikely that the Spanish guy was taking business from an Indigenous Australian didgeridoo player! Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article would need to talk about something like that, which it doesn't, just mention that some very off-the-beaten-path music types use it... It's not traditional, looks like a cheap $30 one you can buy online, and a white Spanish guy playing it... It's far from ideal to illustrate the article. — raekyt 10:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At present it sits in a section called "Names & etymology" where it doesn't support the text at all.--Melburnian (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 11:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 15:53:42 (UTC)

Reason

A professional-quality photograph from a notable photographer. High quality, nice big photograph.

Articles in which this image appears

Jim West (guitarist)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Kyle Cassidy

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Is he auditioning for a part in a 1980s Milk Tray advert? It isn't IMO a particularly flattering photograph and I'd never guess that he was a musician. While an FP of a performer doesn't have to show them performing, it does help. For example, this photo has much higher EV with the Hawaiian shirt, shell necklace and guitar. I wonder if we can get hold of it instead? -- Colin°^Talk 21:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got the shot from the photographer, not the subject. I thought I may get some opposes like this, but I thought the photo deserved a chance :) J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was half expecting you to reply that the "Milk Tray Man" was actually part of his act with "Weird Al" Yankovic, and that the EV was therefore enormously high to those "in the know" :-) I wonder if these photographs have higher EV as representative of the work of the photographer than of the subject? Colin°^Talk 23:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's actually a very visually interesting portrait with good technicals... We don't need a picture of a person for their biography to be them doing what they're known for.. it's a biography about them, not an article about only one aspect of their life. So that you can't figure out he's an artist from this photograph, so what? — raekyt 07:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The lighting is done well, notably the left side of his face, and the other parts are in generous detail. But I must say, is the subject of this picture Jim West or Jim West's shirt? ---Saw1998 (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 18:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 17:48:49 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Echeveria elegans

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others

Creator

Poco a poco

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Something about this image just scream's that someone has tinkered far to much with color saturation, making it less likely that these are anywhere near true colors for this plant... — raekyt 11:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 18:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 17:58:27 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Black-backed jackal, Canis, Jackal

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Lycaon

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The photo is great, but thanks to that witch Mother Nature he blends into the background quite a bit. But it's not horrible, and it couldn't be fixed, so who cares. I like the blood near his paws, the color is brought out nicely, but there's some motion blur around his face. Quite odd because his body & tail are all in great focus and detail, but as soon as you look into his head and facial area it begins to blur. I don't know how that happened, maybe he began to turn his head just as the picture was taken. Or maybe I'm crazy. Someone clear this up. ---Saw1998 (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't have any problem with the slight motion blur. I don't believe that the problem is fixable, so why worry about it? Dusty777 02:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 18:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 19:47:55 (UTC)

Reason

Quality Image on Commons, high EV (widely used)

Articles in which this image appears

Novodevichy Convent

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

A.Savin

• Support as nominator --A.Savin (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Tomcat (7) 20:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I prefer a picture taken form the front or back side clearly showing the crosses, whenever possible. A caption as in the article (Cathedral of Our Lady of Smolensk (16th century)) is needed here too. JKadavoor Jee 06:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have to agree with Jkadavoor, not a good angle. — raekyt 08:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems like it is the front...--Tomcat (7) 11:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• By the orientation of the crosses, it seems not. Would be rather poor form to put them on in the wrong direction in relation to the front of the building. It appears to be a shot of the side of the building. This would be an image from the front, sort of. If you google the church there's plenty of different angles and this is clearly not the front. — raekyt 11:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Good to know. However, I saw churches that had a rather unnatural position, even the crosses :) Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• An Eastern Church (and it's crosses) should always faces the east. JKadavoor Jee 15:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 07:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 23:33:44 (UTC)

Reason

Good image quality, has a free license

Articles in which this image appears

Sue (dinosaur), Tyrannosauridae, Tyrannosaurus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

ScottRobertAnselmo

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk to me!} 23:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's a cast, not the real skull, so what's the EV? Spikebrennan (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose being a cast it's EV is lower in Sue (dinosaur). According to the article "The museum made a cast of the skull, and altered this cast to remove the distortions, thus approximating what the original undistorted skull may have looked like." So good EV would be showing an angle in comparison with say File:Sue skull.jpg to show those distortions and used in the article approprately. It's use in all three articles seems to be just tacked on, and adds little or nothing, possibly detracting from the article due to over-illustration. A more side-on shot like File:Tyrannosaurus Rex Holotype.jpg for Tyrannosauridae & Tyrannosaurus has signifigantly more EV than this angle of just the skull. — raekyt 08:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 07:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2012 at 16:32:23 (UTC)

Reason

Encyclopaedic depiction of the yak and its interaction with people. I originally found and uploaded this from flickr before the higher res was provided, so I'll allow myself to move this ahead a little.

Articles in which this image appears

Yak, Yamdrok Lake, Tibet

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Dennis Jarvis

• Support as nominator --Samsara (FA • FP) 16:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Solid — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as in Commons. JKadavoor Jee 04:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV and technically well executed. Nick-D (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A solid picture with good encyclopedic value. Cat-fivetc ---- 21:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – High EV and technically very good. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bos grunniens at Yundrok Yumtso Lake.jpg --Julia\^talk 17:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2012 at 00:13:49 (UTC)

Reason

Irreplaceable photo of what is now a UNESCO World Heritage site, decent resolution. People add to scale.

Articles in which this image appears

Buddhas of Bamiyan (in the form of File:Taller Buddha of Bamiyan before and after destruction.jpg, to which it's hyperlinked)

FP category for this image

Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

uncredited

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 00:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not sure I am happy supporting a file which is not actually used in the article... J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The file is linked to its collage version, which is used, so I decided to give it a go. Brandmeister^talk 09:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Licencing needs figured out, the license on it is clearly wrong. — raekyt 02:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you be more specific as to the problem? The current template used seems to fit Unesco's simple claim "unrestricted." Chick Bowen 05:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It say's unknown photographer/source? There is no copyright in Afghanistan, so {{PD-Afghanistan}}? Where is the source on Unesco's website with the copyright statement? I can't find the image on there... — raekyt 07:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The statement is here (upper right corner, below the statue), the source is on a different url. Brandmeister^talk 09:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems it's unrestricted due to PD-Afghanistan... but I donno.. seems strange. I don't think they're the photographers of all those different images. — raekyt 17:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 07:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2012 at 14:50:07 (UTC)

Reason

Detailed and good quality photograph of the University of Coimbra (probably the best available in Wikipedia) adding to various articles. Notice that no downsample was made with the purpose of apparently imprve sharpness (which is more or less common in Wikipedia).

Articles in which this image appears

Coimbra, University of Coimbra, Portugal, Portal:Portugal

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In this case, it seems like the light was good, but yet again, the image seems underexposed. I suspect the surreal sky colours would be mitigated by raising the exposure. The sky should not be the focus of the image. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high EV. Tomer T (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Might be off topic, but I'd like to say that 2/3 of data from a picture are actually made up from interpolation of RAW data. So downsampling should be perfectly fine in most cases since we mainly loose imaginary data (Have no proof, just assumptions). Now about the pic itself, the lighting is a bit dull, and that's a strange projection here we have, with that curved ground. I like playing with projection in such ways, but don't think they fit the topic well (architecture) in the context of an encyclopedia. You should try General Panini, to minimize the horizontal distortion. I have found it to rescue me well in similar cases. - Blieusong (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Noticed after that horizontal FOV is 92°. Since that the extreme lower end of a ultra wide angle (but still standard) lens, you could even switch to rectilinear IMO and still keep the stretching in the corners under control. - Blieusong (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the advice, Benh. I have done what you suggested and the perspective is indeed better. The price to pay is the flag on top of the tower! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's why you went for equirectangular and looking slightly upward... sorry then (a reason I tend to take ridiculously huge margins now in such cases ;) ). Maybe you can keep the flag and fill hole with careful cloning? It's only sky to fill (easy as far as I can tell). - Blieusong (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you upload the version with the hole, I can edit in some sky. Then we can renom =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since I mentioned lighting is a bit dull, I also tried to improve things a bit. Free for you to have a look (but don't use it, it was quickly made from jpeg). [1] - Blieusong (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 19:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 09:20:51 (UTC)

Reason

Illustrates the subject well, good angle.

Articles in which this image appears

Dancheong

FP category for this image

Places/Architecture

Creator

Daplaza

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 09:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This may have more EV at an angle, as currently we cannot see if there are multiple levels of the roof or... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 13:55:50 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, good quality, good angle

Articles in which this image appears

Baptistry (Pisa)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

NotFromUtrecht

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Samsara (FA • FP) 16:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good image... gazhiley 17:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Solid architectural image — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good picture.BNK (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pisa Baptistry.jpg --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 22:05:00 (UTC)

Reason

Well-composed shot of the building with its surrounding environs, which gives the viewer a sense of place. This was one of the finalists in the Wiki Loves Monuments competition for the U.S (disclosure: I was one of the judges). Yes, there's a little blown-out area on the dome, but I don't think it's enough to disqualify the image.

