Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/February-2017

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 2 Feb 2017 at 12:39:11 (UTC)

Reason

High quality photo demonstrating a historical event in the making

Articles in which this image appears

2017 Women's March

FP category for this image

People/Others

Creator

AmandalynnJones

• Support as nominator – Justin Ormont (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a historical event? I don't think and more,the woman on the right is out of focus. Sorry. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This doesn't show anything special about protesting other than how many sore losers there are in Hillary's camp. And in addition to the women, the other sign in the background is also out of focus. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm inclined to agree that this photo does not have an FP-quality composition, even though it is a fine portrait of the main subject. That said, I'm surprised (to put it politely) by the above comments. This is indeed an event of significance; this is something that should be clear whether it is thought that the protestors are merely "sore losers" or not. Given the ongoing worries about Wikipedia as a hostile space for women, perhaps it would be prudent to not be so dismissive? (This is a rhetorical question. I am really not looking for a debate, here.) Josh Milburn (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• oh my dog Josh Milburn.I have six daughters(!!!) (and a wife!) losing the elections and complaining is still not a democratic thing, I don't like Trump. But complaining is useless and so foolish. If won the Clinton (very feminist to use her husband's name!) They would have to complain about? For blowjobs in the White House? (or Madonna) Greetings --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what you think you're proving. Your comment is barely coherent. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The important is coherent. Salut. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I note that the image is currently only used in a gallery, and so is probably not eligible for FP status for that reason alone. The article, naturally, is attracting a lot of attention at the moment; perhaps it would be best to hold off until it is more stable before selecting one or more images to nominate. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too small at 2048×1365 (see Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria); also the out-of-focus woman on the right is too distracting for me. Sorry. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily. "Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired. This should be explained in the nomination so that it can be taken into consideration." On these grounds, since this is the largest national protest in the U.S. since the Vietnam War, a case could be made for an exception on historically relevant grounds. And this is 1500px on one side, so it half way there. That being said,these are ongoing protests, so I'd expect it wouldn't be too hard to obtain another photo with the required size parameters and with the out of focus elements back in focus. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. If the nominator feels that an exception should be made here, then he should make it. But, as you said, these are ongoing protests, and other opportunities should be available to take a better, larger picture. —Bruce1ee^talk 21:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update/Size: I contacted the photographer [1]. She uploaded a larger version (6,720×4,480px). Justin Ormont (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated my vote to reflect the new size, but I still oppose because of the focus issues. —Bruce1ee^talk 22:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Composition, out of focus, bad crop. --Mile (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Ditto, ditto, ditto. Given today's camera technology, a much better comp could have been found in an impromptu series of quick shots. Sca (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Crop/composition: Do you think a tighter crop would be useful? I was thinking of cropping away the foreground women on the right. Justin Ormont (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• But then you will have 3 people with little girl choped off. For protest there should be more people. --Mile (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - for an event in 2017, with millions of participants (largely young, creative people seeking to go viral and spread awareness) there should be effectively infinite free-use photos available for our use. As such, a FP on the subject should really knock it out of the park. As far as photojournalism goes, this shot isn't particularly poignant or striking. It's a low-contrast snapshot of one demonstrator holding a relatively tame sign, surrounded by lots of bored-looking people... most of whom are cut-off and/or out-of-focus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposePer other - Jobas (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2017 at 12:45:20 (UTC)

Reason

Informative, good macro shot

Articles in which this image appears

Intaglio printmaking

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others

Creator

Petar Milošević

• Support as nominator – Mile (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice photo, I am leaning to support, there seems to be a bump on his nostril (around x,y=840,1860 from top left corner), is that part of the bill's design? Bammesk (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• True, there probably is "a bump" on nose. With eyes that cant be seen, since this is made with high macro level, more than 1:1. Than you get some "true" optics out. Money is used, but still in good condition, untill macro. Problem is, not any money i can put here since copyvio, i have also one more, which i can put latter. But i think "portrait" patten is better seen here on Hungarian forint. --Mile (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a fiber sticking up from the paper. It may be an errant security fiber, but it can also be just a piece of dust sticking to the banknote. --Janke | Talk 18:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is patterned ink on parts of it, so it is embedded. I am Ok with it. @Miles:: can the edges of the image be sharpened a bit? (for example bottom right) Bammesk (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I can only crop bottom for few pixles, image is stacked. that part was actually out of focus. --Mile (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)  Done --Mile (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – a good example of the final outcome of the printing process, and well composed photo. Bammesk (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2017 at 14:22:48 (UTC)

Reason

Super-standard resolution and nice subject.

