Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2015 at 20:26:02 (UTC)
Reason
Prado's version is actually smaller than the other we have, so I'm putting both to consider. The painting's article currently contains the bigger, non-Prado version.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2015 at 16:08:46 (UTC)
Reason
Good scan. Hendrikus van de Sande Bakhuyzen was a Dutch Romantic landscape painter and also worked as an art teacher, shown here painting his own self-portrait. The Artist Painting a Cow in a Meadow Landscape shows pretty well how a painter uses his colours, palette and other devices. He was a member of family of painters, several Bakhuyzen were painters. He was influential, both as one of the major precursors of the Hague School of art and as an influence on Vincent van Gogh.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2015 at 14:46:36 (UTC)
The nave looking east
The rood screen
The nave looking west
The sanctuary
Reason
It's a good quality, encyclopaedic set showing the notable views of St Augustine's Church in Kilburn, North London. It's known as the Cathedral of North London, owing to its large side and grandeur, although in reality it is just a regular parish church.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2015 at 08:10:55 (UTC)
Reason
This is an iconic composition which has been on postcards for over 100 years (if you just search on google, you'll find many pictures taken from the same spot). Out of the 5+ pictures we have of this location on Wikimedia Commons, this one has by far the highest resolution, and the early morning light is quite pleasing to behold. The sharpness is okay (it is a Quality Image on Wikimedia Commons), and it is perspective- and distortion-corrected.
Oppose A touch too grainy for me sorry - and the sky is blown top right. Otherwise it's a lovely picture - looks a lovely place. gazhiley09:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed your concerns by applying a simulated graduated neutral density filter of 3 EV and applying wavelet denoising. Please take another look. Thanks! dllu(t,c)10:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to Weak Support - still grainy but lighting issue resolved. For example, when I look at the rail tram it almost appears like a watercolour painting, so still a little too grainy for me. gazhiley11:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the noise is due to the shadows being underexposed (so that the sky is not blown out). I increased the shadow brightness significantly using curves, leading to the noise. If anyone wants to take a look at the raw file, here it is. Thanks! dllu(t,c)02:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Irrespective of the noise and blown out sky, I'd still prefer a more faithful edit of the original shot. The current version looks like a painting with blocks of colour when viewed even reasonably close up, the heavy filter changes the atmosphere of the shot and it looks like it has been stretched vertically for some reason. Compare them back to back and you'll see what I mean: OriginalEdit - Wolftick (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The original has been compressed vertically because I made a mistake when correcting perspective distortion. The new version is more accurate. The "colour blocks" seem to be a byproduct of the noise reduction, I'll look into reducing that. Thanks. dllu(t,c)04:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Perspective issues in the bottom corners, and the highlights are a tad blown - mainly on the front-and-centre flowers and a few of the hanging stars. However, not enough for me to Oppose. gazhiley09:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The flower are clearly not blown out. Have you tried inspecting their pixel values? As for the lights, making them any darker would make the image look unnatural since they are supposed to be quite bright and the primary source of illumination. For reference, here are the three exposures I used to generate this: -2 EV, 0 EV, +2 EV.dllu(t,c)09:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are almost blinding sorry - no detail on a lot of the leaves. In comparison to all the other flower beds they are positively glowing as if a huge light is shining directly on them... The ones at the front I don't know exactly what colour but I assume a creamy colour? gazhiley11:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've recovered the details in the flowers. Do you mind taking another look? And yes, there are indeed several little spotlights shining on them, which you can see on the roof. Do note that you have to refresh a few times (or add ?action=purge or at the end of the URL) in order to see the changes, as mediawiki tends to cache pictures for a while. Thanks again! dllu(t,c)11:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what do you mean by "perspective issues"? I see no perspective distortion issues -- that is, all architectural vertical lines are vertical in the photo. If you mean that the corners appear stretched, it is because this lens is an (almost) perfect rectilinear lens which has the side effect of stretching corners for super wide fields of view. But, because it is the only type of lens to preserve straight lines, it is undisputedly considered the best type of lens for architecture photography (as opposed to fisheye lenses, which have lots of barrel distortion). dllu(t,c)12:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I mean in the corners - but it's not enough to affect my vote, the lighting was the main issue for me, and that's sorted now... gazhiley16:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose, despite enormous historical significance. The quality is way too low for FP status, I'm pretty sure there must be a better transfer somewhere - no-one transfers a film at this low quality. --Janke | Talk08:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support without prejudice This is here now, and its historical; if a better version is located then I would move for a delist and replace, but we can cross that bridge when if/we get there. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did a little sleuthing, there is better quality available; take a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY2EyLEGsyA Looks like this candidate is picked from that 2008 restoration, which may be copyrighted. Thus it may be a copyvio. IANAL, so let the ones in the know find out, and if it is a copyvio, then Speedy Close. --Janke | Talk19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have better arguments, please stay aside. How do you know it is a restoration? Anyway, that wouldn't give a new copyright. There is obviously no reason to speedy close this nomination. Yann (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do I know it's a restoration? I watched that Youtube link (by DeBergerac Productions), and from the discussion on that page, it is pretty apparent that they did the restoration. As for speedy close, I said if. --Janke | Talk21:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is different. It is reconstruction of the full-color film from 3 one-color films. So it doesn't involve any creativity, it is just a mechanical process. Regards, Yann (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's surely a difference between "there's a consensus on Commons that we can keep this" and "this is definitely free". We can legitimately demand quite a high standard at FPC, I think. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we don't talk about the same thing. Restoration as "repairing a damaged work" is not an automated process. It may require creativity, and a lot of artistic skills. So the copyright on that is a legitimate question. But I don't think there is restoration in that sense here. These films needed a special projector for "projecting a black-and-white film behind alternating red and green filters". So to create a digital version, and since these projectors do not exist anymore, merging this is needed, but it is a mechanical process, without any creativity. See Kinemacolor for the details. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely a creative element involved in a restoration of this kind, namely, the choice of separation colors. They can be anything from red to orange, and blue to green. (Yann: Please note that there are only two colors, not three...) They will give different final color results, i.e. a creative aspect. Furthermore, why feature a lower quality video, when a better one is available on YouTube? See the link in my first comment. For these reasons, I still stand by both my Oppose and Speedy Close. --Janke | Talk11:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see now. You did the upload, and it's actually a part taken from the Youtube link (by DeBergerac Productions) I mentioned. Downloaded from YT, and uploaded to Wiki it has been re-sized and re-coded, and is thus less sharp. BTW, you asked: " How do you know it is a restoration?" - well, you must have known that, since you linked to the YT restoration demo! Note to others: This is a fragment of a YT restoration demonstration video by DeBergerac Productions (see link above), and for that reason I consider it a copyvio. --Janke | Talk09:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I agree with Chris Woodrich, but to me there's not a lot you can do with it as it appears to be more atmospheric than a photography issue - still it is distracting enough to stop me from a full support... It's a shame there appears to be some form of large sized fly tipping in the overgrowth to the bottom side of the slope on our side of the hill - 2 or 3 large white pieces of something nestled in the bushes along the edge of the grassy slope... gazhiley08:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah, you're right, the fly! That's really a shame, I didn't see it yesterday but now I think it ruins the composition. :( It's sad, Slovenian landscapes are otherwise not exactly overrepresented at featured pictures so I thought I'd try to amend that bias. But with that spot I think I'll have to revoke this candidate. Yakikaki (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't rush to revoke it - it's only really noticable if you're at full zoom and checking the entire picture... At this size it isn't massively noticable so see what others think first? gazhiley09:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just, for me... I'd prefer it if the horizon was straightened, but as I can't do that myself I won't hold it against you! Great level of detail, to the extent of being able to read the sign on the shopping centre to the left of the picture. Curious that the building in the left foreground has decorative detail on the roof that appears to be facing AWAY from the majority of buildings that could see it... gazhiley08:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Cloud highlights are blown, too much barrel-type distortion (leaning tower). But great composition and stitching job. Bammesk (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2015 at 05:32:35 (UTC)
Reason
Nice photo already featured on Commons. It recently replaced the previous lead image for the article and I believe the significant increase in resolution (from 800 x 640 pixels to 2,661 x 1,778 pixels) is sufficient to let us waive the 7-day guideline.