Articles in which this image appears

Vermont State House

FP category for this image

Architecture

Creator

Jonathan King

• Support as nominator --—howcheng {chat} 22:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Excessive noise, especially on the two pillars closest to camera. I'm not a big fan of the composition - would prefer this to be taken dead centre rather that off to the side. Also the foreground is very dark. Finally the blown dome is enough coupled with the other three reasons for me to oppose... gazhiley 09:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The composition seems snapshotty to me --Muhammad(talk) 12:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This picture has good contrast and very high quality.BNK (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same picture? High Quality? It's all blurred and fuzzy?! Please make sure you look at more than just the thumbnail or the first image - please click the view at full resolution link... gazhiley 10:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

• Oppose Snapshotty, over saturated, blurry, grainy... — raekyt 05:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2012 at 22:42:17 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, notable painting and artist. This is a bit more striking, in my opinion, than the 1636 version (which can nonetheless be included as an alt)

Articles in which this image appears

The Judgment of Paris (Rubens), Judgment of Paris, Museo del Prado

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Peter Paul Rubens

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for a painting that's over 9 feet long, I think this image is VASTLY too small to represent it as a featured picture. — raekyt 05:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 09:31:39 (UTC)

Reason

Sharp photo, showing a woman guard, which isn't that common to this kind of duty.

Articles in which this image appears

Royal Guards (Sweden)

FP category for this image

People/Military

Creator

Cha già José

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 09:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - interesting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As 1) the crop is too tight 2) the side-on angle is uninteresting and 3) the only article this is in doesn't mention the gender split of the personnel assigned to this duty (is it actually unusual in the Swedish military? Australia's Federation Guard includes many women, and the main reason that this is unusual internationally is that ceremonial guard duties are typically undertaken by infantry units in which women are in most cases not permitted to serve). As a war nerd, this photo of a female Swedish palace guard has stronger EV as it more clearly depicts her, and she's - very unusually for guard roles - equipped with a radio which suggests that she's actually guarding the building and isn't there for ceremonial purposes only. The technical quality of that photo isn't great though, and the side-on angle is also dull. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I can't find any problem with the crop or angle. I personally prefer a half body portrait than a full body as referenced by Nick. JKadavoor Jee 16:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There seems to be a tilt (visible in the buildings and windows). Should this be corrected? --125.25.138.201 (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I feel the EV is greatly reduced by a side shot, it's illustrating the guard, so a front shot showing the full uniform would be A LOT better EV. The side shot is only marginal, and not ideal for illustrating this. — raekyt 06:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I largely agree with Raeky: the crop is awkward; you don't generally see crops at knee level; the convention is generally to put the bottom either from about shoulder height to a little below the waist (when you want to get in the bottom of a jacket or the like), or to show the full person. I don't really mind the side view, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Cat-fivetc ---- 05:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2012 at 10:16:31 (UTC)

Reason

Impressive, high quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Derweze, Door to Hell

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena

Creator

Tormod Sandtorv

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. In spite of some technical defficiencies (unsharp, blown highlights in the flames), this is an amazing sight. As the image description says, it's bigger than it looks... The other image in the article shows just how big it really is. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: agree with Diliff, and could now be developed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 21:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Saw a documentary on this site a few years back - it's an amazing spectacle... This picture does it justice, and is more than eye catching... gazhiley 10:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes, please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support To me it looks as big as it shows in Google Maps (roughly size of two basketball court if I'm right). Person on the left helps giving scale. But impressive despite all the flaws listed by Diliff. Caption could be improved ("It's bigger than it looks" isn't very encyclopedic ;) ). - Blieusong (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I updated the description of the image (just using article material) and added my estimation of the field of view (which I believe to be fairly accurate based on own experience and map). - Blieusong (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wouldn't say it's an amazing angle but good enough picture and high EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Darvasa gas crater panorama.jpg --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2012 at 23:32:19 (UTC)

File:Dwind-hatpic.jpg

Reason

Highly artistic shot that is eye-catching, convays information about the artist's persona, and is framed with clarity, appropriate dimentions and ambient levels to a superb effect.

Articles in which this image appears

Dandi Wind

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures#People

Creator

FrozenFear

• Support as nominator --Robo37 (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The source is dead, meaning the licensing is hard to verify. Who precisely am I looking at here? The article says that the band had two members. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image with info can be found at http://www.redthreat.us/2008/05/02/kickoff/. It is the picture of the lead singer by the same name (Dandilion Wind Opaine is her full name). Although there are other members of the band she's the frontman and is shown on her own on the album covers and music videos and also performs front stage live. Robo37 (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That link doesn't provide any information about the copyright or license of the image... I think commons:COM:OTRS is probably in order for this image. — raekyt 05:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended to allow copyright verification. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, http://web.archive.org/web/20110708223818/http://www.dandiwind.com/images/press.htm doesn't really indicate the license is so broad as indicated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File was speedily deleted on Commons as copyright violation. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2012 at 11:05:42 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, good quality, impressive photo

Articles in which this image appears

Tony Estanguet, Whitewater slalom, Canoeing at the 2012 Summer Olympics

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Pavel.rycl

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful action shot. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Agree, great action shot, and good detail. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice action shot, strong EV. Spencer^T♦C 08:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Tomcat (7) 14:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, stunning. It seems the photographer created an account just to upload this picture. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent quality photo with high EV. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent. Colin°^Talk 09:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support strong EV. Alborzagros (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very strong photograph, good EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tony Estanguet.jpg --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2012 at 11:50:10 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Donkey

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Lilly M

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Focus looks a little soft around the ears but that may be just the hair, otherwise looks like a decent image and it looks like does a good job of capturing the subject. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Tomcat (7) 18:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC
• Support good quality Ashkan P. (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last support came in after the voting period ended. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's always been ignored. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2012 at 10:10:37 (UTC)

Reason

It is of a high technical quality. Good contrast, sharp, accurate exposure. Good composition with no distractions. It is a unique image as it is extremely difficult to take a picture of this personality. In fact, there are no recent pictures of him that come close to this quality, copyrighted or otherwise. It is the best picture of Ali Sistani on the web or in print. Period.

Articles in which this image appears

Ali al-Sistani

FP category for this image

Muslim scholars

Creator

isakazimi

• Support as nominator --hasin 10:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Excellent quality. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I Oppose the alternative - awkward cutout, particularly around the beard. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Have to disagree, the wrinkled white bed sheet as a background and very bland dull lighting does not make this a good portrait. That combined with the sinister stare he's giving... not my opinion of a FP quality image. It also doesn't meet our minimum size requirements on any axis, so Speedy Close. — raekyt 05:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think you can speedy close when a nomination has already received a support other than the nominator's -Muhammad(talk) 12:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 1 Uploaded I have tried to fix the background and given a shadows adjustment --Muhammad(talk) 12:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Low res according to the requirements but when we raised the limit, we had mentioned that exceptions could be made for rare/historical images. --Muhammad(talk) 12:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is a modern photo of a living person, why should this meet that exception on size? Explain... — raekyt 18:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exceptions can be made for rare photos. This is the best quality photo I have seen on the internet or otherwise. Since he is very well protected, under normal circumstances, photographers would not even be allowed near him with a camera. --Muhammad(talk) 18:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • just as in wp:nfc a living person can't be used as an exception since we could get better, the clause was intended for things like File:Pale Blue Dot.png which clearly we can't get a higher resolution version of. — raekyt 19:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suggest you take a look at the discussion where several people who supported mentioned exceptions could be made for difficult images. The current criteria mention Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed. This clearly meets the criteria --Muhammad(talk) 00:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm aware of what was discussed, what I meant, I thought I said, was if he's alive it's not impossible. — raekyt 00:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm of the opinion that it is, due to his seclusion, security and lack of any public appearances. --Muhammad(talk) 06:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Raeky: I think the wrinkled bed sheet gives the photo character as it displays the reality of his simple life in the suburbs of Najaf. The lighting in my opinion is realistic. If you think creative lighting makes for a good people encyclopedic photo, i beg to differ. I feel, the more realistic the lighting, the more encyclopedic, at least for people. Landscapes/effects are better-of with creative lighting. As far as the size is concerned, anyone here who has ever printed digital photos would know that in a A4 size print, a photo with 1500 px dimension would look no different from a picture with a 1000 px width. Do also note that a better picture is currently practically impossible. If you feel this cannot be the case, try to appeal to the larger wikipedia community for one. Hence, just because of the size, it would be cruel not to feature this very rare photo. If you wish to understand why I call this a rare photo, have a look at [[2]] and see how many of them even have a photo available, let alone, one of this quality. As to 'sinister stare', i believe thats your subjective opinion and cannot be a base for opposing.41.79.68.1 (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Looks like a passport photograph. The eyes aren't in focus and the sheeting material behind him is distracting. The edit alt is poor in terms of the cutout and the lifting the shadows was undesirable: it makes his black cloak grey. For the record, I agree with Muhammad wrt an exception to the size criterion: just because something is theoretically possible, doesn't make it a realistic possibility. Colin°^Talk 09:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your basis of assuming it is a passport photograph? And if it is, why is that a reason for opposing? I think the eyes are in focus. In my opinion the eyes make the photo look alive, and is one of the strongest aspect of this photo.41.79.68.1 (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be aware on FPC's policy on anonymous IP editors for nomination pages... You may want to use an account, since this is your first edit on wikipedia it make's your involvement here a bit suspicious, or did you just forget to login? The reason is clearly stated, it looks like a passport photograph. Take a look at other featured picture portraits, they all have FAR better quality and interest than this photograph. Sure he may be hard to photograph, maybe near impossible to photograph, he's still alive so it's still POSSIBLE. I really can't see the case that a living person is so infinitesimally hard to photograph that we have to make exceptions like this, not only is it too small per our standards, it's just very poor snapshotty quality. — raekyt 01:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I disagree with the IP's opinion I strongly support its right to comment here. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low lighting on both, the original has a horrible background and the edit has the previously mentioned cutout issues. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I feel this picture is of very high EV simply because none other is available or will be available unless the political situation changes drastically in Iraq. As far as EV goes there are very high chances that this is the best picture that will be available of this personality. hasin 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2012 at 10:48:25 (UTC)

Reason

Historic image, of very good quality. This nomination is after King of Hearts' nomination in Commons, making it FP there.