Articles in which this image appears

Fountain of Youth, The Fountain of Youth (Cranach)

FP category for this image

Paintings

Creator

Lucas Cranach the Elder

• Support as nominator – Brandmeister^talk 14:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Where is this digitisation from? The image page is unclear. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like from Lucascranach.org which is listed in the references in the file description. Brandmeister^talk 13:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2017 at 20:39:23 (UTC)

Reason

IMO, it meets the FPC criteria and has very good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

GameCube

FP category for this image

Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

Evan-Amos

• Support as nominator – 1989 (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Wouldn't the original and most popular configuration of the gamecube provide the greatest EV? This has a special wireless controller that was not very popular. Mattximus (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Mattximus - Jobas (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2017 at 21:01:22 (UTC)

Reason

IMO, it meets the FPC criteria and has very good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Vic-la-Gardiole

FP category for this image

Places/Landscapes

Creator

Christian Ferrer

• Support as nominator – 1989 (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 1989: FP criteria #5 says "significant encyclopedic value" and "helps readers to understand an article". In this case the article is just one sentence (there isn't much there), plus the image is used in a gallery. Both of those are negatives the way images are reviewed here. Oppose. Bammesk (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Bammesk, on EV grounds. Nothing in wikipedia is about this particular location. Mattximus (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Mattximus – Jobas (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2017 at 21:17:59 (UTC)

Reason

IMO, it meets the FPC criteria and has very good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Smooth-billed ani

FP category for this image

Animals/Birds

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – 1989 (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - light is very flat, the bird is angled away from us, and there's actually not as much detail as I'm accustomed to seeing from bird FPs (relatively low resolution + subject fairly small in the middle of the frame), but the image is sharp and illustrates the species fairly well. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, you need flat light for black birds, otherwise the contrast is too extreme. I didn't understand 'fairly small in the middle of the frame'. I don't think this image should be cropped any more. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The quality of this image is much inferior to that of recent bird FPs. If photographers can manage extreme close ups of tiny and shy types of birds, there's no reason to promote a small and long-range shot of this bird. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support You might not like it @Nick-D:, but it is not small and not especially long range. And are you an expert when it comes to which birds are shy? Obviously not. Please feel free to be critical, but please don't make unfounded statements which might influence other voters. For your information, small birds are often photographed when they come to feeders. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you hoping to achieve by being rude? Your recent photo of bee eaters is much more typical of FP-standard photos than this image and I wish you well with it. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologise for being rude, I just don't like being accused of incompetence. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I can tell, Nick-D never questioned your competence. In fact, his comment was perfectly appropriate for the forum – it critiqued the image and not the contributor. Admittedly this wasn't a self-nom, so it may not have been your choice to subject yourself to scrutiny with this work, but it was clearly not meant to be personal. For what it's worth, I'm pretty much on the same page with regard to my impression of the image. I was waffling between "oppose" and "weak support", and ultimately decided that by all but the most strict standards, it's an adequately high-quality illustration. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per others – Jobas (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2017 at 23:25:47 (UTC)

Reason

IMO, it meets the FPC criteria and has very good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Wat Arun

FP category for this image

Places/Architecture

Creator

Jane3030

• Support as nominator – 1989 (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – EV, (a bit oversaturated for me but not bad). Bammesk (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it more, it is too saturated and contrasty, I would support if modified (and may be cropping would help too). Bammesk (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Interesting bldg., but it it seems to glow in the dark – oversaturated. Sca (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yogwi21 (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fine for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Marvellous Spider-Man 16:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment: Note that this image replaced an earlier FP taken during the day, which is now orphaned but hasn't been delisted yet. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The sculptures of two mythical giant demons, Thotsakan and Sahatsadecha, guarding the eastern gate of the main chapel of Wat Arun, Bangkok.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2017 at 20:17:44 (UTC)

Reason

So let's try it again. The first nomination (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mount Ararat Panorama) didn't work out cause of the blur. Now that that's fixed, let's see if we can garner enough support for FP.