@Gazhiley: Looks like SteinsplitterBot did something strange. The edit has been reverted. It may take a little while for the reversion to pass its way through the system so that the correct version of the image appears here. --Pine✉19:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: SteinsplitterBot did a rotation based on a request from Mauricenight. Not sure what that user was trying to do, maybe a test edit. --Pine✉19:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator Certainly the most important Indian movie of the mid-1930s, and the quality is better than what we usually have (checked the first version). – Yann (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The subtitles are not added by the contributor who uploaded to YT. It is a professional work, so I suppose they were made shortly after the film was made for screening in Europe and USA. And there is no credit for it, the author is unknown. And since it is more than 70 years old, they are in the public domain in most of the world. So no copyright in USA, anyway, as no registration or notice. Regards, Yann (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to say when the subtitles were added just from watching. They do weave a bit, which indicates that they were added onto the film print, not on the video transfer. (A video subtitle will be rock steady.) --Janke | Talk20:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The font belies the possibility that these were 1930s additions. Oppose as long as these presumably non-free subtitles are part of the video. (We have our own subtitle format as well, so I don't think we need hard coded subtitles at all) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: As I said, there is very little probability that the subtitles are under a copyright. Are you prepared to add new subtitles yourself? ;o) I could technically do it, but this is a several-weeks-full-time job, and I don't see the point to do it again when we already have it, made by professionals. I also think that Hindi being a language very little spoken outside India, having English subtitles adds an important value to this video. But do you know is it possible to remove the subtitles? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not familiar with ways to remove embedded subtitles. Do you have any evidence that "there is very little probability that the subtitles are under a copyright"? Unless you can clearly date the subtitles, there's not room for arguing they're not under protection. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me comment on "The font belies the possibility that these were 1930s additions." - to me it appears to be Gill Sans, which was designed in 1926 and released by Monotype in 1928 - not that this proves anything either way ... ;-) --Janke | Talk19:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2015 at 12:23:27 (UTC)
Reason
A high-res painting of the US 65th Infantry Regiment depicting bayonet charge against a Chinese division during the Korean War. The 65th is a Puerto Rican unit that saw service with the United States in WWI, WWII, and Korea, and is unique for its time in that the United States Military had a policy of segregating its military units at the time, making it unusual to see ethnic minorities in combat assignments. This image has already graced a featured article and a featured list; I figure the next time it sees the main page should be as a featured picture in its own right. (A word of caution to those with slow connections: the image is a little on the large side, so take that into consideration when you click on it).
Copyright comment – The source link appears to be broken. Is there any evidence that the Department of Defence have the right to release Dominic D'Andrea's work under a free license. Was he an employee of the federal government who made this painting as part of his official duties? –P. S. Burton (talk)01:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not holding it against promotion, but does anyone know what that object is on her blouse (or perhaps around her neck)? It's slightly out of focus. Any guesses? Is she in costume for a role? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2015 at 20:13:02 (UTC)
Reason
The title was conceived by the husband of the millionairess who owned all those cats. The painting survived the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, while the salon where it was kept was destroyed.
Support. Awful, awful, awful. It's perhaps a little small given the size of the painting, but I don't think we can expect better. The first four hits suggest that this does have something close to lasting relevance; it's not just a flash in the pan. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Only JUST above minimum size (seems to have lost size compared to the original), and consequently difficult to get very close in and see detail - especially around the nose. Seems to be small haloing around the lower wing and tail. Also just curious but any reason it has been flipped from the original? gazhiley12:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Resolution, clarity and detail is fairly limited compared with other FP of aircraft. Also the angle, while interesting in itself, limits general EV in my opinion. Wolftick (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are all these meant to be Opposes? I don't understand these as "Comments" as the latter two are not really making much of a comment other than "per ....." gazhiley11:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I comment as per "All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count." Wolftick (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Seems a bit grainy at full res, and per Sca (I assume this is what you mean) there is a bit too much sky above compared to the foreground - seems not quite right position in the picture... Minor last issue for me though, the graininess is the main issue. gazhiley11:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order The copyright status of these photo by Andy Wolfe is unclear. Andy works for Lockheed Martin; he is not directly a US Government employee. So far I have not heard whether his photos have actually been released to public domain. The photo appearing on a USG website doesn't necessarily mean that it's public domain. I think that further investigation of the copyright status should be done before this FPC is promoted. --Pine✉04:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! AAH! AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH! Oppose Resolution too small — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2015 at 15:34:09 (UTC)
Reason
Good composition, nice lighting and framing. I was delighted when the photographer allowed for the image to be used, as I believe it has a high EV, and is overall a high quality image.
Comment - For some reason all links to the current 3,153 × 3,508 file still give me the old low quality version: Media:Fouquet_Madonna.jpg. (Working now) Love the painting though and if it is as found in source [2] it seems like a perfectly satisfactory digitisation. Wolftick (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll neither oppose nor support at this time, but I have a few questions: Can Wikipedia feature self-promoting material? Somewhere I've seen some comments against that. Technically, a brilliant edit, but I have some reservations regarding the video timeline - to me, it has four endings within itself, i.e. for the message it carries, I feel it is way too long. The choice of music was also a bit annoying to my ears. But, YMMV, so, as said, I'll abstain for the time being. --Janke | Talk08:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not going to support or oppose at this time, but I do feel inclined to say that, even if promoted, this video does not belong on the MP. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bammesk It's kind of astounding how many dozens, and possibly hundreds, of people didn't notice that, including me. So you get a copyeditor's barnstar for spotting that. I'll need to re-render the video to fix it, which unfortunately I may not have time to do for quite awhile. --Pine✉19:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2015 at 16:29:50 (UTC)
Reason
A high-quality and high-resolution scan from the Google Art Project that is used in the lead of Pieter Aertsen. This historic painting from 1551 is a vivid depiction of a meat stall, exhibiting meats from this time period, Pieter Aertsen being considered as the father of Still-life. All revealed in the article.