Articles in which this image appears

Eastman Kodak, History of New York

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Detroit Publishing Company (Uploaded by UpstateNYer)

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very impressive... and not just sharpness, but how it is obviously a well thought shot (framing, perspective lines, leveling, lighting). - Blieusong (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Would benefit from light restoration; at the very least, the in-image caption should be removed. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I'd probably leave the caption in. Or at least give the option to leave it in. I might have a go. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support: good EV. I'm with Milburn on the caption; I just don't think the factors are big enough to swing this to an oppose. We're using this image for its subject, not as an image itself; for that reason, the caption is (a bit) distracting to the scene. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I have to agree on the caption, it detracts from the EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2012 at 09:13:23 (UTC)

Reason

It shows an interesting part of U.S. History that has been all but forgotten.

Articles in which this image appears

• African Americans in the United States Congress
• List of African-American Republicans
• History of the United States Republican Party
• List of African-American officeholders during the Reconstruction

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/USA_History seems the best target.

Creator

Currier and Ives, restoration Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very historic, it's in good detail for pencil a lithograph, I don't mind featuring this nor putting my name on it. ---Saw1998 (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, it's a lithograph. Lithographs create shading by a semi-random process of etching stone with acid: the longer acid is on the stone, the more and deeper pits form. When you're done etching it, the pits hold ink, which can be transferred to paper. The efffect does look a little like pencil sketching, but pencil sketching gets that look from paper grain, whereas lithographs come down to the grain of the rock. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake. ---Saw1998 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support So long as the license on File:First colored senator and reps.png matches the license on this image (i.e. getting rid of the share-alike clause), and and probably a PNG of this restoration version (looks like paper was whitened more) is uploaded over the linked image and proper links in the images to indicate the PNG->JPEG versions. Coming out of retirement? — raekyt 05:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat. Anyway, the PNG is fixed. Well, insofar as it can be fixed when Wikipedia can make TIFF support from scratch, but can't make the most popular lossless format work for large sizes, despite apparently having had working fixes for some time. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - why have you retitled this for the nomination? Yomangani^talk 00:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's Senates outside of the United States. While it's obvious in context that it's referring to the United States, for FPC, it's helpful to internationalise it a little, to give context.Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's what you were after, the subtitle makes it clear. Using the British English spelling of "colour" isn't appropriate for this image. Yomangani^talk 01:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm British. It's how I spell things. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: clear EV, seems as good a representation as any. Why the fuss over the name of the nomination? It's just to give an idea of the subject matter. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:First Colored Senator and Representatives.jpg --Julia\^talk 19:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 08:39:20 (UTC)

• 
  The Garden at Somersby Rectory
• 
  Mariana
• 
  The Deserted House
• 
  The Lady of Shalott
• 
  Œnone
• 
  The Lotos-Eaters
• 
  St. Simeon Stylites
• 
  Sleeping Beauty
• 
  Sir Galahad
• 
  Break, Break, Break

Reason

A complete set of images for an interesting artist in the Arts and Crafts movement, and a set of notable poems.

Articles in which this image appears

All: William Edward Frank Britten; Individuals: As linked in gallery (above), also: The Garden at Somersby Rectory is used in Alfred, Lord Tennyson, and note Sleeping Beauty's link redirects to The Day-Dream, the title of the expanded version of the poem. There's a few other uses as well, for instance, the Mariana illustration is used in Measure for Measure, and Sleeping Beauty is used in the fairy-tale's page, Sleeping Beauty.

Notes

Due to need for consistency in a much larger set, the current FP, File:W.E.F. Britten - Alfred, Lord Tennyson - St. Simeon Stylites.jpg - is no longer used (well, not much). Also, there's minor duplication between illustrative images in William Britten - this is in order to have the gallery in book order, without gaps, while still having an example of his works.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations

Creator

W. E. F. Britten, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per nom and good digitalization. I just wonder whether this is a charcoal. Brandmeister^talk 19:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they're photogravures, but that's basically a photographic reproduction technique that can be used on anything you can photograph. Either charcoal or graphite sticks would be my guess for the original art being photographed, which works really well with the reproduction method. -Adam.
• Support - Great restoration and digitalisation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment PNG versions, could you upload PNG versions for a lossless version if someone else wants to use or edit them? Are the original versions uploaded too? — raekyt 06:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be PNG versions linked for all, I'm not really sure why you think there aren't. Did I miss one? I have the originals, but uploading these was a hideous 12-hour process; so I skipped it. I'll start that now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. The original scans are all uploaded, and are linked, although a few of the uploads turned out to have been done years ago to a bad filename, or I typo'd the name while uploading, so there's a few redlinks until after the requested file moves happen. But everything should be there. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support then. — raekyt 22:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Technical oppose: e.g. File:W.E.F. Britten - The Early Poems of Alfred, Lord Tennyson - The Lady of Shalott.jpg doesn't have a us rationale. PD-1923 would suffice, I think (haven't looked through them all). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, fuck me. Why do they have a tag if you have to have a second tag as well? That's incredibly stupid and annoying, and means editing 30+ pages. >=/ Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my oppose accordingly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Okay, fixed. But I swear: Between the Upload Wizard and its stupidities, uploading another 22 files just to document this, 10 at the request of someone on here, I have literally spent about 18 hours just trying to give these to Wikipedia. Surely there has to be a better way? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, sorry if I'm a little annoyed (althoguh I'm actually laughing a bit as well) but this has literally taken about 18 hours to deal with all of this, and at least half of that is down to problems with the upload interface and templates over at Commons. Hopefully, that finishes the work on this set. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good restoration, solid ev. Spencer^T♦C 08:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Chick Bowen 18:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:W.E.F. Britten - The Early Poems of Alfred, Lord Tennyson - The Lady of Shalott.jpg --Julia\^talk 19:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And the other nine images in the set. Julia\^talk 21:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 06:51:51 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good composition

Articles in which this image appears

Tasman Lake

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Avenue

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A very impressive view and the tour boats are tiny! The sky has some evenness problems and a bit of rough patching in the top-right. It would be nice if that could be fixed but I'm prepared to overlook that considering the scene. Colin°^Talk 20:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now (but thanks for the nomination). Besides the problems with the sky, I'm not convinced by its EV in the Tasman Lake article. It is not integrated with the text of the article, which seems either over-illustrated or too short. --Avenue (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Weak EV and artificial looking sky. Even assuming good faith that it is the natural color, a straight up gradient sky doesn't look good. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per comments about EV of this photo, and I agree with the criticism of the upper right. File:Lake Tasman and Mount Cook 101 5770.jpg has stronger EV although its technical quality is also lacking. If someone can get a better quality photo from the angle of File:Lake Tasman and Mount Cook 101 5770.jpg then I think we would have a stronger case for encyclopedic value and FP promotion. --Pine^✉ 10:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 09:11:29 (UTC)

Reason

A fine bit of on-the-spot reporting, by a notable artist. Only historical image for the Green-Meldrim House article, which seems valuable.