Articles in which this image appears

Mount Ararat

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Սէրուժ Ուրիշեան

• Support as nominator – Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I promised Support if the fuzzy was fixed - and it is! --Janke | Talk 07:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Blurry spot fixed. Mattximus (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yogwi21 (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support impressive. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Jobas (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The second nomination. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support . In terms of quality is high and attractive.--m,sharaf (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mount Ararat and the Araratian plain (cropped).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2017 at 02:24:44 (UTC)

Reason

IMO, it meets the FPC criteria and has good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Pura Besakih

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Cccefalon

• Support as nominator – Yogwi21 (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – good EV so I am neutral on voting, but many details are either in shadow or covered up because of the lighting and the foreground roofs. The other images in the article show the possibility for better photos at this temple. Bammesk (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The picture should satisfy criteria number 3 and 5 in WP:WIAFP. --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lNeverCry 23:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2017 at 10:20:43 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, high EV, nice composition. First place winner in WLM Israel 2016.

Articles in which this image appears

Augusta Victoria Hospital

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

אורי אלוני (Ori Aloni)

• Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support – EV, quality photo, but I wish there were less trees so we could see more of the hospital. Bammesk (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• support Hills in the background make it. I'm glad you didn't cut the trees down. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• support – Jobas (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - great light and composition, and strong EV. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lNeverCry 23:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:מתחם אַוּגוּסְטֶה ויקטוֹריה.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2017 at 13:43:18 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, appropriate lighting and quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Alabama State Capitol

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

DXR

• Support as nominator – DXR (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Nice picture, but is the crop a bit tight? It's hard to tell the dimensions of the building as seen here: [2] Mattximus (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. It's a valid point, though unfortunately, a closer point of view, as linked by you, comes with the trade-off that the cupola looks rather strange. Using a wider crop from the POV of the nominated photo is not very helpful imho, as the view get more cluttered with cars, lamps, etc. --DXR (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Jobas (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The trees are covering the view. Those who visited this place, is it possible for a person to take a picture without the trees? --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lNeverCry 23:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2017 at 22:25:00 (UTC)

Reason

a composite of six common bee-eaters from East and West Africa to illustrate the diversity of species

Articles in which this image appears

Bee-eaters

FP category for this image

Animals/Birds

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• You could put text on better place - bottom left at least on few of them. Suits better. --Mile (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great quality images, and I really like the concept here: Wikipedia would benefit from more labelled images like this one, which are fairly common in print works. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think labeling is not that much existing in wikipedia, other than technical images. It's possible that these images have a non-label version. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jee 03:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lNeverCry 23:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: The quality is great. Sufficient 'EV'. Lstfllw203 (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:African bee-eaters composite.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2017 at 06:56:43 (UTC)

Reason

Besides having a high resloution, this famous "historical and unique" picture is an indication of a milestone in Iranian history. knomeini's returned from exile after 15 years and led the revolution of Iran. The emboldened main title reads: "Tomorrow morning at 9, meeting with Imam in Tehran." The other parts are mostly dealing with this event and describe what actions will be done tomorrow and how the population will be managed to avoid unexpected events. Small parts of the page is dedicated to the possibility of a Coup d'état.