PS: Would be good to have a translation of the sign at upper right. Only thing I can tentatively make out is "for sale" (te coope) – it's some form of 16th century Flemish or Low German. Sca (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I didn't notice the noise issue, so I have no problem if this nomination is withdrawn. Or if you all prefer to wait until the voting period ends, that's fine. No biggie. APKwhisper in my ear10:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's an example at the top right corner. There appears to be a line of demarcation between noisy and not noisy areas, supporting Wolftick's hypothesis. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny flatworm + big ocean = intentional space with bokeh effect. The flatworm was only about 2 in (5.1 cm) long and was moving rather quickly in a strong current. Atsme📞📧06:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize the technical challenges, which is why this isn't an oppose. But having the flatworm take up something like only 20% of the frame is a bit much for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm definitely leaning towards supporting this, but I have two questions: First, could this image please be moved to a better title? Secondly, how sure are you of the ID? It seems you've changed your mind at least once! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn, I am as certain of its ID as the marine biologists who redescribed Thysanozoon_nigropapillosum in 2014 per the RS cited in the article. With regards to a better title, I am certainly open to suggestions. I considered using its binomial nomenclature but one of the common names would be far easier to pronounce. How about polyclad flatworm, or golden-spotted flatworm" or yellow papillae flatworm? Atsme📞📧17:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry- just so we're clear, you're telling me that the marine biologists who authored the 2014 paper identified the species for you? And as for an image title, "Yellow papillae flatworm, Manta Ray Bay" or something would be fine, I would have thought. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I apologize if my response was ambiguous. There is no OR involved. I was referring to the description in the cited journal along with other verifiable sources. Example: [3] links to [4] where there are images. Atsme📞📧17:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I am in the process of making the name change (Crisco is helping) to something less generic. Apologies for my indolence when nominating this image. Atsme📞📧15:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support either, provided Atsme is definitely sure about the ID. Flatworms strike me as something that may be very difficult for non-specialists to identify... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Josh, and for further verification that I provided an accurate, scientific id of the species, please see [5] which is also cited at the article. Atsme📞📧 17:26, 15 December 2015
This nomination was very close, with essentialy everyone supporting both versions. However, as 2 users expressed a preference for the cropped version, this is the one that get's promoted. ArmbrustTheHomunculus11:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2015 at 12:35:40 (UTC)
Reason
One of the interesting Russian painter Boris Kustodiev's winter portraits - of a renowned Russian opera singer, Fyodor Chaliapin As our article states: Possessing a deep and expressive bass voice, he enjoyed an important international career at major opera houses and is often credited with establishing the tradition of naturalistic acting in his chosen art form..."
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2015 at 13:05:13 (UTC)
Reason
Good scan. The High Renaissance master Raphael's Madonna of the Goldfinch or Madonna del Cardellino is named after the little bird the Child is holding in his hands.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2015 at 12:16:07 (UTC)
Reason
High quality and EV image of a high-importance mathematics/engineering topic. SVG file format means that the image can be scaled up to unlimited resolution without quality loss. Is already a featured picture on Commons and six other Wikipedia language versions.
Oppose; I'm not really feeling this. SVG is appropriate for diagrams and representations, but a Rubik's Cubes are real objects in the world, and fairly common ones at that; we wouldn't have an svg at the top of wooden spoon (although the picture used at time of writing is terrible), bouncy ball or engagement ring, so I'm not really sure why we would have one here. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's well-made and of certain EV though. Mathematical topics like the one illustrated here are best explained with help of graphical depictions, in this case preferrably of several showing the individual consecutive steps of construction. --Tremonist (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2015 at 13:34:56 (UTC)
Reason
The first webcam. It is, of course, low resolution, and crappy, but it's part of a system from 1993 to transfer the status of a coffee pot over the world wide web, considered the world's first webcam. Such historical documentation overrides.