By the way, the weird title is because that's what it's called in Waud's notes on it:

Articles in which this image appears

• William Waud
• Green-Meldrim House
• Could probably be used in others.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/USA_History

Creator

William Waud, restoration by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor comment - it isn't called that in his notes - the placement of "Savannah Ga" into that position in the title seems to been sloppy work by the LoC, as does the full stop after "Chas" (if they wanted to use up their excess full stops it would be better to place one after "Gen" where it would belong). Yomangani^talk 00:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there's a ^ pointing at the Savannah, Ga. It's a common way to add text that you haven't left space for. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: sorry Adam, I'm unconvinced on this one. It's just that the illustration isn't particularly enlightening. Essentially for the image isn't exciting/doesn't draw the reader in as an image. So this puts more of a focus on EV, though, of course, "signficiant contribution" would be required anyway. So looking at what the image shows, if I was asked to describe it, it just looks like a room with a tiled floor and some fairly large pot plants. So I'm not sure what else the reader is supposed to "take away" from the image to aid his or her understanding of the topic. I think it has more potential at William Waud, since the CIvil War was his standout topic, but the article is currently bit underdeveloped - and the contribution of the image not discussed particularly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Essentially per Grandiose, nothing particularly spectactular which is what's needed for something of this type. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's the only historical image we have, or are likely to get, of the Green-Meldrim House. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • you sure? — raekyt 16:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, post-1933 is technically historic, but not relevant to the historic events at the house. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 07:08:40 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, high quality, impressive

Articles in which this image appears

John Day Formation

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Finetooth

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Top left is not optimal, and this could have been taken at a better time of day. But wow, I've never seen a place like this before. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning landscape, certainly eye-catching. Brandmeister^talk 17:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I like the colors on this and the EV is good, but I see something that looks like a strange blurry outline directly above the rock formations near the top of the photo. Is that a compression artifact? --Pine^✉ 00:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might just be heat haze or the like. Optics can be weird. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• At full resolution I see a dark horizontal band across the entire sky. Perfectly straight and not natural. Rmhermen (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see what you mean... Could you describe it in more detail, or provide an enhanced image that shows it up better? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Top far left is totally blown out and just to the right of that is a greenish spot that looks like either a compression artifact or some sort of reflection, in either case it's distracting but only really noticeable if you're looking closely at that section of the image. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support while this photo could be better technically I think it's good enough for now. We can do a D&R later if we get something better. The photo's subject is impressive. --Pine^✉ 09:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fails size criterion. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the short side it is only about 1000 high, but on the long side it is about 3800 wide and I view this as an acceptable tradeoff. --Pine^✉ 00:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:East face painted hills panorama.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Um...what? This doesn't meet the criteria. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were other pictures as well which didn't meet the criteria but passed. Tomer T (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 08:00:50 (UTC)

Reason

Very fascinating panorama with very high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Ambleside

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The uncertain clouds create patches of light and dark in the images, adding dimension to the landscape. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very detailed and well composed. Colin°^Talk 11:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I didn't check every inch of this image for defects but in my random checks it looks good. Size is great and EV is adequate. --Pine^✉ 00:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This one was on my list to nominate at some point anyway. As for defects, I think it's pretty clean. I haven't seen any. I took the photo on a tripod so any parallax problems should be minimised by this. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Big wow (composition and light) and mostly certain it comes with EV. Would probably serve the article well to move this picture up a little. - Blieusong (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Makes me want to revisit my old haunts =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I know we're supposed to give coherent reasons for our vote but just wow, that's my reasoning. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ambleside & Waterhead Panorama 2, Cumbria, England - Oct 2009.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 08:03:26 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Loughrigg Tarn, Loughrigg Fell

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not bad overall, but the top left seems a little hazy to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice angle and good size. I agree with KOH that this could be clearer but I think this is good enough for now. We can do a D&R later if we get something better. --Pine^✉ 00:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Surprised by the nomination as it's one of the smaller ponds in the Lake District, but I suppose it's as valid as any other subject. As for the haze, it should be fairly trivial to adjust the black level to reduce it and I'll try to do that tonight, but haze is a natural phenomenon and I don't think it's realistic to expect every landscape to be crystal clear, devoid of any shadows etc. They still need to be presented realistically. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Woww, that takes me back. I lived in Dunnerdale a while, and hiked to Ambleside a few times. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Despite the hazy corner it's overall a high quality image. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support to make Cat-five's weak support count for something. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Loughrigg Tarn - Oct 2009.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 20:10:12 (UTC)

Click to view – An exotic dancer demonstrating a lap dance

Reason

A beautiful photograph with high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

lap dance

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Wallanon

• Support as nominator --PseudoChron (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Way under our usual size requirements, bearing in mind it isn't a historical photograph. Also I have some concerns that, particularly for FPs, there might be some non-copyright protection here about privacy. Not my area of expertise. Having said that, the size issue is really significant. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: too small, poorly lit, her feet are cut off which is a big problem because her shoes are probably part of her costume. If the intent here is shock value, note that shocking is quite compatible with artistic quality; see the FP Indecency. Chick Bowen 23:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Chick Bowen Mediran ^{talk to me!} 03:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Muhammad Mahdi Karim has hidden the image, saying that "FPC should be SFW [safe for work]". Is that the case? I have to say I see no reason why it should be different to other parts of the encyclopedia. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter. This is not the image about which to have that debate. This nomination should be speedily closed anyway. Chick Bowen 23:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, he's correct. Refer to WP:UNCENSORED. If you choose to view a potentially unsafe article that's your business and he's not arguing the article should be censored or the image deleted, or that is unfeatureable due to its nature. It's just that it shouldn't be splashed around common areas of the encyclopaedia like this where people are not expecting to view potentially offensive material, much as it wouldn't be placed on the mainpage. Thus it is a valid nomination, but it is appropriate to hide it to allow users the option of whether to view it or not depending on their circumstances and sensibilities. --jjron (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted [Speedy close: this nomination has no chance of promotion, due to being far under size requirements.] --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 17:36:00 (UTC)

Reason

Reopening this nomination, after the close-promotion last time

Articles in which this image appears

Donkey

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Lilly M

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as last time--Tomcat (7) 17:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That we can't handle this sensibly, and have to renominate, is a total waste of everyone's time, as this should have been promoted already. When there isn't a single oppose, and 5 supports, it should be promoted, end of sentence. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on principle, and would support speedy promotion, in agreement with Adam above. The only reason to be draconian about the end-date is if someone seems to be deliberately trying to game it somehow, which is hardly the case with a unanimous nomination like that one. Chick Bowen 23:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As above. This should have just gone through. Voting count nonsense aside, it's also clearly a worthwhile entry. -- Cooper ⁴²_{(Talk)(Contr)} 01:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --@krishna (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Equus asinus Kadzidłowo 001.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy promote. Passed previous nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion here regarding this issue. --jjron (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2012 at 15:03:29 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, good lighting, sharpness and composition

Articles in which this image appears

Conopholis americana

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others

Creator

Dan Molter (shroomydan), Mushroom Observer

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Hmm, not sure that I like the composition, as it's clearly taken at an angle (trees in the background provide vertical reference). I think I'd have preferred that the photo show the true angle that the plant is growing at. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In addition to what Diliff said, the crop is a little close for me. J Milburn (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Both the immediate an far background is incredibly busy with the leaves and the green which is only accentuated by the close crop. The up/down perspective doesn't help either in my opinion. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 19:41:50 (UTC)

Reason

Historic picture, high EV, good scan and eye-catching

Articles in which this image appears

The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry, History of agriculture in the United States, History of the United States (1865–1918)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Strobridge & Co. Lith.

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 19:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support What a lovely image, and well-restored. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great resolution. Made me look more into it. ComputerJA (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• support looks solid.©Geni 09:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Almost seems unnecessary but good quality, high EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Much EV. Alborzagros (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gift for the grangers ppmsca02956u.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 21:04:24 (UTC)

Reason

The photo illustrates the beaching of a wooden fishing ship built in 1935 at the Danish fishing village Vorupør at the West coast of Denmark. One of the few places in Denmark, where boats are still beached. The village is situated in Thy Nationalpark, with its characteristic sand dunes shown in the background. The dark clouds and light are representative of November conditions in the area. An attempt has been made to capture the light in a manner reminiscent of the style used by the Skagen Painters.

Articles in which this image appears

Vorupør, Thy (district)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Vehicles/Water

Creator

Slaunger

• Abstain as nominator --Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. A great picture of course, though I find EV a little on the low side. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I follow it as far as the photo adresses several topics, beaching, Vorupør, Thy district, and Thy national park. Of these beaching is probably the topic with the most EV? The photo was originally used in beaching (nautical), which had no illustrations, but I replaced it a few days ago with another photo from the same series of photos, showing two beached ships and with an angle of view showing more of the littoral environment. Maybe that photo has a little more EV and focuses more on a specific topic, giving a clearer message. Is that a better candidate? --Slaunger (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cumulative EV is strong. Picture is great. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fair EV, well taken photo. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose EV is low my opinion. The photo would have better EV in the article beaching. The other photo in the Nørre Vorupør article has better EV although technically it has more problems so I would oppose that also. --Pine^✉ 10:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2012 at 10:03:58 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, good sharpness and light, interesting composition with the boats

Articles in which this image appears

Lange Nelle Lighthouse

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

MJJR

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Busy foreground, a few visual issues such as blown highlights on the boat (unavoidable I know but still distracting) and what appears to be soft focus towards the very top of the lighthouse. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: A good photo, but just not good enough of a camera. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, isn't this a D90? I'd think that would be adequate, although I agree that there are a couple blown highlights/focus issues. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2012 at 10:08:59 (UTC)

Reason

Very nice light, good EV, quality and composition

Articles in which this image appears

Spitzkoppe

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Ikiwaner

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The dark sections on the right and especially on the left ruin it for me. The one on the right could probably be compensated for in Photoshop (although that might be a controversial modification of the original) but the one on the left is just so dark. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. You're not going to get better lighting than at sunrise/sunset for rock formations like this. I don't mind the shadows that much. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose we already have an FP in this article and there are several photos in the article. The technical quality seems decent but not great. Overall I'm not convinced that this is worthy of FP. --Pine^✉ 10:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2012 at 17:58:41 (UTC)

Reason

Taking this picture in wild terrain has meant eight days of walking through different environments cruise at high altitudes.