Articles in which this image appears

Ruhollah Khomeini's return to Iran, Fajr decade, Ettela'at

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others

Creator

Ettellaat Newspaper

• Support as nominator – Mhhossein ^talk 06:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Are we sure this is even eligible? The PD-Iran template would apply to the photographs in the newspaper (as it's been >30 years since publication), but what does Iranian copyright law say about text? —howcheng {chat} 18:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Howcheng: I checked the laws, same thing is correct for text. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I don't see the EV of having a picture of a picture in a newspaper. Unless the article is about that very newspaper, it's not a very good source of visual information. Mattximus (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus: What do you mean by "a picture of a picture"? The whole page is the subject, not only one of the pictures. Of course there's an article about the paper. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no mention of this newspaper in the article. And it's a scanned image of a printed image. Why is that the best choice for showing the event in question? In other words, what's so important about a newspaper reporting an event, instead of a picture of the event? Mattximus (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus: This page is showing the historic and important events of the Iranian revolution. There's no such collection recorded in history of Iran. It's showing how every thing was changing within those days. It does not have to be mentioned in the page dedicated to the paper itself. In other words "[This picture] adds significant encyclopedic value to articles Ruhollah Khomeini's return to Iran and Fajr decade" and "helps readers to understand them. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does for it to have EV. For example, why not have a picture of a newspaper for every major world event? Because the EV comes from the event itself, not the reporting of the event. Unless this newspaper specifically has any value beyond what it's reporting, then there is no EV. Mattximus (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus: This picture is unique, because only two papers were publishing at the time and among them this one satisfies the resolution criterion. Sorry, but it's a self-made argument and see the criteria page once again. It says "A featured picture adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." Pay attention to "an article." It never restricts us to a specific article. This is the meaning of "EV". If you were right, then we had to down grade many of the already promoted photos! For example, File:J accuse.jpg does not add significant encyclopedic value to L'Aurore where there's a passing unsourced mention to the image. While, the image is very valuable for articles Dreyfus affair and Émile Zola. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, I added the material related the this page of Ettellaat Newspaper. There it's mentioned how effective the news was. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you brought up Zola! I've studied him at university, and read much of his work. This is a perfect example of EV. That newspaper article *itself* is actually the important historical document. I'll try to make if very clear: the EV lies in the item or event that the image is illustrating. In the J'accuse case, the subject IS the newspaper article. In your case, the subject is what the newspaper is reporting on, not the paper itself. Do you see how they are different? That's important and that's why I oppose this nomination. Mattximus (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus: Please answer by True or False; This historical and unique page of the paper does not add EV to historical events Fajr decade and Ruhollah Khomeini's return to Iran and it does not help the readers to understand them. --Mhhossein ^talk 22:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False, the newspaper reporting of an event does not lend EV, or at best, less EV than a colour photograph, to the events. It does not add or help the reader understand the event any better than even a low resolution image of the actual event. But do you understand my logic above using the Zola example? Mattximus (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. But that does not make my case ineligible. The series of events in Fajr decade can be best shown in this paper, other wise we need a series of photos. The matter is not just graphic or photo. The flow of events are most important here. Almost every thing was changing and the paper's showing that. I was surprised to see your "False". Anyway, thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 22:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per Mattximus – Jobas (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Besides conforming to other criteria, Also the image adds encyclopedia value mentioned articles i.e Fajr decade and Ruhollah Khomeini's return to Iran.--m,sharaf (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Per nom. It helps the readers to understand the mentioned articles better. I think, this is an indication of encyclopedic value. Mbazri (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Per nomination. This is a unique paper. Adds 'EV' to the pages related to the Iranian Revolution. Lstfllw203 (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mattximus. Good for the article, but not FP worthy IMO. --Janke | Talk 06:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janke: Could I know the reasoning behind that "but"? You already said the pic was "good for the article", apparently showing you are agreeing on 'EV' of the pic. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support:This image can show the series of events in Fajr decade. Shobair2012 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2017 at 23:27:44 (UTC)

Reason

During the Turkish War of Independence which happens after the events of World War I, this gentleman on the photo does the reloading of the artillery manually(!) meaning lifting multiple 276 kgs weighing German made artillery shells all by himself (whilst his battalion was knocked out) inflicting tremendous damage to British Royal Navy which was on the brink of victory, forcing the Alliance to withdraw from the Dardanelles Campaign, changing the course of history. When asked to re-enact his deed (so a picture could be taken) he actually fails to do what he does on rush of the battle and with the help of others a shell gets placed on his back ending up with the one shot here according to the people who witness those moments, surely one great photo with short but quite an interesting story behind it, of course history and records holds many nameless and humble heroes and heroines like this whom I would love to see more of, the image fits most of the criteria except the photograph itself is taken in black and white but it is on a decent resolution scale for its age, it seems to be in public domain and counted as national heritage for Turkey.