There are multiple images about [6]. It occurs to me that a short gif with selection of images from the camera might be the most appropriate format (?) Wolftick (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's PNG because it's converted from some hideous early format, combined with JPEG artefacting being fairly visible on the pixel-width lines and flat colours of the frame. As for the size difference, that likely comes from showing the window it was formerly played in. Indeed, cropping that gives exactly the 128x128 image expected. Our other image, of it being shut down is also exactly 128x128. Adam Cuerden(talk)11:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Historical images, which have never existed in any higher resolution and cannot without literally removing all encyclopedic value, surely must be an exception? Adam Cuerden(talk)14:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry. I'm inclined to agree with Yann. Not every high-value image has to be a FP. I'm reminded of the freely-released xkcd panels we have- undoubtedly great in their own right, undoubtedly valuable for an encyclopedia article, and undoubtedly brilliant to have freely released, but FP material? I feel not. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This is an as good as possible image depicting the topic, so EV is very good. The fact that it's a crappy and dull image by any standards is a large part of the whole point of it: it was the fist-ever webcam, and it was of a totally banal subject. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For me, this does not quite reach the mark ... whether it's the lighting, or the focus, or the composition, or maybe a combination of things ... 86.152.161.36 (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This poster reverted my deletion of his comments and said "Some person struck out my comment. Tampering with other people's posts is not acceptable". As far as I know, unsigned comments and votes are not valid on FPC. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Intriguing combination. Shadowing on capybara is somewhat unfortunate, but detail is exemplary. Interesting species – who ever heard of a 100 lb.-plus rodent? Sca (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2015 at 17:32:04 (UTC)
Reason
A small (45 × 75 cm) but high-EV Paul Gauguin painting which you'll be forgiven for not being familiar with, as it was publicly exhibited by Durand-Ruel in 1893 in Paris, where it went unsold, and lent just once since 1946 to an obscure exhibition before it was purchased from a private Swiss collector in 2008 by the J. Paul Getty Museum (rumored to have paid around $30 million for it, after eight years of negotiations and iron-clad assurances from the family of its pre-war Jewish owners that it was not subject to a Nazi forced sale, although its wartime circumstances remain very murky). In 2008, a Getty curator called it "the ultimate still life" and "the most famous painting by Gauguin that no one has seen".[7] Gauguin created the image of a decapitated Tahitian king whose head is displayed on a white pillow principally to shock French audiences; this "traditional" decapitation display ritual had disappeared well before Gauguin visited the islands and was not followed after the 1891 death of King Pōmare V. Arii Matamoe is painted on very coarse cloth, the texture of which is exploited by the artist and shown effectively in the Google Art scan.
Support as nominator – In the interests of full disclosure, I recently added this image to both above articles (which is frowned upon, I know, as it could be seen as an appeal to EV). Only to say, the painting already has its own independent articles in French and Dutch, and I'm undertaking one in English, long overdue. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. As you know, they never perch wings open so you have to catch them in flight and, as my so-so image on the Wikipedia page shows, it's really difficult (best of 50 pictures I took over ten minutes!). Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I disagree with the article's assertion that Van Gogh was not a particularly strong influence. Looking at those layered brushstrokes at lower left, I'd argue quite the contrary. Wonderful painting. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – as is. The wiggly line has no visible depth, might be embedded in the painting. Any thoughts about removing it? (it is hair thin and spreads over 6x8mm area) Bammesk (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not present on this photo so I would suppose that means it is contamination rather than an integral part of the painting. Given the nature of the image I would be very wary about removing it digitally though - Wolftick (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2015 at 15:35:59 (UTC)
Reason
High quality, high EV - clear view and good composition, highly used, lead image of Barack Obama. A different pic of Obama was featured before, but was delisted.
Oppose – This user opposes all official portraits of sitting politicians (or currently active would-be politicians), whoever they may be. Sca (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't mind official portraits. Sure they are not creative and rather boring, but they show the individual very clearly and so is perfect for an encyclopaedia. Mattximus (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd admit official portraits like this are often too generic requiring certain postures and facial expressions, like on campaign billboards. Better composition would be, for instance, where Obama gives an emotional speech, visits the people, etc. Brandmeistertalk13:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My opposition has nothing to do with what I may think about President Obama. It has to do with the fact that, like all such photos, this is an official portrait taken by someone working for the subject, and therefore may be considered free political advertising.
Oppose. Only just large enough, and poor quality. Not sharp at full res. This may qualify as a valued image on Commons, but is nowhere near FP quality. sst✈10:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I couldn't figure out what those yellow-green stalks were. If they are supposed to be cucumber, per Janke, then yes that's a problem. --Pine✉17:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]