Articles in which this image appears

Charolais cattle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

--Wilfredor

• Support as nominator --Wilfredor (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support illustrative and eye catching. Tomer T (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Excellent quality, but that plant is kind of distracting. Dusty777 01:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is indeed a wild (i.e. feral) bull, I wish there were something in the article about a wild population. Chick Bowen 22:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is a great picture but I think the EV is poor. According to the article they are large muscled beef cows that are almost pure white. So I think this and this are better pictures in that regard. -- Colin°^Talk 16:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2012 at 15:04:56 (UTC)

Reason

Great looking, high resolution shot that honors the military nicely. It also has public domain rights.

Articles in which this image appears

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=United_States_Marine_Corps

FP category for this image

Military

Creator

Catie Drew

• Support as nominator --Staypuftman (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful Oppose I love the memorial, but the angle isn't that great (a head on view would be better), there is quite a bit of noise throughout the picture, and the flash lighting isn't as appealing as sunlight. Dusty777 16:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This was considered before at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/USMC War Memorial. Note the various other edits introduced during that process. Chick Bowen 17:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, and suggest speedy close There seemed to be a strong consensus to not promote this image last time, and it still suffers from unfixable problems with composition (the base being cut off) and lighting. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't object to a speedy close, given that the image was pretty well discussed last time, including adjustments that could be made through editing. Having looked through the various images, I find most of them suffer from the sculpture's height, which causes an exaggerated perspective and a lot of sky. The best approach is probably this one, from further back, though that is obviously too small. I haven't been there since I was a small child and am basing this on the photographs, but I get the sense there's a bit of a rise on the other side of the grassy area they use for military reviews. A photo from up there, with a longer lens, would work pretty well. This is a much-visited site, so I'd think we could get a decent picture at some point. Chick Bowen 22:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (Speedy closed) --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2012 at 13:28:43 (UTC)

Reason

A high quality portrait of a notable political figure

Articles in which this image appears

Roza Otunbayeva, President of Kyrgyzstan, List of elected or appointed female heads of state

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Political

Creator

Smakaroff

• Support as nominator --V_oBEDD 13:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to be blatant copyright violation from http://www.roza.kg It's the main image used on that website, there's many image galleries on it, and press releases. VERY unlikely the uploader is the photographer. Nominating it for speedy deletion. — raekyt 17:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyvio — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 18:45:22 (UTC)

Reason

I believe that this image meets the FP criteria and should become featured.

Articles in which this image appears

Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres (more than seven days), Usain Bolt

FP category for this image

People

Creator

Nick Webb

• Support as nominator --Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sad to cut off the feet and legs of someone who makes his living by them. Chick Bowen 23:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose. He's not sprinting. Spikebrennan (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per EV issues cited above. --Pine^✉ 09:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is this a warmup routine or a victory celebration? 75.41.109.190 (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Victory celebration, see "... Bolt after the ..." Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose. I agree with Spikebrennan. --@ツ KrIshnA^Talk2me 11:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for reasons above. Also, as far as I could determine from all discussions prior to the Olympics, we're not actually allowed to use any photos taken within the Olympic venues as per the ticket's 'conditions of entry' because the licence implies the ability to use the photos commercially, which LOCOG prohibits. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2012/August#Licences_on_Olympic_images. Rmhermen (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that discussion invalidates what I was saying above. Just because we could (in theory) use the image without breaking the terms of the CC-BY-SA license, it doesn't mean we couldn't be sued for using the image. I see this analogy as appropriate: If someone steals a bike and sell it to you, you're still liable as you're purchased stolen goods. Likewise, if we use an image that was distributed illegally by someone, we are potentially still implicated. Even if this isn't the case and we're not liable, I don't think we should happily re-use the images knowing that they are being distributed 'illegally'. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We've long accepted photos taken in museums with similar restrictions. Why should the Olympics be any different? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure.. have we? Usually museums have restrictions on photography using tripods (which they claim is a health and safety issue but which seems to target those who want to take professional quality images). Hmm, well I've looked at a few of the major British Museums' policies and indeed some of them do specifically prohibit commercial photography, and others simply ask for notification in advance. So I wonder on what basis (legal or otherwise) we accept images under licences which are at odds with the museum policies. Is it, as per above, a case where we can't be held responsible for breaches of the law that contributors make? Sounds morally ambiguous to me, even though I'm sympathetic to notion of the collections being fully available to the public. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This isn't even Bolt's signature celebration move (this is). Spencer^T♦C 03:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo shows the beginning of the move, but yes, not the pose. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't want to pile on so I won't frame this as an oppose but the above EV consideration of whether a featured picture of a runner has to show him running aside, I can't help but makes me think that the full potential of a picture of him is not being utilized, he's been cut off at the knees, both literally and idiomatically. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 18:14:20 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Felucca

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water

Creator

MJJR

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a tough subject given all the sky and water in the image, but I feel it's a little underexposed. Chick Bowen 23:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose having the sun directly overhead, or shooting this from a different angle, might give better lighting and EV. --Pine^✉ 09:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on the EV point? I think we can see all the details, or at least all the major details, of the ship. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think an angle from above or more to the side of the ship would give a better view of the features of the ship and its proportions. --Pine^✉ 00:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support I like it, but it's not really wowing me technically or compositionally. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose This is a good quality photo with solid EV, but I agree that a more side-on angle would have been much superior and the exposure does seem a bit off. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - having considered this, I think the view would be improved by being from the side, but not by much. I'm not sure about "much" superior, but a bit. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The slight underexposure is not a big issue, the angle of the boat is a bigger but not huge issue, both together make me have to oppose this. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 15:42:29 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Starý most (Bratislava)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

MJJR

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose good angle but focus should be better for an FP. --Pine^✉ 09:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I might argue that the focus is a little off only at the leftmost part, and that's not the important part in the picture. Tomer T (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The right part of the bridge is cut off, although it reaches the shore. Generally not a visually appealing bridge for me. Brandmeister^talk 13:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the above mentioned focus issues and agreeing that even though you have to pick a point somewhere to have the edge of frame and that's going to cut out part of the bridge, the composition looks unappealing on the right side because of where it was cut off. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 10:39:56 (UTC)

Reason

I'm nominating this as an image showing the atmosphere and the range of social and sporting activity at a small rowing club: it's not to show boats or boat houses which are well represented on Wikimedia, and the rowing club itself is not noteworthy. This is chosen from many shots because it shows so many different things happening, like those Victorian conversation piece paintings, as well as a decent stretch of the water to give an idea of the setting. I'm a bit worried about the lighting, bright sunshine and deep shadows, but I guess I'll soon find out what people think about that - I prefer it not manipulated to lighten the shadows, although that would make the detail clearer.

Articles in which this image appears

Rowing club, Rowing (sport)

FP category for this image

Sport

Creator

User:ProfDEH

• Support as nominator --ProfDEH (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The atmosphere of the image is nice, and I think that the lighting etc is fine, however I think the composition is too tight on the bottom, left and right. In other words, too many things feel chopped off. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with JJ Harrison - I would like to see a wider shot... gazhiley 08:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have to agree with the above, a busy shot is fine but the framing looks off. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 15:39:04 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Tallinn

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Poco a poco

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - I feel really drawn in. I'm not an expert on identifying perspective problems, for example, but the technicals seem good. It's well framed and from a nice angle, in my opinion. Pity about the scaffolding though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Scaffolding happens. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support another photo from Poco a poco with good technical and EV quality. Pine^✉ 09:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support even if there is the scaffold.--Tomcat (7) 10:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good enough, people contribute to scale. Brandmeister^talk 13:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The scaffolding is a negative. Colin°^Talk 16:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Catedral de Alejandro Nevsky, Tallin, Estonia, 2012-08-11, DD 46.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 03:05:29 (UTC)

Reason

Already been a Valued image in Commons. Good image quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Cinderella Castle, Magic Kingdom

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Katie Rommel-Esham

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk to me!} 03:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I checked commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States, as a copyright check, and we're fine. Nice photo, not perfect (it's a teensy bit out of focus), but good. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nice colors but has too many problems with focus to be a featured picture. --Pine^✉ 09:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Partly as per Pine, but mainly as each spire is leaning towards the centre rather than verticle. Most noticible with the tallest spire which looks like one strong gust of wind and it'll fall off... gazhiley 13:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the article, 'An optical trick known as forced perspective makes the Castle appear even larger than it actually is. As it becomes taller, its proportions get smaller. For example, using this method, the top spire of the Castle is actually close to half of the size it "appears." ' Not sure if the mentioned leaning is actually part of the architectural design, and how perspective should be presented in such a case. --125.25.5.90 (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even though there don't seem to be any in the article, I have to imagine that a better photograph of this is possible. That's not to say that this is bad but for something like the Cinderella Castle that is probably photographed a million times a year, the bar should be incredibly high and this just doesn't meet it. Cat-fivetc ---- 12:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 22:30:08 (UTC)

Original sketch of the Burning of McPhersonville, South Carolina by William Waud, left, and as printed in Harper's Weekly, March 4, 1865, right.