Articles in which this image appears

Seyit Cabuk

FP category for this image

People/Military

Creator

unknown

• Support as nominator – HardMental (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Would need a lot of restoration before being FP worthy, IMO. --Janke | Talk 08:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Janke: Hey, here what is meant by the restoration? I am not an expert on aged photos like this one but thinking if it is the cracks or the noise? Can it be done by digitally or with the physical/original one? If possible, would it lose its reliability if such restoration is done? Such questions comes to my mind on this. I believe with granted permission one could work on the quality on this Image the one provided here but anything more than that would be quite hard since it is on archives of the general staff. And thanks for your input and interests.HardMental (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think many image editors have some way to handle the damage on the photos but maybe Matlab would be a professional approach hence it is more effective on noise detection(with wide variety of filters along with other features) but I never tried it myself on any image like this one here. Need your opinions, thanks again.HardMental (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per Janke – Jobas (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Would like it to receive some support all things considered. Please do keep in mind the historical value of the asset, also being the only copy for the scene aforementioned. HardMental HardMental (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To me the whole story seems implausible. It sounds more like war time propaganda. I appears highly unlikely that the corporal was able to singlehandedly carry and reload three 276 kilo artillery shells. This should be evident by the fact that he could not move the shells when later asked to recreate his deed, and instead had to pose for the picture with a lighter shell. Furthermore it is quite an overreach to say that the three artillery pieces "inflicted tremendous damage to British Royal Navy" forcing them to withdrawn. It would be good if his article was improved with reliable sources. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@P. S. Burton:It is still a widely known heroic story on this day, there are actually examples of such seemingly impossible actions, I am sure you have heard the story of the lady whom lifted a Volkswagen beetle car Chevrolet Impala one of the old models I believe which weighs at least 6 times* more than what was claimed here, saving a baby on the process, it even made to newspapers at that time, I think adrenaline is playing a big part here. Also I didn't say "sunk" at any part, I said "damaged", sources point out the Minelayer Nusret did the most damage 'by laying 26 mines in an unexpected position in February 1915 just prior to the ill-fated invasion which sank HMS Irresistible, HMS Ocean and the French battleship Bouvet, and left the British battle cruiser HMS Inflexible badly damaged' according to the sources of its article, Corporal does the effective damage here to 'HMS Ocean' with the shells he must have loaded, there is a discussion over this about which ship got damaged with the mentioned shells but it is over on its original article. But it is definitely something that must have happened, there was even mentions of gushing blood from his nose when he lifts those shells but avoided adding that to prevent exaggeration on the telling. Regardless, thanks for your thoughts on the matter. HardMental (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The story of a distressed mother lifting a car, and other similar stories, are most likely also myths or exaggerations. See our article on Hysterical strength or https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4255. P. S. Burton (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@P. S. Burton: I would like to give an example with a more familiar matter known to many, Santa, he/it would be a good example on this I think because he/it is in reality both real and myth at the same time. How? Well it depends who/what you mean by Santa? If you mean Santa the one symbol in the red garments with the joyful laughter and the mission to spread gifts through the world, that would be a myth but there is also a Santa, Saint Nicholas whom is actually a historical person, with his 'green' garments he is given gifts to many children in his time. Now when I say who/what do you mean by Santa there is actually a single and a right answer to this, the one that is gifting presents. From this you can see "the action" surpasses and goes beyond "the subject". So what would matter most here is the whole act he might have done there. You see, even if he wasn't able to lift the shell here, let's just suppose he couldn't lift any then and there and lied afterwards? Would this devalue his story? Would being a lesser soldier/human-being make it less honorable? It couldn't because the lifting act here just like the giving act in Santa's case has become something else entirely. This is why to me reading war stories like this(well first thing comes to mind as another example is a soldier being shot from the chest but getting saved by one pocket watch) gives me the most excitement. I checked and I thank you for that, the articles you have shown supports me on this mentioning that adrenaline would make any person (depending on the situation they are in like danger or desperation) more strong momentarily or in some cases for a short period. Thanks again for sharing your works and thoughts on the matter. Looking forward to more contributions expecting some from others as well. HardMental (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per Janke. lNeverCry 23:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The story is found on some Turkish websites. See this, for example. Mbazri (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2017 at 04:15:45 (UTC)

