Oppose. It's a nice and high-quality image of Lake Louise but we have many of those and I don't think it's the nicest one even on the Lake Louise article let alone in Commons:Category:Lake Louise. The high point of view leads to an awkward composition and makes the hazed-out background look plain; the actual background as seen from the ground at Lake Louise is far from plain. And because it's just one of many, and not the lead image in its article (nor should it be), the EV is not very high. Also, the foreground is blurred and there's a technical issue (a seam in the stitching marked by a dashed line) in the upper right corner. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – it has the stitching problem per David, also three dashed stitch lines in the sky area, left of center (the brightness of the blue sky is a bit irregular there as well). Bammesk (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support while not aesthetically striking, the image is encyclopedic, and it's good to see another underwater photograph. ↠Pine(✉)07:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)'[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2019 at 09:31:59 (UTC)
10 Zlotych
25 Zlotych
50 Zlotych
100 Zlotych
Reason
High EV, high quality images of a high grade first issue banknotes. One of them was featured here before. If one of them is featured, I see no reasons not to nominate the rest, despite the fact two of banknotes are missing from a complete set.
Support It's interesting that the cut-off tops are an early security measure. It'd be cool to see one with the matching top. Geoffroi21:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not really sold, I'm afraid. Does this really help readers understand the idea of a physical examination? Would a contemporary photograph not be better? The fact that you propose that it's included in history categories when it's being used as the primary illustration of a very real and very current medical term is revealing. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The image quality is high, but this image isn't used in the article body, only in a gallery of 20 or so images (I'm pretty sure the MOS prohibits galleries). Not sure about EV. Geoffroi20:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Subject image, though technically OK, is unremarkable and of scant visual interest. Pic. (with artificial studio BG) and the brief article seem largely promotional, lacking significance or EV. Not appropriate for Main Page. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to users involved here why a static photo of Einat Kalisch-Rotem would be of interest to a sizeable portion of Main Page readers of the English-language Wikipedia. – 'Bye. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regarding picture quality, I have to agree with Sca. While this is a very useful photo of a notable person, it's a fairly stock-standard promo photo which gives no hint at all as to why we have an article on her. A high quality photo of Dr Kalisch-Rotem doing something or in a setting associated with the reason for her notability would be vastly superior. Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SupportTomer T has convinced me. I can not see how it is technically different from, for example, File:Théophile Thoré by Nadar.jpg (which seems to be the main argument against). This is a studio portrait indeed, but it is made far more dramatic than all those official portraits (many of them have QI status) --Andrei (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has the modern standard blue-grey background, but that's far less distracting than the cheesy American flag background a lot of the American politicians get, and, frankly, I think we're often way too harsh. If it's an action shot, like Fannie Lou Hamer, we object to the pose not being perfect; if it's staged, we object it's staged. What do we expect? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs09:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing modern photos to early portraits like that is a bit odd. It was very difficult to take photos outside a studio setting in the 1850s due to the limits of the technology at the time, and even then subjects had to sit or stand very still. We happily don't have that problem any more! Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a standard vacation photo. The light is harsh afternoon sunlight. For real EV, we need a photo that focuses directly on the animal/s in more favorable light. Geoffroi23:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't contest the EV, but unfortunately the composition is a bit messy, with the front sheep "touching" the one in the back. A slightly different angle might have helped. --Janke | Talk09:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Janke: What makes me wonder about this is that it covers both the animals and the town. If the photographer moved forward, and got past the animals, he or she could probably get an FP or a QI quality photo of the town. An isolated photo of the animals close-up would have better EV. Geoffroi01:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The pose of the subject is haphazard, and the background is busy and unattractive (the man sitting behind him, the hose, etc). Geoffroi23:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2019 at 09:59:26 (UTC)
Reason
We don't see many law-related pictures at FPC at all. This one's an FP on Commons. I've read the objections, and having been there myself can attest to the difficulty of getting this shot.
@Nick-D: I agree that a slightly wider crop would be better, but there are no other images in the Commons category at commons:Category:NGC 1097 that have a similar level of size and clarity and are nearly true color. I think that the closest alternative to this image in regards to quality is the decidedly "false" colored File:Coiled Galaxy.jpg. ↠Pine(✉)08:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very fuzzy and noisy in full size, appears to be upsampled, also blown higlights in center. This mirror image (do we know which one is correct?) is much better: [[1]] - --Janke | Talk22:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to disagree. IMO, it looks like upsampled thermal noise of the sensor. Compare with the original-sized mirror image linked above! --Janke | Talk22:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a fair amount of noise in the flat surfaces (especially window panes) and the surrounding foliage is quite blurry. The article is short, but it also appears to indicate that this is not really a historic building any more, but rather merely a 19th-century mansion built in an earlier style on top of what used to be an old castle. Is there enough encyclopedic value here to make up for the faults in the image? (And if so, should we accept a caption that glosses over this history?) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Substandard detail. Doubtful EV given the relative obscurity of the "castle," reconstructed in the 19th century. (Gołuchów was politically part of Prussia-cum-Germany in 1793-1918). – Sca (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2019 at 01:40:58 (UTC)
Reason
I'm not sure why this didn't pass the first time. Perhaps too much of the context was in a note at the bottom of the article. But this is an excellent example of a satirical cartoon that shows a negative view of someone who's now considered almost above reproach, challenging our modern view of his climb to fame. A prominent illustration in a featured article.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2019 at 05:36:14 (UTC)
Reason
The best (and currently only) image of this now-extinct regiment, showing the regimental uniform clearly at the time of the Crimean War. Some nice examples of the famous Crimean beard
@MER-C, Geoffroi, Janke, and Bammesk: Tweaked it. Sorry, Christmas is getting at me. Let me know what you think; I don't want to lose it looking like a carbon print, because that's misleading, but I can readily tweak within that, and there was a lot of unused brightness levels on the right. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs07:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Jabez Hughes after Cundall & Howlett - Heroes of the Crimean War - Sergeant John Geary, Thomas Onslow and Lance Corporal Patrick Carthay of the 95th (Derbyshire) Regiment of Foot.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus13:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As with the Faeroe sheep, there's a problem with the composition, since neither the penguins nor the location are the focal point. Less is more! --Janke | Talk12:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2019 at 05:41:36 (UTC)
Reason
This is a representation of a point cloud accumulated using an automotive lidar from a moving vehicle. This type of lidar may be used on autonomous cars, which is a popular topic recently. As a striking image that is the first and (so far) only example of this type of data on Wikimedia Commons, it provides encyclopaedic value for lidar, as well as articles on the algorithmic techniques of aligning such data (SLAM and point set registration).
Support - even though I'd much prefer a viewpoint from the car's position, but I realize that might be much more cluttered... I guess this was recorded at night - no people visible (unless that's a drunken person leaning against the light pole at 2 o'clock from center... ;-) --Janke | Talk09:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Visual information in this type of image is not readily accessible to the general reader/viewer, therefore it lacks EV. – Sca (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I beg to differ very strongly, I found this image very interesting indeed, and the info in it very accessible and of high EV. In context of the articles, it really explains how a Lidar "sees" the world around it. Did you look at it in full size? --Janke | Talk21:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the latest State of the Union Address we can obtain without a watermark until Trump is out of office and his library opens. At that time, Trump's address will also be old. This is also the only video I have seen that shows the closing of the session, when the Speaker dissolves the joint session and recognizes the House Majority Leader for a motion to close the session. I think that part is never transmitted on network television. This is the first time I have seen that and I have watched every State of the Union address in the past 19 years. This video also shows the introduction of the justices of the Supreme Court and the President's cabinet. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]