Reason

A fine example of William Waud's work, and a (surprisingly rare) chance to see the full course, from initial sketch to final publication

Articles in which this image appears

Both are used in William Waud. The final state is additionally used in Carolinas Campaign and McPhersonville, South Carolina.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/USA_History

Creator

William Waud, restoration by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: in a set, my understanding is that one image is usually treated as primary (for example, only one image ends up in POTD). In this case that would also make it easier to judge. Are we interested in the engraving and the process that led up to it, or the sketch and its afterlife? Chick Bowen 23:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's usually decided by Howcheng, I think. The engraving is used in more locations, though whether this is justified could, perhaps, be argued. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as example of Waud's process, in which case it seems to me that the sketch is primary. Chick Bowen 03:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, it's probably a small enough set that both can be shown. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support final version only, which seems more visually appealing. While I love drawing, the promotion of final image and sketch is rather non-standard, the existing link to the sketch in the file description would suffice IMO. Brandmeister^talk 13:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good to have sets that show artist's processes... — raekyt 06:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support set. -- Colin°^Talk 16:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If we're going to support this Disco Inferno then the finished product should be the primary in my opinion. Cat-fivetc ---- 12:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:William Waud - Burning of McPhersonville 1865 - original sketch.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:William Waud - Burning of McPhersonville 1865 - final Harper's Weekly version.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 22:58:29 (UTC)

Reason

Beautiful close-up photo of a cello that's already featured on Commons, German Wikipedia, and Turkish Wikipedia

Articles in which this image appears

Cello and in many articles about musicians in Template:Cellist-stub

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other unless someone can think of a better category

Creator

MichaelMaggs

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 22:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is an excellent photo, very well composed, and decidedly eye-catching. However, I'm not sure if it adds any actual encyclopedic value: It doesn't show the whole instrument, it doesn't show the bow from an angle that'd demonstrate technique, and the things that make it artistic maybe make it more useful in every website but this one. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this close-up photo adds EV to the article since the other photos in the article lack this level of detail, and the Featured Picture Criteria include the statement that the photo "illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". I agree that a photo that showed the whole instrument would have stronger EV. In this case I think the photo does an excellent job at "making the viewer want to know more" which is also among the FP criteria. --Pine^✉ 05:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just passing by and noticed this. Beautiful. Tony (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support a bit low EV to my taste (agree with Adam), but indeed very beautiful and engaging. Also, Pine has a point. Tomer T (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A picture of the whole instrument would be better. This doesn't contribute any major EV... An awesome picture, but not really for Wikipedia. Dusty777 01:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Great photograph, I'd vote for it in an instant on commons, but the EV is severely lacking because it's only a partial shot. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2012 at 15:20:41 (UTC)

Reason

Fairly interesting pose, good enough quality for its age. Notable person, interesting costume

Articles in which this image appears

John Surratt +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Mathew Brady or Levin Handy, restored by JBarta and Crisco 1492.

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate to say it, but I really don't like how the irestoration was recropped very tightly from the original. Reluctant oppose, but I will say this: Other than that, the restoration looks great. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I prefer the current crop over the original but agree that something not as tight would be better. If I get to a computer with decent internet access I'll try and save some of the extra room. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Adam; a Brady photo should be represented according to Brady's intentions unless damage makes it impossible to do so. Chick Bowen 03:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the original, the bottom and left sides are damaged (possibly beyond repair). There will have to be some cropping. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Trust me, that's not beyond repair; most of the damage is on a blank wall, and the rest is just small patches on a rug pattern complicated enough to not need full precision for the small bits missing. It takes a little practice with the clone stamp tool, but it's a good skill to have, as some of these images have much more complicated damage, such as damage to clothing or even the face. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm only about a third of the way through (didn't bring a flash drive to work on this at home). Still a work in progress — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Unindent] Looking pretty good so far! Two bits of advice, though: Don't save it as an interlaced JPEG, and work in lossless formats as much as possible while editing. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sadly, limited by the system (and the fact that it's not my computer, so I have to save my work in progress on Commons). Thanks, it might take a while though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I have to agree on the crop, it doesn't work with such a tight crop. Disregard this if if an edit is posted with a looser crop. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted per User_talk:Crisco_1492#Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates.2FJohn_Surratt. The new version will be renominated shortly. --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 10:57:25 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Dresden Frauenkirche

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Christian Prade

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too dark for my liking - very difficult to see much detail due to lack of light. For example I can see there is a statue just in front of the building (r of centre) but no chance of seeing what it is... gazhiley 08:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support: While Gazhiley has a point, not every image has to show every detail, and, for example, one can easily identify the statue from, say, File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-60015-0002,_Dresden,_Denkmal_Martin_Luther,_Frauenkirche,_Ruine.jpg, also in the article. However, the sky is rather noisy and blocky, which should be relatively easy to mitigate by selectively editing the sky alone, possibly with a slight gaussian blur. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose strange semi-transparent people and people missing their heads near the bottom of the photo. These kinds of errors can be fixed. --Pine^✉ 04:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per gazhily: the darkness prevents the detail in the building from being easily visible. Spencer^T♦C 02:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The photograph is of the church, not the square and not the people in it. I have to admit that the bottom left corner with it's huge amount of lights is distracting when the rest of the image is so dark but the building is clear and even on the dark background I can make out detail on it so I think the incredibly high EV makes up for any composition issues. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 11:05:00 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Yak, Lists of mammals by population

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

travelwayoflife

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As soon as I saw this, I just had to support it. Don't ask why. Dusty777 16:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Simple, effective, easy support... Certainly no need to "yak" on about reasons to support... ;-) gazhiley 13:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I'd prefer a photo with less bokeh since parts of the animal's fur aren't sharp, but this is good enough. --Pine^✉ 04:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. — raekyt 05:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Though the composition is good, most of the animal except its head is out of focus. On technical grounds, I don't think this can be called one of the best of works in wikipedia. Yaks aren't all that uncommon that we can't manage a well shot, sharply focused picture of it. - DSachan (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support While DSachan is right, I think that this photo is difficult enough to get location-wise that it excuses minor technical issues. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Adam's response to DSachan's criticism. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bos grunniens at Letdar on Annapurna Circuit.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Portraet-af-Fath-Ali-Shah-Qajar.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 20:05:45 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, High technical quality, Excellent image size, facial features, excellent color, well-framed

Articles in which this image appears

Zanzibar red colobus, John Kirk (explorer), Zanzibar

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

hasin

• Support as nominator --hasin 20:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I like this, but I think the EV would be much better if we could see the bottom half of the animal. I don't suppose you have a picture with that available? JJ Harrison (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree EV may be better for a photo which could have the full animal (Afraid I don't have one at the moment). However, in such a photo, the focus would drastically move away from the facial features and the expression which compels the audience to want to know more. hasin 13:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support full EV and high quality.Alborzagros (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Subject cut off... gazhiley 08:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your view. Would it make a difference if the subject was meant to be cut-off to focus on facial features and feeding? hasin 13:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Not really, if it was about this animal's features and feeding habits... For all we know this little bundle of fur could feed while standing on tip toe - we wouldn't know the full story without a full picture... gazhiley 08:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am afraid we will have to disagree then. I do not think Featured Pictures have to show the 'full story' as you claim. Featured pictures are meant to illustrate an article or part of it very well. A pictured can also be featured if it makes one want to know more. I think this picture qualifies on both grounds - as it illustrates the feeding on young leaves as well as being captivating due to the intense facial expression and sharp features. hasin 17:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasin Shakur (talk • contribs)
        • Personally I can't help but agree with your viewpoint, and I will admit I do like this picture... Unfortunately with my FP editor hat on I have to oppose it as cut off, as this is a reason quoted multiple times a day on here... See the nom above for the war statue - one of the main reasons for being opposed is that the base is cut off. The picture is striking, interesting, and makes the viewer want to know more... But because the whole statue isn't in view it is unlikely to pass... Ergo the standard for FP is pictures of a subject need to show the whole subject (and nothing but the subject so help me god)... I wish it was a wider shot as I would support in an instant... gazhiley 13:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this is a much more forgivable type of crop. Witht he war statue, only a bit of the base was cut off, which is sloppy. With this one, it uses one of the standard cut-off points (the waist) and looks perfectly normal. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Easily the most striking image on today's FP page, capturing the facial features very clearly. ProfDEH (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with minor reservations: The leaf "growing out" of his head is unfortunate, and the body is a bit blurry, but it's high-quality overall. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On thinking about this, and seeing Cat-five's comment, Weak oppose. There's just enough small issues to be a problem. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice portrait of the monkey and its natural habitat. --ELEKHH^T 01:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose it shows what it's meant to show but showing the face in high quality in my opinion makes up for the framing, not the focus issues. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Blurry at full size, otherwise supportable for me, despite cut-off. Brandmeister^talk 09:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Zanzibar Red Colobus Monkey.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2012 at 19:28:45 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, resolution and EV. The only pano in the article. Image has been stable for some time now. There may be a few distractions but getting a good vantage spot is extremely difficult.