Reason

Adds significant encyclopedic value to articles

Articles in which this image appears

Wire-tailed swallow, Parental care in birds

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Manojiritty

• Support as nominator – Jee 04:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Technically not perfect and I would try to lighten head of adult, but brilliant capture. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good enough for a fast-moving subject as difficult to photograph as this... --Janke | Talk 17:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very detailed, centered nicely, poses on act well captured and picked, good quality, quite appealing, approved. HardMental (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lNeverCry 23:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 06:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Wire tailed swallow2 @kannur.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Wire tailed swallow @kannur.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (after close of voting period): This is a truly extraordinary pair of images! Manojiritty, have you written anything up about how you came to take them? I'd be interested to read about it, and if you'd like, we'd gladly consider publishing a short writeup in the Signpost. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2017 at 15:45:39 (UTC)

Reason

Brilliant photo, showcasing an Australian landmark

Articles in which this image appears

General Post Office, Melbourne

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Chris Phufulley

• Support as nominator – ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - severe perspective distortion, mast at top cut off, distracting branches. --Janke | Talk 21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Janke. lNeverCry 23:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Janke. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2017 at 17:26:03 (UTC)

Reason

A great studio photograph of a clarinet. As part of the project Wiki Loves Music, I have been evaluating many musical instrument pictures on the projects and this recent image donation by the manufacturer is by far one of the best musical instrument images we have.
I understand this image may be too narrow in order to qualify as a featured picture, but clarinets are simply very narrow items.

Articles in which this image appears

clarinet

FP category for this image

Entertainment

Creator

Yamaha Corporation

• Support as nominator – Gnom (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support based on the unusual shape I think the resolution recommendations should be lifted for the width. It's a very encyclopedic picture. Mattximus (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lNeverCry 23:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not orient this diagonally? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Chris Woodrich, what would be the argument for orienting the clarinet diagonally? Clarinets are usually displayed "standing", but we could also show it at an angle. --Gnom (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just my 2 cents, but upright is how the instrument is traditionally played. If it were at an angle it would have to be a picture of the side, which loses EV since you wouldn't see the holes. Just like a trumpet should be shown horizontally. Mattximus (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't have to be oriented the way it's played if you are just trying to show the instrument. When we have long, narrow objects like this, it is easier for display on Wikipedia if the object is oriented diagonally. Since this object has no background, a simple rotation should do. For example, this bamboo spear was horizontal in the museum where I took the photograph, but since a 3000px * 300px image barely shows up on Wikipedia, I rotated the image diagonally. The same rationale applies for these Pocky sticks (although these were photographed diagonally).

Another reason is POTD would be unable to do justice to this image. To limit the vertical size of the image (i.e. to avoid overwhelming the main page with a clarinet and thus drawing complaints), it would probably end up looking like Example 1 below. Rotation would look something like Example 2, also below. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why the picture is in tiff format? We can't view in window. There is a download option only. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Marvellous Spider-Man, the image was provided to me by Yamaha in the .tiff format. Should we consider converting it to a different format? You can see the full size image here. --Gnom (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 06:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Yamaha Clarinet YCL-457II-22.tiff --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2017 at 05:22:55 (UTC)

Reason

The unique curiosity of Eurasian blue tit is cute. It's the media of the day of 9 February 2017 on Commons and I think english Wikipedia too should feature this.

Articles in which this image appears

Eurasian blue tit it doesn't link as it's cute and nt topical for article.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

jlaswilson

• Support as nominator – ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 05:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not in any article. Cute video, but not much EV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not YouTube... --Janke | Talk 06:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. @Janke: It was there in the article u can see it Here--✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 02:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It is a cute video, but it's not in an article, which disqualifies it. Also, there isn't much EV. Mattximus (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per other – Jobas (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 01:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2017 at 20:15:53 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV, historic and symbolic painting

Articles in which this image appears

The Capture of the Hessians at Trenton, December 26, 1776, Battle of Trenton, Johann Rall, James Monroe, Hessian (soldier)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

John Trumbull

• Support as nominator – Zeete (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lNeverCry 01:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2017 at 20:38:15 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV, historic and symbolic painting, artist considered this his best portrait

Articles in which this image appears

General George Washington at Trenton, Second Battle of Trenton, George Washington, Portrait painting, Battle of Princeton

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

John Trumbull

• Support as nominator - Zeete (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Jobas (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Shobair2012 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lNeverCry 01:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2017 at 10:32:45 (UTC)

Reason

It has good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Liquid, Drop impact

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others

Creator

José Manuel Suárez

• Support as nominator – MCMLXXXIX 10:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Shobair2012 (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lNeverCry 01:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 06:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think this sort of image must be symmetrical. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Water drop 001.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 00:33:40 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality photo of a notable species, with a neutral background