Articles in which this image appears

Bangalore

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Can't see any reason to oppose, other than possibly a little dark... If the claims about the poor vantage point are correct then I don't believe we are easily able to get better than this... gazhiley 09:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I know how hard it can be to find good vantage points. This one is pretty good though, showing a variety of districts, and giving a sense of architecture and layout. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You might want to check at leaning to the left issue. I noticed it even on the thumbnail (thought it was me but then checked closely and found it to be real indeed, see right side). Seems good otherwise to me. - Blieusong (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit 1 Uploaded --Muhammad(talk) 16:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's now leaning backward, in case you still care to fix. - Blieusong (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although it feels undersaturated, but maybe it's faithful to reality. - Blieusong (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support With the assumption that there will be some sort of agreement as to which way it is leaning, how much, and getting it fixed before a version is featured. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer I will put up and edit for the leaning backwards that Benh mentioned later tonight --Muhammad(talk) 10:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update? Makeemlighter (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked Muhammad. He said it'll be a little longer. I'll move this to Suspended for the moment. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it can safely be promoted. The leaning I mentioned is barely noticeable (and I was the only one to notice or mention it). - Blieusong (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, your support vote wasn't on the condition that it was fixed anyway. It seemed more like a suggestion to me. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bangalore Panorama edit1.jpg Per discussion with Muhammad and Diliff, any further changes, if they happen, will be very minor. It's time to promote. --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2012 at 17:59:39 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Common Starling

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

PierreSelim

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Shame it appears a bit underexposed though, but quite a striking bird. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Diliff. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, not really a fan of the composition, but it seems to meet the technical criteria. Kaldari (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm going to need to oppose due to the unnatural perch. For such a common bird I think we can do better. — raekyt 06:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support adequate EV and technical quality. In response to Raeky, birds which live in urban environments often perch like this. If I thought this was an intentionally posed photo then I might oppose. --Pine^✉ 04:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Good image quality and good posture, but I do also find the chair slightly distracting, not for being a human artefact, but the strong reflections on the metallic bar. Maybe a bottom crop can help. --ELEKHH^T 01:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The EV is in the bird not in where it's standing. I don't find the bar all that distracting from the subject and as stated it isn't that odd in an urban environment. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Toulouse - Sturnus vulgaris - 2012-02-26 - 3.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2012 at 18:21:11 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Blue Tit, Lapis Forest

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Maximilian Dorsch

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm. Not quite enough for me to support at first glance... It feels a bit vignetted due to the light falloff and small DOF. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I quite like the image, but isn't it a little small? It's only BARELY within the FP requirements, and - while I wouldn't for a moment suggest cropping it - the (good) composition still means the main subject is quite small for bird pics here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose has too much blur. --Pine^✉ 04:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per pine, just too much blur to support. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2012 at 23:18:00 (UTC)

Reason

A popular London view which includes many landmarks (see annotated image description page & article for details). An attractive, high resolution image of the park's lake and surrounds.

Articles in which this image appears

St. James's Park, Parks and open spaces in London

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

Colin

• Support as nominator --Colin°^Talk 23:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is the most pleasing view of St James's Park, and it's about as high resolution as anyone could want. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Diliff... nice picture... gazhiley 12:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• support Although I'd like to know where you got an 80mm lens from.©Geni 16:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I've fixed it to say a 50-150mm lens at 80mm. To me, it isn't really important whether the lens was a zoom or prime as far as the picture is concerned. A zoom becomes whatever lens you want it to be. I get frustrated when I see books and magazines say a pic was taken with a "24-70mm" lens without saying what focal length was when they actually took the picture. Colin°^Talk 16:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Meets FP criteria, and I like the ducks. Sasata (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ducks were better arranged in this image, but overall the lighting is better in this version. --ELEKHH^T 00:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could photoshop Diliff's ducks into mine. He he. It would have been great to get a pelican in the shot - there was one in the west side of the lake. -- Colin°^Talk 08:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good composition. --ELEKHH^T 00:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, high EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:St James's Park Lake – East from the Blue Bridge - 2012-10-06.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2012 at 08:13:32 (UTC)

Reason

A noteworthy soprano who died on Tuesday. The portrait is clear, is of good resolution, and high quality. Unsure about the white balance though.

Articles in which this image appears

Galina Vishnevskaya

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Alexey Yushenkov

• Support as nominator --Julia\^talk 08:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 2. Yeah, I'm not sure about the skin tones/WB either, and I'm not sure if edits would improve things as the skin does look a bit posterised already. But it's still easily up to FP standards IMO, and one of the better portraits I've seen here recently, with a good mix of technical quality and character. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Focus and sharpness are good. Resolution is good. Composition is excellent and colors look fine to me. Kaldari (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – She isn't this yellow in other images I've seen of her. Sasata (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Added Alt 1. Julia\^talk 18:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've overdone it if I'm honest. I've uploaded Alt 2 which is what I had in my mind's eye. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I figured. I didn't want to put up an edit, but nobody else seemed willing. Thanks for Alt 2, it's much better! Julia\^talk 09:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm. The hair in Alt 2 looks a little purple in places, but of course that can happen with a particularly zealous dye job (I don't mean to speak ill of the dead, but that's clearly what we're looking at). I'm uncertain, but it's an awfully nice portrait particularly for a candid shot, and I'm willing to support alt 2, with slight doubts. Chick Bowen 06:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did also lighten the shadows slightly as the blacks were a little underexposed, which I suppose brought out the purple colouring of her hair. When you say doubts, what are you doubting exactly? Whether the purple tint in her hair is real, or imposed by the WB correction? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Chick Bowen 17:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Umm, the answer wasn't supposed to be yes or no, I was asking which of the two alternatives (if I was correct about either) you were referring to. One alternative was doubting whether the tint is real, the other was doubting whether, as a result of the introduced purple tint, the WB correction was accurate? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No? ;p. --Muhammad(talk) 00:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I apologize. I believe the WB correction has gone beyond what the lighting and exposure of the shot would have allowed, and that the purple is evidence of this. However, I think the image is probably slightly underexposed, and thus I'm not sure a perfect white balance, while still bringing out the detail lost in the dark areas of the original, is possible. Chick Bowen 01:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support prefer second edit --Muhammad(talk) 00:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 2 Finally a good portrait, without the fake smile... --ELEKHH^T 00:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 2. Overall a good photograph, the WB in the original is way off and I didn't realize that people mummified as fast as shown in Alt 1 but Alt 2 has a good balance. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 2. -- Colin°^Talk 14:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 2--Tomcat (7) 19:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Galina Vishnevskaya edit 2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 05:47:24 (UTC)

Reason

The article on Michael Ancher names this as one of the works that forms the foundation of his life's work, which makes it a rather important one.

Articles in which this image appears

Michael Ancher,

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Michael Ancher, photo provided by the Statens Museum for Kunst

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Subject relevant to Denmark, good details. Brandmeister^talk 09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 12:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Sasata (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good composition, high technical quality. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I know ditto votes are discouraged but ditto Crisco. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Tomcat (7) 19:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Redningsbåden køres gennem klitterne (high resolution).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aliasger Salem

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 16:44:24 (UTC)

Reason

This image has high EV, as it illustrates many of the important distinguishing characteristics of the mushroom: the silky threads on the cap surface; the crowded, pinkish gills; the volva at the base of the slightly curved stipe; and the typical substrate–clefts or knotholes on tree trunks. In addition, the image is high resolution and the background makes the mushroom stand out.