Articles in which this image appears

Goldcrest, Passerine

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Baresi franco

• Support as nominator – Baresi F (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Carbrera (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Support – Looks good to me. Mattximus (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lNeverCry 05:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Sorry to buck the trend; this is a great photo, and the goldcrest is one of my favourite birds to see, but I wonder whether a profile shot like this is the best way to show off the bird's most distinctive feature. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Mile (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fine photo and the background color nails it. Pocketthis (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Goldcrest 1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 09:42:17 (UTC)

Reason

Consistently sharp and taken during performance.

Articles in which this image appears

Tove Lo, others

FP category for this image

People/Entertainment

Creator

Danielåhskarlsson

• Support as nominator – Brandmeister^talk 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- I don't like the thumb sticking in the nose... also eyes in very deep shadow. Better photos are possible. --Janke | Talk 14:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per Janke. Too much hands and mike, detracting from EV. Sca (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Weird thumb nose going on. Mattximus (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Janke. lNeverCry 05:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Janke – Jobas (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2017 at 07:08:45 (UTC)

Reason

This image has good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Pura Ulun Danu Bratan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Cccefalon

• Support as nominator – Yogwi21 (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - That's about as good lighting as you can get on a Balinese temple in the tropics. The shape means serious shadows if the sun shines directly on the temple, and so a golden hour shot would not work as well as the one here.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per Crisco. Nice pic. Mattximus (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lNeverCry 03:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Jobas (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Brantan Bali Pura-Ulun-Danu-Bratan-01.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 17:50:29 (UTC)

Reason

A typical pose where the cheetah can see all around her (to protect her cubs) with her tongue adding to the image

Articles in which this image appears

Cheetah

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Ideally we would see a little more of the animal's full form, but detail is xcllnt and the tongue adds visual interest. Sca (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – We already have 4 featured pictures of cheetahs... is there a reason to have 5? Maybe we can delist a few others while we are at it? Mattximus (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The others are heads. This one could be delisted. Not FP by today's standards. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Mattximus, also agree with Charles about delisting File:Cheetah4.jpg (low resolution, small file size, weak EV, used in list style and in a gallery). Bammesk (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Jobas (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yogwi21 (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lNeverCry 06:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) female 2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2017 at 14:51:17 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution image of a notable landmark.

Articles in which this image appears

Jam Gadang, List of clock towers

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

 — Chris Woodrich (talk)

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It appears a bit blurry to me when zoomed in, but really quite a nice picture and worthy of featured status. Mattximus (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in fact this picture is so good I think we should remove two other pictures on the page "Jam Gadang in 2006" and "Jam Gadang front view" as now redundant. Mattximus (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Other images removed. I've uploaded a sharpened version. What do you think? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh wow, it's fantastic now. Mattximus (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Chris, leaning to support but there is some CA at the base of the tower, can anything be done about it? Also the article is unsourced, I found some blogs and travel sites but not sure any of it is a reliable source. Bammesk (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Got the CA.

There are multiple sources available, including in Indonesian news media (Kompas, Detik.com, and Liputan6) as well as the English-language travel books. I'm a little swamped with work ATM, but I'll try and source things when I get some spare time.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I added a couple of refs from [3]. Bammesk (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Great. Kompas and Republika are both good sources. I will hopefully have time to add more tonight; the two translations I have on my desk are nearing completion.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Yogwi21 (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Jobas (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great shot. - Pocketthis (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lNeverCry 06:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jam Gadang, Bukittinggi, 2016-02-12 01.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 02:09:23 (UTC)

Reason

I found this the other day when I was following links off the main page. Not sure how exactly I ended up at the Parkes Observatory article, but the image caught my attention and I clicked on it for an explanation of the subject matter. As it turns out this image is already featured on the commons, so I figured 'what the heck' and decided to let it ride here for a chance at an FP star. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in which this image appears

Parkes Observatory, Radio telescope

FP category for this image

Perhaps Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding? It seems to fit the general gist of the image

Creator

Credited as "division, CSIRO". Photographer unknown or not credited by name, image is credited to Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation which suggests someone at the company took this.