Articles in which this image appears

Volvariella bombycina

FP category for this image

WP:Featured_pictures/Fungi

Creator

de:User:Hagen Graebner

• Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not perfect: The roof in the background is a little distracting, and at full resolution, there's a little noise on the gills, and the base is slightly blurry - but quite ample for a work without focus stacking. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Strong example of a mushroom pic, good composition. Like the details on the head (not proper terminology, I know) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The background is a tad distracting, but the enc of the image mostly outweighs those issues. Spencer^T♦C 02:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose can't get over the background, it just distracts too much from the mushroom. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Tomcat (7) 19:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Volvariella bombycina1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 18:34:24 (UTC)

Reason

A solid picture of a notable railway station, with good resolution, quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

St Pancras railway station

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Colin

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I was reluctant to comment in order to see what other people thought first. The classic feature of this railway station is Scott's Victorian Gothic front, which is a hotel but also serves as an entrance. This view shows the front and all of the original station side and just a small amount of the glass building that is an extension to the rear. As such I think the EV is very high and it deserves its place as the lead image. But in order to capture all this, from just across the road, the wide angle of view makes the perspective extreme. There is no place to capture from further back without blowing up the Barclay's bank behind me. Two distracting elements are the brown temporary portacabins above the Costa coffee (now replaced by a sculpture) and the Sainsbury's lorry blocking the view of the lower street-level front (though this is such an extremely busy road that this is hard to avoid). There is a huge amount of detail in this hi-resolution shot, which is why I think it is useful and valuable despite any perspective issues. -- Colin°^Talk 14:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic is also a pain, in this case the large truck is obscuring some of the front facade. And those people in fluorescent yellow don't make the street scene look better. But the image well captures the corner, and is much better than all other images of the station we have. Perhaps in winter when the foliage is gone, and maybe on a Sunday with less traffic a better view of the main facade is possible. --ELEKHH^T 00:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I went there on a Saturday morning (which is my day for a lie-in - what sacrifices!) but it didn't help traffic. The busses are constant. Yes Sunday might be better. It also needs a morning shot, carefully timed, so the sun shines on the facade. The building looks dull in overcast sky. Too early or too late and there are shadows all over it. I'm taking the picture from a bus stop, hanging out near the road edge to avoid the bus shelter roof appearing in the picture, but not too close that the wing mirror of the next bus takes off my head. Ultimately, though, I'm just too close to the building to get an appealing perspective. Most folk just take a shot of part of this building, but I wanted the whole thing for the EV. Perhaps if I can climb on the roof of the bank? Where's my Spiderman costume... Colin°^Talk 08:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, these guys must have done something like that. --ELEKHH^T 08:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their verticals aren't perfect and it looks stretchted at the top and compressed at the bottom. There's no getting away from the laws of physics - such a large building (both horizontally and vertically) needs to be photographed from further away. Theirs shows the shadows creaping up too. I think I did pretty well given the situation. Once they finish rebuilding Kings Cross station (which is just to the right), I'd like to get up that clock tower to see the view from there. Colin°^Talk 10:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant weak oppose per the issues pointed out by Colin. I want to support this so much but I just can't. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2012 at 06:07:42 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality image, the image was already been chosen as and reached featured picture status in Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Gum catalog, Hubble Space Telescope, List of light sources, NGC 6357, Pismis 24-1, RCW Catalogue, Sharpless catalog, Space exploration

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk to me!} 06:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - an amazing photo! 21h 17m 2s (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment is it me or have they pushed the enhancement a bit far? a lot of blue speckle at full size.©Geni 16:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fairly typical for nebula photos. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Somewhat curious as to whether the speckles are part of the natural image or lens, signal, or processing noise but I think this falls under hte exceptions for hard to duplicate/historical photographs that allows for such things. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect they're cosmic rays. Though that I don't know for certain is kind of embarrassing, given my father makes giant telescopes for a living. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support by the way. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, interesting despite of what appears to me as a noise. Brandmeister^talk 00:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:EmissionNebula NGC6357.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2012 at 06:17:16 (UTC)

Reason

Good image quality, has EV

Articles in which this image appears

Hubble Space Telescope

FP category for this image

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

Creator

AndrewBuck

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk to me!} 06:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Info I replaced the Bitstream Vera Sans Regular font by regular Helvetica (and Arial when the aforementioned is not available), so the SVG renders better on most computers (and not with the default serif Times). - Blieusong (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A great improvement, thanks. Julia\^talk 14:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why green? - I think you could go darker whilst maintaining sufficient contrast with the arrows, with a bit of thought. Also, could we have a source please? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Oppose. Black illustration on white (possibly with red connector lines) or white on dark blue (blueprint colours) looks a lot better. Compare the PNG, which ends up looking more professional. The blue arrows with black heads are a particularly strange choice. Another issue is that the dotted red centre line goes off-centre by the time it reaches the lower left. For example, in the PNG source, the optical telescope assembly primary mirror and main ring has the equivalent line go through its centre. The same part is obviously askew from the centre line in the SVG. Admittedly, I don't think the centre line is kept straight in the PNG, but that doesn't justify making it straight, but not realigning the parts to match its new orientation in the SVG. Finally (?) the Optical Telescope Assembly Metering Truss draws the red line under the green illustration, including the bits that should be farther away from the viewer than the red line is. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the red dotted line has one of its gaps very unfortunately spaced when it goes through the light shield. It finishes inside the drawing for the light shield, which means the Magnetic Torquer appears unconnected to it. The line needs to be seen to progress past the light shield's drawing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, the red centre line is too thick. Make it a bit thinner, and space the gaps more frequently, which should also fix this issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the lines connecting the Optical Telescope Assembly Equipment Section to the Support Systems Module Equipment Section are off: the right one connects with one of the corners of the OTAES, the left one is inside the curve of the OTAES, and actually extends downwards into the curve a bit. Both lines should come from the corners, as in the PNG. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

I've added what I consider a more artistic exploded view to this page. Copying some aesthetics from it would probably work well. I do apologise for the lengthy critique, but this is meant to be the best work, but there's enough sloppiness in the SVG conversion to put it below that. A little more work and it should be fine. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The overall geometry looks vaguely convincing but the standard of draughting and labelling achieves nothing like a professional standard. As a diagram, the labels are not really comprehensible unless (presumably) you already know how the thing works, and don't appear to cover any of the terms used in the article. You can't tell how the parts might fit together or what they do, even for example which end points at the distant object. ProfDEH (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2012 at 09:47:04 (UTC)

Reason

It shows the real effect, the emotional effect.

Articles in which this image appears

Poverty in India

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Mydreamsparrow

• Support as nominator --Mydreamsparrow (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Image hasn't been in the article a week. Don't see this as any more compelling an image of poverty in Indian than countless others. The framing could have been further to the right. As a thumbnail, the subject is hard to see. The actual filename is editorialising, which we shouldn't do. -- Colin°^Talk 18:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Colin... The title seems so pretentious and I'm struggling to find anything FP worthy about this pic... gazhiley 09:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2012 at 22:27:07 (UTC)

Reason

A high quality image of a notable artist's painting.

Articles in which this image appears

1529 in art, Deer, Lucas Cranach the Elder

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Lucas Cranach the Elder

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment at 66 pixels per inch it's not super high resolution here... Also another similar panting by the artist on Google Art Project shows quite a bit darker colors, File:Lucas Cranach the Elder - The Stag Hunt of the Elector Frederic the Wise (1463-1525) of Saxony - Google Art Project.jpg... donno, it's good art for the period, but I'm more inclined to like the Google Art painting due to size, and reject this one on size grounds... Primary EV here I think is for the artist, and out of all the available paintings from him not sure this best represents his style... we have all the ones from the Google Art project uploaded on Commons now I think... [3] — raekyt 22:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not actually the same painting. Look at the trees at the top, or the castle in the upper right. I thinkt his is clearly the best of the images in his article currently, but I'm quite happy to withdraw if someone wants to change the images in the article to better ones, then nominate one of their selection. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the opening paragraph it say's he's well known for his portraits and religious paintings, so one of those probably would be better EV then a hunting scene. There's several to choose from.. — raekyt 05:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a side note, we recently got all of the tens of thousands of new Google Art images uploaded, so there is a potential HUGE flood of FPC's in art that could be done, and I wouldn't oppose to doing so, art is good. ;-) — raekyt 05:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2012 at 00:14:13 (UTC)

Reason

This is a comprehensive view of the Sawtooth Valley and Sawtooth Range of Sawtooth National Recreation Area from Galena Summit on Idaho State Highway 75 north of Ketchum where many people experience their first view of the Sawtooth Valley and Range. Also a featured picture on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Sawtooth National Forest, Sawtooth Valley, Sawtooth National Recreation Area, Galena Summit

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Acroterion

• Support as nominator --Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That is a stunningly well-composed picture. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Not sure that I would call it stunningly well-composed, but it does show the three distinct segments of the valley quite well. Sharpness is quite poor though, and needs to be downsampled significantly (close to the minimum required res) to be properly sharp. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as image creator. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not sharp enough, and has strange red and blue effects on either sides of some of the tree trunks that should be a grey or white color. --Pine^✉ 07:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC) I see the extended voting deadline has passed, although this only has 4.5 support votes so it will not pass anyway. --Pine^✉ 07:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, no, it's still up for voting. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The top of this nomination page includes the statement "Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2012 at 00:14:13 (UTC)". Are you saying that five days are added to 26 December? --Pine^✉ 21:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is correct. Changing the 26 December date would require far, far more template changes, to the point of likely causing major problems when we try to stop the extension. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I'm not seeing the red and blue artifacts: I did fix some CA problems with the trees in the upper right that had purple fringes before this was nominated (apparently nobody caught that in the FP review on Commons). I've been trying different sharpening strategies, but have not yet arrived at sharpening that's not detrimental in some other way. Acroterion (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please look at the tree trunks especially on the lower right. --Pine^✉ 21:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I took a look at the image with a program that does a better job of getting super close up on an image and what you are seeing on the bottom right hand side is moss with a blue tinge. Blue moss is sometimes found on trees with health problems, but normally just a difference in how the moss looks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• Oppose not sharp enough, and has strange red and blue effects on either sides of some of the tree trunks that should be a grey or white color. -Pine^✉ 00:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per Diliff --Muhammad(talk) 01:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sawtooth Valley ID1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]