• Support as nominator – TomStar81 (Talk) 02:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support  —  Beautiful image, obviously a scan from a high-quality transparency (i.e. "film", if you've ever heard of that... ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per nom. Mattximus (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I've been shooting the sky for 40 years, and I promise you it has never been that color unless I was watching a Star-Wars movie. This photo has been color enhanced Pocketthis (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting point. Could it be old-school color enhancement? perhaps a graduated color filter was used at the time, or perhaps the film transparency aged over time (I doubt it was scanned from print). If I am not wrong the windows show both florescent and incandescent lighting, also there is the moon, kind of interesting when thinking of enhancements. Bammesk (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably reciprocity failure in the different color emulsions, or, otherwise, different rate of fading of the film dyes. Long exposures sometimes give weird colors on film. Doesn't bother me, though. --Janke | Talk 19:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – The moon makes the difference. Yann (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lNeverCry 05:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I love the colors. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:CSIRO ScienceImage 4350 CSIROs Parkes Radio Telescope with moon in the background.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 02:30:46 (UTC)

Reason

I came across this image while looking through some of the "GReat Images in NASA" (GRIN) on Commons and liked it so much I decided to look into the subject and, eventually, start the Wikipedia article. Kitty Joyner was the first woman employed by NASA as an engineer. The photo is of her at the Langley Research Center in 1952, analyzing the operation of a wind tunnel turbine. In addition to being a compelling and historically meaningful photo of Joyner, it was also added as the lead image for our engineer article.

Articles in which this image appears

Engineer, Kitty Joyner

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering

Creator

NACA (uploaded by BotMultichillT)

• Support as nominator — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. I rather like this non-traditional pose. Mattximus (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very nice.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Although, I would change the sentence "analyzing the operation of a wind tunnel turbine" to "posing in front of a wind tunnel turbine"... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – where does the location "wind tunnel turbine" come from? is there a source to establish it? Bammesk (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC) ... Never mind, she worked at a wind tunnel facility and this is a picture at work [4]. Support. Bammesk (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like she spotted a fly on the wall, but I still like it.- Pocketthis (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Very good quality and interesting. I added the geolocation. Yann (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lNeverCry 05:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice image with clear EV, would make a great front page link (and DYK if you can get it to GA!) |→ Spaully ^~talk~  20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kitty Joyner - Electrical Engineer - GPN-2000-001933.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 03:29:07 (UTC)

Reason

Good technical quality, having been made with a high-resolution camera and the sharpest lens I own; compelling lighting conditions add both beauty and EV to its article.

Articles in which this image appears

Margaret Lewis Norrie State Park

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Juliancolton

• Support as nominator – – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's a pretty picture, but does it add "significant encyclopedic value" to the article? I don't think so. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Charlesjsharp: ...as much as any other landscape photo, surely? As far as I can tell, it's our only free-use image illustrating this particular state park, and I think it's among the best nature-oriented images of the Hudson River in general. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've never been there, but perhaps the marina or an aerial view would be more encyclopaedic? I'm not opposing, just commenting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Arguably this sort of scene provides more illustrative value than an image of the marina or visitor's center, since very few visitors to the park ever venture beyond that small but popular area. I'd been to the pier and marina dozens of times and never even realized until just last year that there were beautiful hiking trails and rocky cliffs just a few hundred yards away. The park is totally under-utilized for recreation and nature observing IMO, but I suppose we're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. :) I'm happy to defer to others on judging EV but I don't think "significant EV" requires it to be the most possible EV. In any event, thanks for the comments! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll have to Oppose because of low EV - this could be almost anywhere, even here in Finland we have some coastline like this... --Janke | Talk 17:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Contrast isn't great, and apparently the overcast sky diminished the golden-hour effect, making this pic. rather somber. Per Janke, I don't see a lot of EV. Sca (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per others – Jobas (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn in that case, no use wasting everyone's time. Whilst I can appreciate the questions about EV, it sailed through Commons FPC without any comment about contrast or lighting so not sure what happened there... if anybody could do the necessary archiving, that would be most appreciated! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'm learning that FP here requires encyclopaedic value i.e. the picture really enhancing a significant article and that's clearly not the case at Commons where anything goes. Technical quality hurdle higher I think on Commons, though my little hummingbird didn't make it here! Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]